The House Judiciary Committee on Tuesday sued FBI agent Elvis Chan for disobeying a subpoena to answer questions about the federal government’s alleged collusion with social media companies to censor online speech.
“Chan has violated and continues to violate his legal obligations by refusing to appear before the Judiciary Committee as required by the subpoena, and by refusing to answer questions when there has been no assertion of privilege by the Executive Branch,” the attorneys for the Chamber Office. the General Counsel wrote in a 46-page complaint filed in federal district court in Washington, DC.
Filed on behalf of the panel’s chairman, Jim Jordan (R-Ohio), the lawsuit says the bureau’s agent is a “pivotal figure” in its investigation of federal agencies’ efforts to censor or suppress protected speech, especially his firsthand knowledge of the Post bombing. 2020 election stories based on emails obtained from Hunter Biden’s laptop.
Chan, who worked on the FBI’s Foreign Influence Task Force in the San Francisco field office as a liaison to companies including Facebook and Twitter, had previously defied a subpoena to appear before the committee on Oct. 5.
The House Judiciary Committee on Tuesday sued FBI agent Elvis Chan for disobeying a subpoena to answer questions about the federal government’s collusion with social media companies to censor online speech. REUTERS “Chan has violated and continues to violate his legal obligations by refusing to appear before the Judiciary Committee as required by the subpoena,” lawyers for the House General Counsel’s Office wrote in a 46-page complaint filed in Washington, DC, federal District. court. FBI
Congressional lawyers argue that there is “no legal basis” for him to avoid the subpoena, which he decided to do because of a disagreement over which lawyer he should be provided.
The House Judiciary Committee allows witnesses to appear with a personal or government attorney present, but Chan has insisted on appearing with both.
“Despite the Constitution’s clear mandate that each chamber of Congress ‘may determine the rules of its proceedings,’ the DOJ maintains that a subpoena compelling testimony about the official duties of an agency employee, without the presence of an agency attorney, is unconstitutional and therefore unenforceable,” they wrote.
The Post has contacted the FBI for comment.
The lawsuit says Chan is a “pivotal figure” in its investigation of federal agencies’ efforts to censor or suppress protected speech, especially considering his firsthand knowledge of the Post’s explosive 2020 election stories based on emails obtained from Hunter Biden’s laptop. fake images
In a statement last year, the office revealed that Chan declined to participate in his Oct. 5, 2023, interview with the Judiciary Committee because he “was denied the right to be accompanied by his chosen legal counsel.”
Chan was also a key witness in the federal court case Missouri v. Biden, which will be taken up by the Supreme Court later this year, and in a deposition he claimed he had “no inside knowledge” of the Post’s suppression.
Jordan’s committee said in September 2023 that it had “uncovered evidence” that Chan gave conflicting testimony as part of that case regarding his “communications with social media platforms.”
That investigation includes rooting out federal agencies responsible under both President Donald Trump and President Biden for “moderating” American speech online, including posts about the origins of COVID-19 and vaccines.
The House Judiciary Committee allows witnesses to appear with a personal or government attorney present, but Chan has insisted on appearing with both. Jim Jordan / Twitter
The first reports of the FBI’s involvement in this effort were revealed in the so-called “Twitter Files” in which internal company records showed that Chan informed the social media giant’s content moderators that the Post’s scoop on 14 of October 2020 regarding Hunter’s emails was a Russian “hack and leak” Operation.
Another FBI agent, in a phone call, told Twitter employees the same day that the report on the laptop was legitimate, according to a House Judiciary deposition last July with the group’s section chief. FBI Foreign Influence Work, Laura Dehmlow.
A message from a Facebook employee on October 15, 2020 also confirmed having spoken with Chan, according to records obtained by the Judiciary Committee, and that he had said there was “no current evidence to suggest any foreign connection or direction of the leak.”
Chan, in his Nov. 29, 2022 affidavit, twice claimed that he never communicated with Facebook beyond a conference call with the FBI task force.
Jordan’s committee said in September 2023 that it had “uncovered evidence” that Chan gave conflicting testimony as part of that case regarding his “communications with social media platforms.” Jim Jordan / Twitter
Last October, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, based in Louisiana, ruled that the FBI, along with the White House, the U.S. Surgeon General, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention of Diseases (CDC) and the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA) – had likely censored Americans’ free speech by “likely having significantly coerced or encouraged social media platforms to moderate content.”
That decision coincided in part with a July 2023 ruling by a federal judge in Louisiana that barred executive branch agencies from communicating with social media platforms because of evidence presented of censorship.
Categories: Trending
Source: vtt.edu.vn