Democrats aim to silence RFK Jr. in censorship hearing.

Tempers ran high during ‍a chaotic July 20 hearing of ⁤the House Select Subcommittee on the Weaponization of the ⁤Federal Government, in which Robert F. Kennedy Jr. was the star witness.

Mr. Kennedy, one of three declared candidates for the 2024 Democratic primary, along with President Joe Biden and author Marianne Williamson, has become anathema to others in⁣ his party for his oppositional position on⁣ COVID-19 policy and vaccine efficacy. The candidate, son of former Attorney General Robert F. Kennedy, has called for enhanced vaccine safety screening and has expressed doubts about the business ⁢practices of the pharmaceutical industry as a whole.

On July 20, House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jim ​Jordan’s (R-Ohio) subcommittee heard testimony from Mr. Kennedy in ⁢a hearing themed around ⁤reports of social media censorship in collusion with ‌government forces, which Mr. Kennedy says he‌ has faced for challenging the official narrative about the pandemic and vaccines.

Democrats ⁣spent much of ⁢the hearing seeking ‍to discredit and de-platform Mr. Kennedy, citing remarks he made during an‌ appearance in New York last week.

In a secretly ⁤recorded video, Mr. Kennedy was heard ⁣describing research showed COVID-19 virus disproportionately affected⁤ Caucasian and black people while being comparably mild for Ashkenazi Jews and Chinese ⁤people, who Mr. Kennedy suggested had a stronger immune ​response to the virus and were better able to fight it off. Mr. Kennedy⁢ also discussed how bioweapons could potentially be designed with the intent ⁣to​ harm ​certain ethnic groups over​ others.

The comments nevertheless created a firestorm among Democrats and other Kennedy critics, who condemned the‌ comments ‍as “racist” and “antisemitic.”

Prior to the hearing, several Democrats circulated a letter to Mr. ⁣Jordan asking for Mr.⁤ Kennedy to be de-platformed from his scheduled‍ testimony. Mr. Jordan, joined by Speaker of the House ‌Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.)⁣ dismissed those calls (pdf).

“The hearing‌ that we have this week is about censorship,” Mr. McCarthy told reporters when asked about the letter. “I don’t think censoring somebody is actually the answer here.”

In her opening remarks, Ranking Member Delegate Stacey Plaskett (D-V.I.) accused the majority of giving a platform to “hateful, evidence-free rhetoric” and “conspiracy theories.”

Democrats Slash RFK Opening Statement Time

After the effort failed to have Mr. Kennedy uninvited from the hearing, Democrats nevertheless spent a great deal of ​time during the hearing seeking to limit Mr. Kennedy’s testimony and discredit⁢ the president’s most formidable challenger from within his party.

As ‍soon as Mr. Kennedy and other witnesses were sworn ‌in, Democrats made ⁤their first⁣ point of order of the hearing, calling for ⁢the time given to ⁤Mr. Kennedy during his opening statement to be⁤ slashed.

Though five minutes is the standard time allotted for speakers in House‌ hearings, the clock initially displayed 10 minutes for Mr. Kennedy, leading to a heated ‍exchange over the matter between Mr. Jordan and Ms. Plaskett.

Ranking member Del. Stacey Plaskett (D-V.I.)​ (R) debates with Chairman Rep. Jim Jordan (R-Ohio) (L) during a hearing before the Select Subcommittee on the Weaponization of ​the Federal Government of ​the ⁣House Judiciary Committee at Rayburn House Office Building on Capitol Hill in Washington on May 18, 2023. (Alex Wong/Getty Images)

“Is it ten or five?” Ms. Plaskett could be⁣ heard asking Mr. Jordan as Mr. ​Kennedy began to speak.

“He’s gonna ‍go a little longer,” Mr. Jordan replied.

At that point, Ms.⁤ Plaskett interrupted with a point of order, demanding that Mr. Kennedy have⁢ his time slashed in half as per the standard procedure.

“I know that witnesses ‍usually have five minutes; I see 10⁤ minutes on the board. Is it ⁤going ‍to be 10 minutes?” she ⁢asked.

“We’ll give him five minutes, but we’re pretty⁤ lax with this—” Mr. Jordan began.

“We are?” Ms.‌ Plaskett interjected. “I’ve seen ‍you ‍pound the gavel down on quite a number of witnesses.”

Mr. Jordan⁤ replied that he had given others, including Democrats, additional time to speak in the past when needed.

Nevertheless, Mr. ‍Jordan acceded to the point of order, saying, “We’ll​ give ⁢him five minutes. And if you wanna cut him off and ​censor ⁤him‍ some more, you’re welcome to do it,”‍ prompting a ‍ripple ⁣of laughter from the audience.

Despite her posturing, Ms.⁣ Plaskett ultimately allowed Mr. Kennedy to go over time in his remarks.

Discarding his prepared statement and speaking extemporaneously, Mr. Kennedy defended himself from the charges of “antisemitism” and “racism” that had been ⁤hurled at him and⁣ extolled ​the importance of freedom of speech to American institutions.

Wasserman-Schultz Tries to End Hearing

As Mr. Kennedy finished his ‌opening remarks, receiving a round of applause from audience members, ⁢Rep. Debbie Wasserman-Schultz (D-Fla.) put ⁢forward another point of‍ order, calling⁣ for the hearing to be moved‍ to executive session—a move‍ that would have closed the ‍hearing off from the ‍public view.

“Mr. Kennedy has repeatedly made despicable antisemitic and anti-Asian remarks as recently as last week,” Ms. Wasserman-Schultz said, citing an obscure interpretative section of ​House rules that she said Mr. Kennedy’s remarks violated.

That rule allows a committee to move into ​executive session if public airing of the testimony “would tend to defame, degrade, or‍ incriminate any person, or otherwise would violate a law or rule of the House.”

Ms. Wasserman-Schultz​ contended that Mr. Kennedy’s comments about COVID constituted a violation of these rules.

⁤ Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D-Fla.) at Fort Lauderdale-Hollywood International Airport on ‌March 14, 2017, in⁤ Fort Lauderdale, Fla. (Joe Raedle/Getty Images)

As Ms. Wasserman-Schultz read out the alleged remarks made by Mr. Kennedy, who has said they were taken out of context to defame him, Mr. Jordan interjected, “Is ‍the gentlelady ‌making a motion or a speech?”

Before Ms. Wasserman-Schultz had finished speaking, Rep. Thomas Massie (R-Ky.) put forward a motion ​to shelve the motion.

In a recorded⁢ vote, all 10 Republicans present at⁢ the hearing voted to shelve Ms. Wasserman-Schultz’s motion, while all eight Democrats‍ present voted against‍ it.

Mr. Massie said, “Yes, ‍to not censor,” when asked for his vote.

“No to allowing a witness to violate the rules and not have his testimony and degradation amplified,” Ms. Wasserman-Schultz said.

Rep. Gerry ​Connolly (D-Va.) said he was voting “No to ​the​ Soviet Politburo,” intimating that, by ⁢allowing Mr. Kennedy to speak in a public format, Congress‍ was conducting itself in a similar‌ fashion​ to the ⁤repressive central policy arm of the Soviet Union.

Similarly, Rep. Daniel Goldman (D-N.Y.) said he was voting “No​ to hate speech.”

“Is it the custom of this committee to censor viewpoints we disagree with?” Rep. Mike Johnson (R-La.) asked ahead of the vote.

Later in the hearing, Mr. ⁤Massie said that “the irony and cognitive dissonance from the other side of the aisle⁣ is deafening.

“This is a hearing on censorship‌ that began with an effort, with a​ formal motion from the other side of the aisle to censor⁣ Mr. Kennedy.”

“You⁤ can’t make this stuff up,” Mr. Johnson agreed.

Blocked From Citing Studies

Later, Ms. Wasserman-Schultz began her questioning by requesting again, as her party had earlier, that Mr. Kennedy’s invitation‌ to appear ​be revoked “due to his repeated and very recent statements that spread dangerous ‍and antisemitic conspiracy theories.

“His reckless rhetoric helped fuel ‍antisemitic incidents, which—for⁢ the record—are at the highest level in the United States since 1970,” she said.

She suggested that Mr. Kennedy’s earlier comments on the relative severity of the COVID virus across racial lines was comparable to ‌claims prevalent during the Middle Ages ⁣that Jews were responsible for diseases like the Black Death.

But when Mr. Kennedy went to respond with a clarification of his earlier remarks, citing a⁤ specific study funded by the National Institutes of Health which suggested⁣ that there are​ indeed differen