Morning Wire - Dems Target Twitter & White House Cocaine: Jim Jordan Interview | Sunday Extra

Episode Date: July 16, 2023

A conversation with Ohio Congressman Jim Jordan who heads the House Judiciary committee, on recent revelations that the Federal Trade Commission harassed Twitter and pressured an independent investigator at Ernst and Young. Plus the White House cocaine scandal. Get the facts first on Morning Wire.   Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

A series of congressional investigations prompted hearings this week that led to some headline-grabbing accusations and revelations, including allegations of political targeting by both the FBI and the FTC. In this episode, we talk with Congressman Jim Jordan, whose committees are heading up multiple investigations into the weaponization of federal agencies about what they've uncovered and what actions they're taking to address the issue. It's Sunday, July 16th, and this is an extra edition of Morning Wire. joining us now to discuss the week's hearings and revelations as Ohio Congressman Jim Jordan, chair of the House Judiciary Committee and the Weaponization Subcommittee. Congressman, thanks so much for joining us. So the FTC Commissioner Lena Kahn testified before your committee this week. In your questioning, you revealed she sent 12 demand letters in 10 weeks and over 350 separate requests to Twitter and Elon Musk personally.

Did you get to the bottom of her, one might say, obsession with Twitter? Well, I think that's the right word. you know, ask her why you're harassing Twitter? Oh, we're doing our job. We're doing our job. But I think even more important than the 12 letters in a 10-week time frame than the 350 requests is the fact that in that those letters, they ask, who are the journalists? You're talking to? Who are the journalists?

A private company is talking to, for goodness sake, someone needs to get an education on how the First Amendment works. And then think about it, asking that question naming for journalists personally. And then in the context of Elon Musk and Twitter, we're talking to these journalists to help expose the government pressure. big tech to limit American speech and journals. I mean, that just makes it even, I think, more concerning. So she didn't have a whole lot of answers for that.

She just tried to say that they're doing their job in enforcing this consent decree. Do you believe she's being politically pressured to harass the platform since Musk took over? They started the letters before Twitter was even required to have their privacy, policy, and procedures in place. And it came right after she got letters and press releases from seven United States, senators, all Democrats. from her former and, you know, bosses, Jerry Nado, David Sissolini on the House side. So after that kind of correspondence, go after this, do this, do this, check it out. Then she does it. And she does it even before they have a time to set up what the consent decree said they had to set up.

So I think that's pretty telling. But maybe more importantly is the court filing that was filed today in the Northern District of California, where Twitter showed that in a deposition, the FTC, actually in a deposition, was talking to Ernst and Young, the individual who was going to be the fact finder, the independent assessor in this consent decree and whether it's being followed. And the lawyer from the FTC asked this person from Ernst & Young,

now no one's pressured you to do anything. He goes, well, not really. We were told by the FTC, we had to do it this way. We had to have certain findings. And it was basically like they were putting their thumb on the scale to pressure the folks from Mersen Young. And then Ernst & Young said, and we thought about withdrawing,

not doing this, just stepping out of this, and not being the independent fact finder, independent assessor, but we were concerned we'd be retaliated against that the government will come after us. Now, if that's not the weaponization of government, I don't know what is. Have we seen anything like this before? Is this part of a larger pattern?

I sure haven't seen anything like that from the FTC, but frankly, from other agencies, you know, think about this. One of those four journalists that the FTC identified in these 12 letters they sent to Twitter, one of those four journalists came and testified in front of that select committee on the, weaponization of government, Matt Taibi, while he's testifying, the IRS was knocking on his door coming after him for some taxi. In fact, it turned out they owed him money. He didn't know the IRS

any money. That's the kind of scary stuff that's going on in these agencies. And maybe just as importantly, the decision we got last week relative to the censorship, the decision from the court in the Western District of Louisiana was a strong decision saying, you got to stop this pressuring of big tech companies to censor Americans. So that's all part of this, again, agencies being turned on the American people. Turning now to the White House, the Secret Service has concluded its investigation into who brought cocaine into the West Wing of the White House. Should the American people be satisfied with their findings? Well, I think it's said, we don't know, and we're not going to be able to find out. I mean, this is supposedly the most secure place on the planet, and someone

brings in an illegal substance to the White House, and you don't know how that happens. You know, come on, that's where this is going to end up. So we'll just have to wait and see. Now, there's a growing concern about transparency with various wings of our federal government. What are some of the tools in the toolbox of the House GOP to rein in some of these departments like the FBI and force accountability? What can you guys do? Well, specifically the FBI, a certain section of the FISA Act is up for reauthorization. There's no way we're going to reauthorize that in this current forum. We talked about this yesterday in the hearing with Director Ray.

And then the real power the House has, the legislative body has, is the power of the purse. So we have to use the appropriations process where we allocate taxpayer dollars for the funding of the government and the running of agencies and functions the government has. We have to use that process to say you can't spend money for certain things. You can't spend money to in any way limit American speech to infringe on their First Amendment liberties. You can't have additional money at the FBI to build a new headquarters for good and sake. So there's a lot of those things that we're looking to put into the appropriation bills. That's sort of the primary leverage we have. and then continue to do the investigation to make sure the country knows what exactly is happening at these agencies.

Now, your committees have hosted a lot of congressional hearings, and a lot has come out of them in terms of information and headlines. But how effective are these? Do you feel like you're getting actual, tangible results from these hearings? Well, I think the investigations are good as getting facts. You know, we do some weeks five, six depositions a week where we're interviewing people getting the facts. we put out several reports that lay out these facts. I think that's really valuable. Hearings, you got to have that so the country sees. But I think a lot of times these witnesses come here and they say,

well, I can get back with you. I can't answer that. I won't be able to answer that. I have to get back. They have to go back. That's frustrating for everybody. Something we have to do. It's part of the process.

But I think in the end, where we can make real change is in the appropriations process with legislation when we need to. And frankly, and the speaker's been clear about this, if we look into some of these things that we've now learned from whistleblowers and others, if it gets to the level where we need to start an inquiry relative to removing some people from office, I think the speaker mentioned that, you know, do we at some point maybe get to an impeachment inquiry for Merrick Garland? We'll see. But we first got to get the facts and see if we get to that stage after we do our work. Final question. We've seen a lot of rapid fire developments in Washington this week,

including more details about allegations of Biden family corruption. What from your perspective as head of multiple committees is a question that needs further investigation. I would just say this. I do think now with this whistleblower who came forward from the IRS, with the Biden business operation, I think this has become a fundamental question. Who are you going to believe? Gary Shapley, the whistleblower, a 14-year veteran of the IRS, handled the biggest international tax fraud cases, memorialized everything that was going on in the Biden investigation in a contemporaneous time frame, sent emails to people on the investigation. Emails came back. It's all there in the record. You're going to believe him?

Are you going to believe the Biden-Garland Justice Department that, again, said parents were terrorists at school board meetings, said pro-life Catholics are extremists that is involved in censorship and rated the home of a former president? Who are you going to believe? And I think when you frame it that way and just look at that, I think a lot of Americans are going to say, you know what? This whistleblower seems very, very credible. And all kinds of things we've heard from the Biden Justice Department and the Biden administration just don't add up. So I do think that is kind of where we're at now in that particular oversight work. Well, Congressman, thank you so much for joining us. That was Ohio Congressman Jim Jordan,

and this has been an extra edition of Morning Wire.