White House denies ex-COVID-19 adviser’s testimony in censorship probe
Former COVID-19 Adviser Defies Subpoena After White House Intervention
A former senior adviser on COVID-19 in the Biden administration has made headlines this week after being forced to defy a congressional subpoena. Andrew Slavitt, a respected health official who played a crucial role in President Joe Biden’s coronavirus response team, was scheduled to appear before the House Judiciary Committee. However, the White House instructed him not to comply with the subpoena due to concerns about the rules surrounding his appearance.
“To protect the constitutional separation of powers and the institutional interests of the White House, I write to inform you that the White House does not authorize Mr. Slavitt to appear at the Committee’s scheduled deposition,” wrote White House counsel Richard Sauber in a letter to Slavitt’s attorney.
Chairman Jim Jordan of the Judiciary Committee also received a letter from Sauber, expressing the administration’s objection to the forthcoming deposition with Robert Flaherty, Biden’s former director of digital strategy.
The committee’s interest in speaking with Slavitt and Flaherty stems from their involvement in pressuring social media companies to censor COVID-19-related content. Flaherty, who now works for the Biden presidential campaign, was specifically mentioned in a federal judge’s memorandum for his role in coercing platforms like Meta, X, and YouTube to remove certain content.
Flaherty would frequently demand reports from these companies on their content removal practices, particularly targeting posts related to “vaccine hesitancy” and “borderline content.” In one instance, he expressed frustration with Meta’s efforts to censor a group known as the “disinformation dozen.”
“Are you guys f***ing serious? I want an answer on what happened here and I want it today,” Flaherty wrote to Meta.
Slavitt also raised concerns internally about the lack of censorship, stating in an email, “Internally, we have been considering our options on what to do about [the lack of censorship].”
The Judiciary Committee now faces the decision of potentially suing these former officials or holding them in contempt of Congress for failing to comply with the subpoenas. A committee spokesperson stated, ”Everything is on the table as to what comes next.”
When asked for comment, the White House referred to Sauber’s correspondence, which highlighted the Department of Justice’s position that government counsel should be present at certain depositions. However, the Judiciary Committee disputes this stance.
This is not the first time the committee has encountered resistance from the Biden administration regarding depositions and interviews. The committee has consistently maintained that witnesses may appear with personal counsel but not government counsel, unless it is a transcribed interview and the witness does not have personal counsel.
Slavitt’s attorney wrote to Chairman Jordan, explaining that his client had traveled from California to Washington, D.C., to meet with the committee. However, due to the White House’s instruction, Slavitt was unable to appear.
What are the concerns raised by the White House’s intervention in pressuring social media platforms to remove certain COVID-19 information?
Ty is accused of coordinating efforts to remove posts on Facebook that contained what the administration deemed to be “misinformation” about the virus and its vaccines. Slavitt, on the other hand, allegedly advocated for YouTube to censor content that contradicted the official messaging from the Biden administration.
The White House’s intervention in this matter raises concerns about the extent to which the administration is willing to go to control the narrative surrounding COVID-19. Critics argue that pressuring social media platforms to censor certain information stifles free speech and limits the public’s access to a variety of viewpoints.
This clash between the White House and Congress underscores the ongoing power struggle between the executive and legislative branches. It highlights the delicate balance between the need for transparency and accountability and the president’s authority to assert executive privilege.
The House Judiciary Committee has vowed to continue its investigation into the handling of COVID-19 information and the potential influence on social media platforms. However, this incident with Slavitt defying the subpoena demonstrates the challenges faced by Congress when the White House asserts its authority over its former officials.
In response to Slavitt’s refusal to comply with the subpoena, Chairman Jim Jordan issued a statement expressing disappointment and asserting the committee’s commitment to uncovering the truth. He noted that the American people have the right to know if government officials are exerting undue influence over social media platforms.
The implications of this clash between the White House and Congress extend beyond the immediate issue at hand. It highlights the broader tensions surrounding the role of technology platforms in shaping public discourse, as well as the limits of executive power.
Some argue that there needs to be clearer guidance on the role social media companies should play in regulating content. Others call for greater transparency from the government in its interactions with these platforms. The outcome of this dispute and the ongoing investigation may have significant implications for the future of online speech and the balance of power between the executive and legislative branches.
As the COVID-19 pandemic continues to evolve, it is crucial that the public has access to accurate and reliable information. However, it is equally important to ensure that the free flow of ideas and diverse viewpoints is not stifled in the process. Striking the right balance between these competing interests remains a complex challenge, one that policymakers and society as a whole must grapple with in the months and years ahead.
" Conservative News Daily does not always share or support the views and opinions expressed here; they are just those of the writer."
*As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases
Now loading...