FBI Director Chris Wray deflected when pressed before the House Judiciary Committee Wednesday regarding a recent federal court ruling detailing the bureau’s alleged suppression of conservative free speech related to the Hunter Biden laptop story, COVID-19 origins and other subjects discussed by Americans on social media.
During a line of questioning, Rep. Mike Johnson, R-La., charged that he found it “stunning” that Wray made no mention in his opening statement — nor in a lengthy report he prepared on July 12 — of the July 4 injunction issued by U.S. District Judge Terry Doughty in Louisiana ordering the White House, Justice Department, the FBI and other Biden administration agencies to limit communication with social media companies regarding efforts to curb First Amendment-protected free speech.
“Have you read the ruling, sir?” Johnson challenged.
“Obviously, we’re going to comply with the court’s order of the court’s preliminary injunction,” Wray responded, saying he reviewed the ruling with the FBI’s Office of General Counsel. “We sent out guidance to the field and headquarters about how to do that. Needless to say, the injunction itself is a subject of ongoing litigation, and so I’ll decline to comment further.”
When asking if Wray was “deeply disturbed” by the ruling and charging that its finding “should be the first thing you think about every morning and the last thing you think about at night,” Johnson contended the FBI and other defendants achieved the result of suppressing free speech and that millions of citizens did not hear about the Hunter Biden laptop story before the Nov. 3, 2020, election.
“The evidence shows you, your agency, the people that directly report to you, suppress conservative leaning free speech about topics like the laptop, the lab leak theory of COVID-19 origin, the effectiveness of mask and COVID-19 lockdowns and vaccines, speech about election integrity and the 2020 presidential election. Security of voting by mail, even parody about the president himself,” Johnson said. “Negative posts about the economy. The FBI made the social media platforms pull that information off the Internet if it came from conservative sources. They did this under the guise that it was disinformation. Can you define what disinformation is?”
“What I can tell you is that our focus is not on disinformation, broadly speaking,” Wray said.
Johnson interjected, noting how the FBI’s star witness in the litigation, Elvis Chan, has testified that the bureau’s communication with social media companies was “on the basis of disinformation.” “We need a definition of what it is,” Johnson asserted.
FBI WHISTLEBLOWERS SAY PRO-LIFE GROUPS, CATHOLICS WERE ‘TARGET OF THE GOVERNMENT’: JORDAN
“Our focus is on malign foreign disinformation. That is, foreign hostile actors who engage in covert efforts to abuse our social media platforms which is something that is not seriously disputed,” Wray said. Interjecting again, Johnson said, “I have to stop you for time. That’s not accurate. You need to read this court opinion because you’re in charge of enforcing it.”
“Elvis Chan testified under oath in charge of this for you. He said 50% – he had a 50% success rate of having alleged election disinformation taken down or censored. That wasn’t just foreign adversaries, sir. That was American citizens. How do you answer for that?” Johnson demanded.
“Well, first off, I’m not sure that’s a correct characterization of his testimony,” Wray said.
“It comes right out of the opinion,” Johnson charged, “You should read it.”
“What I would say is the FBI is not in the business of moderating content or causing any social media company to suppress or censor,” Wray said.
“That is not what the court has found,” Johnson insisted.
Continuing, Wray said, “What I would also say is among the things that you listed off, I find ironic, the reference to the lab leak theory, the idea that the FBI would somehow be involved in suppressing references to the lab leak theory is somewhat absurd when you consider the fact that the FBI was the only — the only agency in the entire intelligence community to reach the assessment that it was more likely than not that that was the explanation.”
“Your agents pulled it off the Internet, sir. That’s what the evidence in the court has found,” Johnson said.
During his opening statement, House Judiciary Chair Jim Jordan, R-Ohio, asserted how on July 4, just eight days prior to Wray’s testimony, the U.S. District Court in the Western District of Louisiana ruled that the federal government suppressed Americans’ First Amendment free speech rights. Specific to the FBI, the court said the “FBI’s failure to alert social media companies that the Biden laptop story was real and not Russian disinformation is particularly troubling.” The FBI had the laptop in their possession since December 2019 and had warned social media companies repeatedly to look out for a “hack and dump operation by the Russians prior to the 2020 election,” the ruling says.
“When the court says the FBI misled. That’s a nice way of saying they lied. They lied,” Jordan said. “And as a result, important information was kept from ‘We the people.’ Days before the most important election we have, election of the President of the United States, election of the commander in chief.”
