Wray denies FBI censorship of conservatives, GOP highlights suppressed posts.

FBI Director Faces Intense Questioning Over Alleged Suppression of Free Speech

Federal Bureau of Investigation Director Christopher Wray had barely completed his opening statement to the House Judiciary Committee’s FBI oversight hearing when Rep. Mike Johnson (R-La.) began a rapid-fire barrage of pointed questions that culminated in a clash of utterly opposed perspectives.

“On July 4th, we had this explosive, explosive 155-page opinion from a federal court in my home state of Louisiana that explains in detail that the FBI has been indirectly involved in what the court says, and I quote, ‘what is arguably the most massive attack on free speech in United States history,” Mr. Johnson told Mr. Wray.

“The court ordered the White House, [Department of Justice], and the FBI, among others, to immediately cease colluding with and coercing social media companies to suppress Americans’ speech, conservative speech in particular. Director Wray, I find it stunning you made no mention of this court opinion either in your opening statement or in this lengthy 14-page report that you prepared on July 12, which was eight days after the court ruling,” the Louisiana Republican said.

“Have you read the ruling, Sir?” Mr. Johnson asked.

“I am familiar with the ruling, and I have reviewed it with our Office of General Counsel,” Mr. Wray replied.

“Are you deeply disturbed by what they’ve told you about the ruling if you haven’t read it yourself,” Mr. Johnson shot back.

“Obviously, we are going to comply with the court’s order, the court’s injunction. We sent out guidance to the field and headquarters about how to do that. Needless to say, the injunction itself is the subject of ongoing litigation, and so I will decline to comment further,” said Mr. Wray.

Mr. Johnson instantly responded, saying, “Let me tell you what the court concluded because it should be the first thing you think about in the morning and the last thing you think about at night. The court wrote that “apparently the FBI engaged in a massive effort to suppress disfavored conservative speech and blatantly ignored the First Amendment right to free speech.”

He continued reading from the court’s opinion, which described in great detail how the FBI’s actions had the effect “of suppressing millions of free speech postings by Americans.” As an example, the court pointed to the fact “millions of Americans did not hear about the Hunter Biden laptop story prior to the 2020 election,” as well as a lengthy list of other controversial issues.

“Our emphasis is on malign foreign disinformation from hostile actors who engage in covert actions to subvert our social media platforms, which is something that is not seriously in dispute,” a grimacing Mr. Wray stated.

At that point, an agitated Mr. Johnson insisted, “That is not accurate; you need to read this opinion because you are in charge of enforcing it …” He also pointed out that an FBI official in charge of the censorship program claimed a 50 percent success rate in getting targeted posts suppressed.

“Well, first off, I am not sure that is a correct characterization, but what I would say is the FBI is not in the business of moderating content or pressuring any social media to suppress or censor …” Mr. Wray said angrily.

“That is not what the court said,” Mr. Johnson countered.

And thus it went back and forth throughout the lengthy hearing, with Republicans pointing to the extremely detailed July 4 opinion by Judge Terry Doughty of the U.S. District Court for the Western District Louisiana and numerous similar findings by others on recent FBI actions against free speech, clashing with the embattled FBI director who flatly and repeatedly denied that his agency has done anything remotely like censorship.

A similarly yawning gulf remained throughout the hearing between the Republicans and Democrats on the judiciary panel. The top Democrat, Rep. Jerrold Nadler of New York, devoted the bulk of his opening statement to accusing Judiciary Chairman Jim Jordan (R-Ohio) and his GOP colleagues of being interested only in “performance art, an elaborate show with only two purposes in mind: t