Two things were confirmed during the “House Select Subcommittee on the weaponization of federal government” hearing. They are: the Democrats do not believe in the First Amendment and that they don’t have a clue how the magic interwebs machine works. Matt Taibbi and Michael Shellenberger, well known journalists, were asked by Elon Musk, following his purchase of Twitter, to look at possible government censorship at the social media company. What they found was the focus of this hearing. While yesterday’s hearing on the Afghanistan retrograde was emotional and raw, today’s hearing was angry, accusatory and filled with utter idiocy. Thank you, Democrats for exposing yourselves.

The product of the work by Taibbi, Shellenberger and others were the Twitter files which exposed how government agencies contracted out the suppression of free speech. Matt Taibbi released his opening statement the night before the hearing, as reported by Susie Moore, you can read her full post here. Susie also predicted a spirited hearing and urged her readers to have popcorn nearby. I did, but the hearing was so spirited I forgot to eat the popcorn.

Congressional Reptile Debbie Wasserman-Schultz kicked off the questioning with a showing of disdain for Matt Taibbi’s existence, as reported by Real Clear Politics:

Democratic Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz makes an argument that Matt Taibbi’s work on “The Twitter Files” is a “right-wing conspiracy theory” during a hearing Thursday of the “Weaponization Of Government” subcommittee.
“I’m not asking you to put a dollar figure on it, but it is quite obvious you have profited from ‘The Twitter Files.’ Is it true that you have profited since you were the recipient of ‘The Twitter Files?’ … Attention is a powerful drug,” Wasserman Schultz said.
REP. DEBBIE WASSERMAN SCHULTZ: The Society of Professional Journalists’ code of ethics asserts that journalists should avoid political activities that could compromise integrity or credibility. Being a Republican witness today certainly casts a cloud over your objectivity.
But a deeper concern I have relates to the ethics of how journalists receive and present certain information. Journalists should avoid accepting spoon-fed or cherry-picked information if it is likely to be slanted, incomplete, or designed to reach forgone easily disputed, or invalid conclusions.
…
Before you became Elon Musk’s hand-picked journalist, and pardon the oxymoron, you stated this on Joe Rogan’s podcast about being spoon-fed information: “Once you start getting handed things, you’ve lost. They have you at that point, you have to get out of that habit. You just can’t cross that line.”
You crossed that line with “The Twitter Files.”
MATT TAIBBI: No.
WASSERMAN SCHULTZ: It’s my time… Elon Musk spoon-fed you his cherry-picked information, which you must have suspected promotes a slanted viewpoint. Or at the very least, generates another right wing conspiracy theory. You violated your own standard, and you appear to have benefited from it.

Take a note her condescension here:

I’m sick of ad hominem attacks substituting for actual argument. Rep. Wasserman Schultz’s use of her time to make baseless attacks on @mtaibbi’s integrity is shameful. pic.twitter.com/Y4aSwbcnIU

— Laura Powell (@LauraPowellEsq) March 9, 2023

Debbie Wasserman-Schultz would know about the love of attention, right? Stacey Plaskett, the Ranking Member representing the Virgin Islands was a snarky snot in her opening statement:

Plaskett characterized Taibbi and Shellenberger as “two of Elon Musk’s ‘public scribes’” and said Republicans brought them in “to release cherry-picked out-of-context emails and screenshots designed to promote his chosen narrative — Elon Musk’s chosen narrative — that is now being parroted by the Republicans” for political gain.

Plaskett also called the witnesses “so-called journalists” and said they have threatened former Twitter employees by reporting on the Twitter Files.

Matt Taibbi called Plaskett out and added a beginning to his opening statement:

The condescension and hatred for anything outside the narrative were bad but not knowing who Bari Weiss is and what Substack is is mind-blowing:

I cannot stop laughing at ⁦@RepSylviaGarcia⁩ learning for the first time who ⁦@bariweiss⁩ is and sincerely asking if Bari,@mtaibbi⁩, and ⁦@ShellenbergerMD⁩ are a threesome on a mission to spread disinformation via the #TwitterFiles. pic.twitter.com/5Ov6XRl6XX

— Meara (@MillennialOther) March 9, 2023

Then, Congress Reptile Garcia wondered is Substack was some kind of webpage?

Rep. Sylvia Garcia (D-TX): "You posted on your umm I guess it's kind of like a web page. I don't quite understand what Substack is." pic.twitter.com/LJQx7nIpJy

— Greg Price (@greg_price11) March 9, 2023

That’s okay, Miss Garcia, your staff will spoon feed you just enough to make a fool of yourself. Threesomes and webpages!

The Democrats really are condescending Constitution haters. I wish something would be accomplished with these hearings, but for tax money spent you cannot underestimate the entertainment value. My popcorn is cold, too sad.

Featured Image: Margarida/flickr.com/cropped/Creative Commons