Assistant AG for Civil Rights Claims Ignorance on the ‘Most Massive Attack on Free Speech in US History’ Case — Missouri v. Biden Case, with The Gateway Pundit as Lead Plaintiff

Breaking News

The recent House Judiciary Subcommittee on the Constitution and Limited Government hearing turned tense as Kristen Clarke, the Assistant Attorney General for the Civil Rights Division of the Department of Justice, claimed ignorance regarding a major free speech case. The case in question, Missouri v. Biden, involves The Gateway Pundit’s founder, Jim Hoft, as the lead plaintiff.

During the hearing focused on the oversight of the Department of Justice’s Civil Rights Division, tasked with ensuring adherence to federal anti-discrimination laws, Representative Dan Bishop (R-NC) scrutinized Clarke about her lack of knowledge regarding the Missouri v. Biden case, which is set to be reviewed by the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS).

In October, the Supreme Court announced that it is granting “certiorari”, meaning that it will hear the case, to the litigants in Missouri v. Biden.

You Might Like

However, it also stopped the injunction against the government continuing to censor American citizens. Meaning that, the government will be able to turn the censorship regime back on while the court hears the case.

The Missouri v. Biden case involves the question of whether the Biden regime can use federal government resources to overtly censor American citizens, a practice aggressively begun under the COVID lockdowns. The case has revealed a wide array of government agencies and officials engaged in telling social media companies exactly what to censor, whom to ban, and what speech is permissible.

Legal experts describe Missouri v. Biden as the most important case for free speech in at least a decade. This case has attracted significant attention after a US District Court labeled the Biden regime’s actions as “the most massive attack against free speech in United States’ history.”

Clarke admitted to not being familiar with the litigation. Rep. Bishop questioned how the leader of the Civil Rights Division could be unaware of a case described by a U.S. District Court as a major free speech issue. Clarke requested more facts to better understand the case.

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 went on to find that the plaintiffs were reasonably likely to succeed on the merits at trial and entered a preliminary injunction. The Fifth Circuit has affirmed, and the Supreme Court has taken jurisdiction of the case. Of course, that’s all civil litigation is any criminal investigation or prosecution of the persons responsible for that activity in the FBI, CISA, and at the White House and their co-conspirators underway in the Civil Rights Division.

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.


Representative Jim Jordan (R-OH) also expressed his dismay upon realizing Clarke was uninformed about Missouri v. Biden. This case involves allegations against multiple federal agencies, including the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID), the FBI, the DOJ itself, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), and the White House, for purported First Amendment violations.

Jordan’s frustration was palpable as he pointed to Clarke’s unfamiliarity with the case as evidence of the DOJ’s political bias. His remarks amplified concerns about whether the Division’s lack of awareness about such a significant court case could indeed reflect a broader problem with the DOJ’s priorities and impartiality.


Articles You May Like

It Wasn’t Only the High ‘Uncommitted’ Vote in Michigan That Worries Democrats
Warner Bros. Discovery shares drop 10% as company misses estimates, warns of 2024 cash flow headwinds
When Radicals Cheer Self-Immolation
The Latest Democrat-Media Hoax: “Trump admits he wants to be a ‘Dictator on Day One’”
Paramount falls short of revenue expectations but posts surprise profit, strong streaming results

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *