Assistant AG For Civil Rights “Is Not Familiar” With Missouri vs Biden Case

Ariya J /
Ariya J /

Whether it’s not being able to define the word “woman” or claiming ignorance over full-term abortions, what Democrats “don’t know” could fill every ocean in the world and still spill over onto dry land.

In today’s head-scratching “I don’t know” moment, Biden’s Department of Justice (DOJ) Assistant Attorney General for Civil Rights Kristen Clarke said she was “not familiar with” the historic Missouri vs. Biden case that’s set to be heard by the Supreme Court of the United States.
During testimony before a December 5 Congressional hearing called “Oversight of the Department of Justice Civil Rights Division,” Rep. Dan Bishop (R-NC) brought up the case as an example of a violation of civil liberties.
Blissfully unaware that Clarke was clueless. Bishop brought up the pending SCOTUS case and pointed out that the judge’s opinion in the initial ruling was that the plaintiffs were “likely to win” the appeal.
Bishop went on to ask what actions the DOJ was taking against the FBI, CISA, the White House, and other co-conspirators for their role in the First Amendment violations revealed during the Missouri vs Biden case.
Unfazed and unprepared, Clarke responded that she was unfamiliar with the case but was “happy to bring the question back.” A stunned Bishop asked, “You are not aware of the Missouri vs. Biden litigation currently being taken up by the United States Supreme Court. Is that correct?”
“Unfortunately, I’m not, Congressman,” Clarke again acknowledged.
An amazed Bishop shifted the discussion by suggesting that if Clarke, as the DOJ’s Assistant Attorney General for Civil Rights, was unaware of the case, it raised significant doubts about her department’s priorities.
In response, Clarke asked Bishop to provide a few hints as to what the case entailed.
Anyone in the United States, except Clarke, could recite the facts of Missouri vs. Biden.
According to Terry Doughty, the Louisiana District Court Judge hearing the government censorship case, “In the Covid-19 pandemic, a time marked by widespread uncertainty, the U.S. Government appears to have assumed a role akin to an Orwellian ‘Ministry of Truth.'”
Republican prosecutors presented the court with thousands of emails between tech companies managing social media and the government. Rob Flaherty, the White House’s director of digital strategy, corresponded with social media platforms, asserting that “YouTube is directing individuals towards hesitancy” regarding vaccines. He cautioned that these concerns were being discussed at the “highest levels” of the White House and advocated for regular “good-faith dialogues” between the White House and Google.
The government didn’t stop there, and the censorship extended well beyond COVID-19 “misinformation.” Social media companies were “advised” that “misinformation” related to Hunter Biden would be sent to them before the 2020 election, and there was conservative targeting on platforms for any dissenting opinions regarding election fraud or the January 6th incident.
Naturally, the Biden administration was reluctant to let go of the most successful opinion-squashing initiative ever seen in the history of the United States, and White House Press Secretary Karine Jean-Pierre brushed off the case by claiming it was the responsibility of the Biden administration and social media giants to remove “misinformation.”
The case has wound through multiple twists and turns since the initial ruling in July. In early September, the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in New Orleans partially narrowed the previous ruling. Still, it upheld that the White House, Office of the Surgeon General, FBI, and CDC had exerted influence or substantial encouragement on platforms. This influence transformed the decisions made by these companies into “state action,” thereby violating the First Amendment.
In early October, the 5th Circuit expanded the injunction’s scope to include the U.S. Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency. Then, in late October, SCOTUS temporarily lifted the restrictions until the case is presented before the court in early 2024.
Even if Clarke gets her news from CNN, it’s inexcusable that she was unaware of the most significant First Amendment violation in recent history, especially as the case has dragged on for months and is one of the most highly anticipated SCOTUS cases to be heard in 2024.
Hey, Clarke, you had one job. And you are failing miserably.