Elvis Chan, a San Francisco-based senior FBI official, did not appear for a deposition on Thursday after Republicans subpoenaed him last month over his involvement in social media companies’ decision to censor certain content surrounding the 2020 election.
A House Judiciary Committee room filled with several staffers appeared to be waiting for Chan as minutes passed beyond his scheduled 10:00 a.m. interview time, but he never arrived.
BIDEN REVERSES COURSE AND BUILDS BORDER WALL WITH TRUMP FUNDING
One senior GOP aide directly involved in talks with Chan told the Washington Examiner the committee would document him as a no-show and take the next steps, which could include holding him in contempt of Congress.
However, the House is in an unprecedented holding pattern after eight Republicans voted with all Democrats to remove Rep. Kevin McCarthy (R-CA) from his role as speaker this week.
Floor activity has since ceased, meaning the House cannot vote to refer anyone to the Department of Justice for contempt.
Lawmakers are expected to vote on a new speaker as early as next Wednesday, but there is no guarantee the House will have united around a candidate by then. Incidentally, Judiciary Committee Chairman Jim Jordan (R-OH) is one of the top contenders, as is House Majority Leader Steve Scalise (R-LA).
In any case, lawmakers would first have to vote on contempt within the committee, and then they would hold off on taking a full floor vote until a speaker has emerged. Another option for the committee could be to sue Chan for failing to appear.
The senior GOP aide indicated the committee would escalate the matter and that contempt was an option but that committee members would first need to confer about it.
The no-show follows a long string of back-and-forth between the committee and Chan, who has been willing to interview with Congress as long as he can have both personal and DOJ counsel present.
The committee, in a rare inside glimpse at the behind-the-scenes exchanges with Chan’s lawyer, Larry Berger, shared how it had warned Chan repeatedly of its practice of allowing either personal or department counsel at the interview but not both.
“Every other transcribed interview conducted of FBI employees this Congress has proceeded under this practice without incident,” Jordan wrote to Chan in one letter.
Berger, who has long represented FBI agents, told the Washington Examiner he believes the committee has refused to honor Chan’s counsel choices for “wholly arbitrary” reasons.
“There’s no black-letter rule that defines what counsel can attend,” Berger said of voluntary interviews.
In depositions, which are similar to interviews but occur in response to a subpoena, the committee only allows a witness to have a personal attorney accompany them, a rule established in 2007 by the House Oversight Committee, which typically handles the highest volume of depositions and interviews.
Republicans have long sought to speak with Chan, an FBI assistant special agent in charge, over allegations he was involved in a government effort to pressure social media companies to censor First Amendment-protected speech, including the New York Post’s story about Hunter Biden’s laptop and speech about 2020 election matters and COVID-19.
Chan was deposed as a witness in Missouri v. Biden, a case in which two Republican attorneys general made the same allegations against several federal government entities.
A judge mentioned Chan in a sweeping memorandum in the case on July 4, saying Chan participated in regular “industry meetings” with various social media companies, including Meta, X, YouTube, and others.
CLICK HERE TO READ MORE FROM THE WASHINGTON EXAMINER
The committee was expected to ask Chan on Thursday about his communication at those meetings before the 2020 election and what he may have said to social media companies about Hunter Biden’s laptop, according to a source familiar.
The FBI declined to comment for this story but previously said the committee’s approach to Chan has been a “significant departure from normal procedures” while emphasizing Chan’s willingness to take part in a voluntary interview “with appropriate legal representation.”
