Congress must question the FBI agent involved in censoring the Hunter Biden laptop story.

On⁤ Friday, the⁣ House Judiciary Committee⁤ subpoenaed Elvis Chan, the lead FBI agent‍ involved in mass ‌social media censorship, to appear for a September 21,⁢ 2023 deposition. Last week’s subpoena followed Chan’s failure to ⁤appear for a scheduled voluntary interview to face‌ questioning about the federal government’s role in burying the Hunter Biden laptop story in the month before the 2020 election.

While that scandal is much bigger than Chan, he is first in line to untangling the‌ truth about how the government interfered in‌ the 2020 election by running an info op to ⁣convince​ voters​ the Hunter Biden’s laptop was Russian disinformation. Given Chan’s testimony in the civil lawsuit brought by Missouri and Louisiana and ⁣several individual plaintiffs in Missouri v. Biden, as well as ‌since-uncovered ⁣documents from‌ Facebook, the importance of questioning Chan cannot be overstated.

What Chan Said

In Missouri v. ⁢Biden, the plaintiffs sued the Biden administration‍ and numerous agencies and government officials, including ⁢the FBI​ and Chan. They alleged the federal defendants violated the First Amendment by, among other​ things, coercing ​and significantly encouraging “social-media platforms‌ to censor disfavored [speech].” After ‍filing suit, the plaintiffs filed a motion for a preliminary injunction and then obtained an order allowing for expedited discovery.

Since then, the district court has entered a preliminary injunction barring several federal agencies from coercing tech ​giants into censoring speech. The Fifth Circuit ⁣Court of Appeals narrowed the injunction but upheld many ​of the lower court’s legal conclusions. The⁤ Supreme Court is‌ currently considering the Biden administration’s motion for a stay of the injunction.

What matters to the House’s subpoena of Chan is what the expedited discovery ⁢in Missouri v. Biden uncovered. It included the plaintiffs’ deposition ⁣of⁣ Chan. In his deposition, Chan testified he was one ​of the “primary” FBI agents ​who communicated with social media ‌companies about so-called “disinformation.”

Specifically, “During the ‌2020 election cycle, ⁣Chan coordinated meetings between the FBI’s Foreign Influence Task Force (FITF) and ⁢at least seven of the major tech ⁣giants, including ⁤Meta/Facebook, Twitter,⁣ Google/YouTube, Yahoo!/Verizon Media, and Microsoft/LinkedIn,” with meetings occurring weekly as the election neared.

FBI Played Social Media Companies

While the government had no reason to believe‍ a hack-and-leak⁣ operation was⁢ in the works, several of the FBI agents⁢ involved in warning the social media companies knew Hunter Biden had abandoned his laptop at a computer⁢ repair store and that the material on the laptop was genuine. That includes Chan, Demhlow, and at least three ​other individuals connected to the FBI’s FITF.

Was Chan Telling the ⁤Truth?

Last month, ⁢House Judiciary ⁣Chair Jim Jordan revealed his committee had obtained internal documents from Facebook that call into question Chan’s testimony. “I spoke with SSA Elvis Chan ​(FBI San Francisco) on 15 October 2020, ‌as a follow up to the call with‍ the Foreign Influence⁤ Task Force on 14 October,” one Facebook document read, contradicting Chan’s claim that he knew of no other inquiries from social media companies.

“I asked ⁣SSA Chan whether there‍ was any update or change. . . as ​to whether the FBI saw any evidence suggesting foreign sponsorship or direction of the leak of information related to Hunter Biden as published in the New⁤ York Post story,” Facebook’s memorandum continued. According to Facebook’s internal document, Chan stated “that he was up to speed on the current state ‌of the matter within the FBI and ‌that there was no current evidence to suggest any foreign connection or direction of the leak.”‍ Chan further assured Facebook “that the FBI would be‌ in contact if any additional information on this was developed through further ​investigation.”

What the House Should Ask‍ Chan

The House should explore these inconsistencies with Chan and further quiz him on both Dehmlow’s‍ testimony​ and the Facebook documents. Chan ⁣should also be quizzed on with whom else he discussed the potential for a‍ hack-and-leak operation.

We know from⁢ Chan’s Missouri v. Biden deposition that‌ he had served as the supervisor ⁢for the Russia-adept cyber squad that investigated the DNC server hack before ⁤the San Francisco office handed it ‍to FBI headquarters.‌ Chan testified in that deposition that he would have discussed national security cyber-investigations involving‌ Russian matters with Sean Newell, a deputy chief‍ at the DOJ National Security Division who had also worked on the DNC hack. Chan should be pushed further on whether Newell or anyone else who worked on the ⁤DNC hack had ​raised the issue of⁤ a 2020 ⁣hack-and-release repeat.

If so, the question then‌ becomes whether they knew of the ⁢existence and authenticity of the Biden laptop. That question proves significant because it appears the hack-and-leak ⁣narrative was peddled to the social media companies to prime them to censor the laptop story. So, knowing who knew the​ laptop story was accurate but still fed the hack-and-leak hysteria will point to​ the players responsible⁤ for ‌interfering in ⁣the 2020 election ⁤by silencing the truthful reporting of the Hunter Biden laptop story.

Chan may refuse to testify, however, even pursuant to a subpoena, ⁢or the ⁢Department of Justice may direct Chan not‍ to⁤ submit to congressional questioning, forcing Republicans to enforce the subpoena in court. We’ll know​ tomorrow if either scenario plays out or if ⁢Chan comes clean with what he knows.