OAN’s Brooke Mallory
11:00 AM – Tuesday, December 5, 2023
A recent hearing before the House Judiciary Subcommittee on the Constitution and Limited Government became contentious when Kristen Clarke, the Assistant Attorney General for the Department of Justice’s Civil Rights Division, maintained that she was unaware of a major case involving repressed free expression.
Advertisement
The primary plaintiff in Missouri v. Biden, Jim Hoft, is the founder of The Gateway Pundit.
In the course of the hearing concerning the supervision of the Department of Justice’s Civil Rights Division, which is responsible for monitoring compliance with federal anti-discrimination laws, Representative Dan Bishop (R-NC) questioned Clarke concerning her ignorance of the Missouri v. Biden case, which is scheduled for review by the United States Supreme Court (SCOTUS).
The Supreme Court said in October that it will hear the case of the parties involved in Missouri v. Biden after granting “certiorari.”
However, it also lifted the injunction that had prevented the government from keeping Americans under censorship. The censorship regime can be reinstated by the government while the case is being heard by the court.
The Missouri v. Biden lawsuit concerns whether the Biden administration, which vigorously began censoring citizens during the COVID-19 lockdowns, is permitted to utilize federal government resources to blatantly censor Americans. The lawsuit has exposed the involvement of several government departments and officials in dictating to social media corporations what content should be restricted, who can be banned, and what types of expression are acceptable.
The Missouri v. Biden case is regarded by legal experts as the most significant case involving free speech in the last ten years or more. The Biden regime’s activities were deemed by a U.S. District Court to be “the most massive attack against free speech in United States’ history.”
Clarke said that she was oblivious to the legal proceedings. Rep. Bishop questioned how the head of the Civil Rights Division could be ignorant of a case that a U.S. District Court had characterized as a significant matter involving free expression. To better grasp the matter, Clarke asked for further information.
The discussion went as follows:
Rep. Bishop: Ms. Clarke, in the Biden v. Missouri case in the district court, the court explained, “If the allegations made by the plaintiffs are true, the present case arguably involves the most massive attack on free speech in United States history.”
The court issued a preliminary injunction after concluding that the plaintiffs had a reasonable chance of winning their case at trial. The Supreme Court has assumed jurisdiction over the matter following the Fifth Circuit’s affirmation.
Naturally, any civil litigation refers to any criminal investigation or prosecution that the Civil Rights Division is now conducting against the individuals involved in that action at the FBI, CISA, the White House, and their accomplices.
Clarke: Congressman, I’m not familiar with this litigation, but happy to bring your question back.
Bishop: So, let me just make sure I understand that you are not aware of the Missouri versus Biden litigation that is currently being taken up by the United States Supreme Court. Is that correct?
Clarke: Unfortunately, I’m not. Congressman.
Bishop: Assuming that you’re not aware of that, what reason would there be that the Civil Rights Division of the Justice Department leader is unaware of what a United States District Court has described as the most massive attack on free speech in the United States history?
Clarke: If you could share more of the facts, that could be helpful, Congressman.
Bishop: Otherwise, you just don’t know, is that correct?
Clarke: That’s correct. Unfortunately, this does not appear to be a case that I’m familiar with.
Stay informed! Receive breaking news blasts directly to your inbox for free. Subscribe here. https://www.oann.com/alerts
Be the first to comment