WEAPONIZATION OF GOVERNMENT HEARING-REP STEWART

TRANSCRIPTION
Mr. Sal, I'm curious, just as as a sidebar, were you embarrassed by what happened at Stanford Law School a few weeks ago?
Uh, so I'd like to clarify that I am
In regards to the suppression of free speech with the federal court district court judge,
So I'd like to clarify that I am mind my hero on my own behalf and not on behalf of this. I
Understand that. I'm just, I'm just curious. I mean, I would imagine you would be embarrassed by that, but, um, are you familiar with, uh, GDR East German Sta, sea Secret, please?
I'm sorry, can you speak, are
You familiar with gdr, the East German stat Sea secret, please?
Uh, generally, yes. Generally,
Yeah. We know they use techniques to threats and intimidation, censorship in order to maintain and control and ensure continuation of govern power. They're one those repressive and powerful forces that we've seen in our modern world. Now, I'd like to quote some of their objectives and some of their tactics that they would use. The aim of the Stasi was to switch off a group or private citizens by hindering any positive media or public exposure to their thoughts, views, and policy positions, including pressuring, newspapers and other media. Would you be comfortable with the government using that, those kind of tactics in order to suppress thoughts, views, and policies?
If your question is whether I'm comfortable with the American government using the tactics of the East German Stasi, the answer is no.
Thank you. Mr. Sour, do you see any difference between Stasi secret police tactics and government suppression of individual expression on social media?
Very strong analogy. Honor,
Make sure your microphone's on, if, I'm
Sorry. There's a very strong analogy to be drawn there, and it's based on overwhelming evidence.
Well, I see no difference at all.
It's a close, a very close, uh, uh, uh,
Comparison. I think it's an incredibly close comparison. I mean, I would reemphasize, including pressuring social or or pressuring newspapers and other media in order to hinder any positive media or public exposure to their thoughts, views, or policy positions. There's no difference at all. That's correct. Let me give you another example. We're talking about the East German Stasi and the tactics. They used another one, conspicuous visits to homes of workplaces so that citizens would be aware of and intimidated by their presence and power. We had a journalist here who was not a conservative journalist, by the way.
He was here for a matter of a few hours talking about the weaponization of the federal government, and during that time, the i r s showed up at his house, something that the Secretary of Treasury admitted only happens so far as she knows when someone is under investigation for fraud and they need a personal interview, that's the only time she knew of some IRS agent appearing at someone's house that happened while he was here testifying for our committee. Mr. Sk, does that appear as a unlikely coincidence to you?
I'm not familiar with factual details as, as Mr.
H taxes as I've described it. Does it seem unlikely to you?
I am not familiar with this incident, so I can't comment.
Well, I've explained the incident to you. He was testifying before Congress and the IRS went to his home.
I have no idea whether it's a coincidence.
Okay, Mr. Sour, how does it appear to you?
The timing is incredibly suspicious.
It's incredibly suspicious, and I'll quote again from stat's, secret police tactics, conspicuous visits to homes and workplaces so that citizens would be aware and intimidated by their presence and power. I think it's, my description to you is sufficient that you could make a judgment of that.
Again, I'm not familiar with the details of Mr. Todd's
Taxes. Okay. All right. So I'm surprised that you wouldn't wanna condemn that. I'm surprised you wouldn't wanna say, you know what? As you've described it to me, that makes me uncomfortable, that the IRS would show up at someone's home while their test time for Congress.
As a matter of principle, government retaliation for the exercise of free speech is problematic. It's wrong. I have no idea whether that has taken place
In this case. Okay, so conceding that you don't know if that's happened, you would be uncomfortable if that were the case.
I am uncomfortable with violations of the first. Thank you. Yes.
That's what we're talking about here. And I know you've seen on display the emotion of our colleagues on the other side of the aisle. I'm shocked that they don't wanna condemn it. I'm stunned that they don't ask you the same questions that we ask. How in the world could anyone sit and listen to this and go, you know what? That's okay with me. Use the federal government as contractors to go suppress free speech. They don't do it themselves. They instead pressure and intimidate and threaten individuals and organizations to do it for them. There is no difference between that and what the Stassy secret police did.
No difference at all. And if someone wants to stand and defend that