02/15/2024 / By Belle Carter
The House Judiciary Committee (HJC) has commenced legal action against an agent of the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) named in several documents as being involved in the bureau’s censorship efforts.
The HJC, under the leadership of its Chairman Rep. Jim Jordan (R-OH), sued FBI agent Elvis Chan on Feb. 6. The committee accused Chan of refusing to testify in a transcribed interview in March 2023, and defying a subpoena to appear before Congress issued in September 2023.
The issue involving Chan centered around the federal government’s alleged collusion with social media firms to censor online speech. According to Jordan, Chan – the FBI’s assistant special agent in charge in California – was “the primary liaison” between the bureau’s Foreign Influence Task Force and the tech companies.
“After public reporting revealed that the executive branch was coercing and colluding with technology companies and other intermediaries to censor online speech, the [HJC] launched an investigation into how and to what extent agencies like the FBI were working to interfere with the marketplace of ideas and suppress the voices of the American people,” stated the 46-page lawsuit.
It also pointed out that Chan is a “pivotal figure in its investigation,” given that he was “at the heart of the FBI’s interactions with technology companies that included Facebook and Twitter” based on “publicly available information indicated and information uncovered during the committee’s investigation to date.” The lawsuit remarked that Chan himself said he was “one of the primary people with pass-through information” tech companies would use when deciding whether to restrict online content or not. (Related: FACEBOOK files: FBI communicated more than once with tech giant to cover up Hunter Biden’s “Laptop from Hell.”)
According to the lawsuit, Chan reportedly flouted the HJC subpoena when the Department of Justice (DOJ) “instructed him not to appear.” Per the HJC’s rules, “agency witnesses are allowed to bring either agency counsel or personal counsel to committee interviews, but not both. The rule is set up so agency witnesses can be more candid in testimony without fear of professional retribution.”
But both Chan and the DOJ have insisted that he bring two lawyers during his deposition – clashing with the HJC’s long-standing policy. Two sources with direct knowledge of the situation confirmed to the Daily Mail that the DOJ derailed the testimony by sending its counsel. As a result, Chan’s interview did not take place as planned.
Meanwhile, the FBI disputed the claim that the DOJ – its parent department – blocked Chan from testifying. It called the move a “significant departure” from normal procedures and an unnecessary escalation of the committee’s treatment of FBI officials. The Justice Department likewise denied the claim, pointing its fingers at the HJC as the one responsible.
“After an FBI employee traveled across the country to voluntarily participate in a scheduled interview, he was denied the right to have his chosen legal counsel accompany him,” a bureau spokesperson said. They added that the HJC directed the DOJ counsel to leave the premises.
According to the spokesperson, more than a dozen other FBI employees have participated in interviews with the committee with no incident. They also reiterated that Chan remains willing to take part in a voluntary interview with appropriate legal representation.
Visit Censorship.news to read more stories related to the U.S. government’s push to suppress free speech.
Watch Sean Parnell discuss the ongoing collusion between the federal government and Big Tech to silence dissent.
This video is from the Red Voice Media channel on Brighteon.com.
FBI colluded with “Russian-infiltrated” Ukrainian agency to censor Americans.
Sources include:
Tagged Under:
agency counsel, banned, big government, Big Tech, Censorship, Congress, Department of Justice, Elvis Chan, FBI corruption, Federal Bureau of Investigation, First Amendment, House Judiciary Committee, jim jordan, lawsuit, legal action, online speech, personal counsel, speech police, subpoena, tech giants, thought police
This article may contain statements that reflect the opinion of the author
COPYRIGHT © 2017 POLICE STATE NEWS