Today’s headline question was posed by Jonathan Turley in a new op-ed at the New York Post. Turley has done more than simply observe the House hearings into censorship by proxy on Twitter, abetted by the FBI, the Biden campaign, and others. He was called to Washington to testify himself. The damning revelations uncovered in the Twitter Files should have been setting off alarm bells for anyone with even a hint of respect for freedom of speech and the First Amendment. But the reaction from too many Democrats and their MSM stenographers has been one more reminiscent of Joe McCarthy and the red scare era in the 50s. Rather than demanding answers, these critics are attacking the witnesses and labeling people “Putin apologists” and all sorts of other names. As Turley puts it, “the red scare is back and it is going blue.”
For years, the Democrats pushed a Russian collusion theory that collapsed. It was later disclosed that the Clinton campaign hid and then lied about funding the infamous Steele Dossier. Nevertheless, people like Carter Page were falsely accused of being Russian agents and critics labeled as Russian apologists. Ironically, the FBI was warned that the dossier appeared to be the result of Russian disinformation and relied on a presumed Russian agent.
If anything, my warning of McCarthy-like attacks and measures seemed to be taken more as a suggestion than an admonition by some. Yet soon after the end of the hearing, MSNBC contributor and former Sen. Claire McCaskill appeared on MSNBC to denounce the member witnesses (Sen. Chuck Grassley, Sen. Ron Johnson, and former Rep. Gabbard) as “Putin apologists” and Putin lovers.
She exclaimed, “I mean, look at this, I mean, all three of those politicians are Putin apologists. I mean, Tulsi Gabbard loves Putin.” (For the record, she also attacked me as not being “a real lawyer.”)
The involvement of the FBI in efforts to censor or suppress conservative or contrarian voices in both the 2016 and 2020 elections specifically harkens back to the original red scare. As Turley reminds us, back in those days, the FBI also collected and distributed lists of those they believed to be secret communists or socialists.
The Bureau’s work with Twitter and other social media platforms is eerily reminiscent of those days. But instead of labeling people as communists, they attempt to claim that anyone questioning The Narrative is peddling “Russian disinformation.” And despite all of the previous suspicions having been confirmed through the Twitter Files, those same complaints and accusations are making the rounds once again.
It’s not just the Democrats in Congress who are getting in on this game and portraying the FBI under Christopher Wray as being pure as the driven snow. Their friends in the legacy media are joining the choir as well, though more through a process of omission than accusation.
While working each morning, I tend to keep the television on CNN with the sound muted in the background. (I can’t write with people in the room talking, even if they’re on TV.) This allows me to keep tabs on what they’re covering, along with being able to monitor their chyron for breaking news. If you’ve also been watching, you’ve probably noticed something missing. After a year of breathless, wall-to-wall coverage of the J6 committee hearings as if they were man’s first steps on the moon, CNN (along with NBC and the alphabet networks) has shown little interest in the current hearings involving Twitter executives and the FBI. When they do show any of the action, it’s mostly after the fact and sprinkled with comments about how unimportant all of these “unjustified” accusations are.
You see, if you’re guilty of noticing what the FBI and Twitter were up to, then you’re a Russian sympathizer or a Putin apologist. You’re the same sort of person who would have been called a communist in the 50s. And your name is almost certainly on a list somewhere already. Welcome to life in the 2020s.
Discussion about this post