Staff Reports
Ohio Republican Representative Jim Jordan, in an unexpected development, conveyed his incredulity and frustration regarding Assistant Attorney General Kristen Clarke's limited knowledge of a pivotal free-speech case that was pending before the United States Supreme Court. Jordan acknowledged in a social media-famous clip that he was profoundly surprised by Clarke's assertion. It was hypothesized that additional committee members and spectators were similarly taken aback. Jordan further contended that Clarke's ignorance regarding the case serves as substantiation for the political motivations of the Justice Department.
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 social media discourse of American citizens, specifically that which was in some way associated with the COVID-19 pandemic. U.S. District Court Judge Terry Doughty stated in his opinion dated July 4 that the defendants have presumably orchestrated "the most massive assault against free speech in the history of the United States." This renders the issue of considerable significance. In fact, the judge compared the United States government's conduct throughout the pandemic to an Orwellian "Ministry of Truth." The Fifth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals upheld the decision of the District Court in September.
Unbeknownst to Jordan, Clarke denied any involvement in the matter when questioned by North Carolina Republican Representative Dan Bishop. Clarke appeared perplexed and puzzled in a second online clip in response to Bishop's inquiries. She acknowledged her lack of familiarity with the litigation and offered to have Bishop's inquiry redirected to her division. Bishop, startled, approached Clarke for clarification; she acknowledged her ignorance regarding Missouri v. Biden. This disclosure is astounding in light of the gravity of the case. Nonetheless, this situation generates conjecture as to whether Clarke was expressing herself truthfully or if her response was merely unprofessional.
Due to the fact that Clarke is an employee of a permanent agency in Washington, D.C., neither congressional Republicans nor the electorate frighten her. Her reluctance to speak the truth implies that she may be lying or otherwise negligent. As with numerous others, Clarke's inexplicable ignorance of such a crucial case has left Jordan speechless. The circumstances give rise to inquiries regarding the ethics and incentives of the Justice Department under the Biden administration.
