Sometimes government officials say things so unbelievable that at first we do not think them serious.
For instance, Republican Rep. Jim Jordan of Ohio, Chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, expressed astonishment upon hearing Kristen Clarke, Assistant Attorney General for the Department of Justice’s Civil Rights Division, tell his committee that she had no familiarity with a landmark free-speech case now before the U.S. Supreme Court.
“I don’t know what we say,” Jordan exasperatedly admitted in a clip posted Wednesday to the social media platform X.
The chairman surmised that his fellow committee members and others must have felt as he did.
“I would think every member and anyone watching is just astounded,” Jordan said.
His astonishment, however, did not prevent the Ohio congressman from drawing larger conclusions about Clarke’s professed ignorance.
“If that doesn’t, in and of itself, show that this Justice Department is political, and doing things for political reasons, I do not know what does,” Jordan said.
Six different federal agencies were found to be guilty of violating the First Amendment liberties of Americans, and the U.S. Assistant Attorney General for the Civil Rights Division at the DOJ Kristen Clarke IS NOT AWARE of the case.
That shows just how political the DOJ is. pic.twitter.com/GgOynyc9hR
— Rep. Jim Jordan (@Jim_Jordan) December 5, 2023
The case in question, Missouri v. Biden, involved accusations that the White House and federal agencies conspired to censor Americans’ speech on social media, particularly speech relevant to the COVID-19 pandemic.
Is the Biden administration corrupt?
Yes: 100% (14 Votes)
No: 0% (0 Votes)
In an opinion appropriately filed on July 4, U.S. District Court Judge Terry Doughty wrote that President Joe Biden and his fellow defendants likely committed “the most massive attack against free speech in United States’ history.”
Indeed, in the conclusion to a 162-page opinion, the judge went further. He declared, for instance, that “the evidence produced thus far depicts an almost dystopian scenario.”
“During the COVID-19 pandemic, a period perhaps best characterized by widespread doubt and uncertainty, the United States Government seems to have assumed a role similar to an Orwellian ‘Ministry of Truth,’” Doughty added.
In September, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit in New Orleans agreed with the District Court.
Then, in October, the U.S. Supreme Court took up the defendants’ appeal. SCOTUS will decide on the case before its current term ends in June, according to the Missouri Independent.
Again, an assistant attorney general claimed no knowledge of this case.
Clarke’s incredible profession of ignorance came in response to questioning by Republican Rep. Dan Bishop of North Carolina.
In light of the lower courts’ rulings, Bishop asked if Clarke’s Civil Rights Division had launched criminal investigations or prosecutions.
“Um, congressman, I’m not familiar with this litigation, but happy to bring your question back,” a confused-sounding Clarke replied in another clip posted to X on Wednesday.
At that point, Bishop politely but incredulously asked Clarke to confirm that she was “not aware” of Missouri v. Biden.
“Unfortunately, I’m not, Congressman,” she replied.
Bishop asked how that was possible.
“If – if – if you could share more of the facts, that could be helpful, Congressman,” a stammering Clarke said.
“Otherwise, you’re just — you just don’t know. Is that correct?” Bishop asked.
“That’s correct. Unfortunately, this does not appear to be a case that I’m familiar with,” the assistant attorney general replied.
Let us get this straight…
DOJ’s U.S. Assistant Attorney General for the Civil Rights Division Kristen Clarke IS NOT familiar with Missouri v Biden, one of the most massive attacks on free speech in American history and the largest Supreme Court case this year.
WOW. pic.twitter.com/IkeQnwp5Jb
— House Judiciary GOP 🇺🇸 (@JudiciaryGOP) December 5, 2023
If Clarke told the truth, then her admission defies belief, given the case’s significance.
Then again, we must always leave open the possibility of a lie. For one thing, the assistant attorney general seemed strangely untroubled by her inability to provide answers.
Furthermore, Clarke works for a permanent Washington, D.C. agency. She has no fear of congressional Republicans, and even less fear of the electorate. Apart from the preservation of her soul — unlikely to be a priority of hers, given the people for whom she works — she has no incentive to tell the truth.
So is she a liar, or merely incompetent? Like Jordan, we have no idea what to say.
