Staff Reports
Republican Representative Jim Jordan of Ohio was stunned to discover in a video uploaded to the social media platform X that Assistant Attorney General Kristen Clarke was not acquainted with a landmark case involving free speech that had been presented to the U.S. Supreme Court. Jordan acknowledged experiencing frustration and asserted that he believed all individuals present at the committee hearing were similarly astonished. In support of his larger claims regarding the political orientation of the Justice Department, he cited Clarke's self-deprecated lack of knowledge.
Jim Jordan Flabbergasted When Top DOJ Official Admits She's Clueless About Key Case: 'I Don't Know What We Say' https://t.co/ank3QPGvlt pic.twitter.com/612qzNqooI
— Home Defense Gun (@HomeDefenseGun) December 7, 2023
Missouri v. Biden pertains to accusations that the White House and federal agencies engaged in a collusion to censor the discourse of American citizens on social media, with a specific focus on content related to the COVID-19 pandemic. In an opinion published on July 4, U.S. District Court Judge Terry Doughty stated that it was probable that President Joe Biden and his co-defendants had carried out "the most extensive assault on the freedom of expression in the history of the United States." The evidence, in his opinion, represented a "almost dystopian scenario."
The verdict of the District Court was upheld by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit in New Orleans in September. Subsequently, the defendants' appeal was heard by the U.S. Supreme Court in October. Notwithstanding the case's gravity, Assistant Attorney General Clarke denied any awareness of it when questioned by North Carolina Republican Representative Dan Bishop. Bishop was stunned by Clarke's admission; consequently, he exerted additional pressure on her to affirm that she was not familiar with Missouri v. Biden. "Unfortunately, I am not," she responded, "Congressman."
The fact that Clarke was so ignorant of such a significant case is hard to believe, prompting conjecture as to whether she was telling the truth or was merely negligent. Due to her employment with a permanent agency in Washington, D.C., she may lack motivation to tell the truth due to her lack of apprehension toward congressional Republicans and the electorate. The exact nature of the situation is still unknown.
