The House Judiciary Committee sued FBI agent Elvis Chan on Tuesday for defying 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 in the absence of an assertion of privilege by the Executive Branch,” counsel for the House Office. of General Counsel wrote in a 46-page complaint filed in Washington, DC, federal district court.
Filed on behalf of panel chairman Jim Jordan (R-Ohio), the suit says the bureau’s agent was a “key figure” in its investigation into the federal agency’s efforts to censor or suppress protected speech — particularly his first-hand knowledge of the bomb The Post election story 2020 based on emails obtained from Hunter Biden’s laptop.
Chan — who works on the FBI’s Foreign Influence Task Force in the San Francisco field office as a liaison to companies such as Facebook and Twitter — previously defied a subpoena to appear before the committee on Oct. 5.
The House Judiciary Committee sued FBI agent Elvis Chan on Tuesday for violating 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 Attorney General’s Office wrote in a 46-page complaint filed in Washington, DC, federal district court. F.B.I
The congressman’s lawyer argued that there was “no legal basis” for him to avoid the subpoena, which he had chosen to do over a disagreement about the lawyer he should have been given.
The House Judiciary Committee allowed witnesses to appear with either private or government counsel, but Chan insisted on appearing with both.
“Despite the Constitution’s clear mandate that each house of Congress ‘may determine its own Rules of Procedure,’ the DOJ held that subpoenas eliciting persuasive testimony about the official duties of agency employees, without agency counsel present, are unconstitutional and therefore unenforceable,” they wrote.
The Post has reached out to the FBI for comment.
The suit says Chan is a “key figure” in its investigation into federal agencies’ efforts to censor or suppress protected speech — especially given his first-hand knowledge of The Post’s 2020 election story based on emails obtained from Hunter Biden’s laptop. Getty Images
In a statement last year, the bureau revealed that Chan refused to participate in his Oct 5 interview. 2023, with the Judiciary Committee because “he was denied the right to have counsel of his choice accompany him.”
Chan was also a key witness in the federal court case Missouri v. Biden, who will be tried by the Supreme Court later this year, and in a deposition claimed he had “no inside knowledge” of The Post’s suppression.
Jordan’s committee said in September 2023 that it had “revealed evidence” that Chan gave conflicting testimony as part of the case regarding his “communications with social media platforms.”
The investigation includes removing the federal agency responsible under President Donald Trump and President Biden for “moderating” American online speech — including posts about the origins of COVID-19 and vaccinations.
The House Judiciary Committee allowed witnesses to appear with either private or government counsel, but Chan insisted on appearing with both. Jim Jordan/Twitter
The first reports of the FBI’s participation in this effort were revealed in the so-called “Twitter Files” where internal company records show Chan informed content moderators at the social media giant that The Post on October 14, 2020 reviewed Hunter’s emails were Operation “hacked and leaked ” Russia.
Another FBI agent told Twitter employees in a phone call the same day that the report on the laptop was legitimate, according to a House Judiciary deposition conducted last July with the FBI’s Foreign Influence Task Force division chief, Laura Dehmlow.
A Facebook employee on Oct. 15. 2020, the message also confirmed having spoken with Chan, according to records obtained by the Judiciary Committee, and that he had said “there is no current evidence to suggest any foreign connection or direction of the leak.”
Chan in his deposition sworn on November 29, 2022, twice claimed he never communicated with Facebook beyond one conference call with an FBI task force.
Jordan’s committee said in September 2023 that it had “revealed evidence” that Chan gave conflicting testimony as part of the case regarding his “communications with social media platforms.” Jim Jordan/Twitter
Last October, the Louisiana-based US Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the FBI — along with the White House, the US Surgeon General, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), and the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Agency (CISA) — may have censored Americans’ free speech by “most likely forcing or encouraging social media platforms to moderate content.”
The decision partially sided with a July 2023 ruling by a Louisiana federal judge that barred executive branch agencies from contacting social media platforms because of evidence presented about censorship.
Categories: Trending
Source: thtrangdai.edu.vn/en/
