With the GOP taking over the House soon, hearings are already being lined up on a variety of subjects that nobody in the Biden administration would touch with a ten-meter cattle prod during Joe’s first two years in office. Chief among these are questions about the White House allegedly conspiring with the major social media platforms to censor reports or opinions that ran contrary to the administration’s narrative. We already learned that one FBI analyst who was reportedly involved in these activities will not be excused from testifying. And now, it turns out that former White House spokesmodel Jen Psaki isn’t faring much better. She too sought to block efforts to have her testify. But a federal magistrate judge in Virginia openly scoffed at the idea in court this week and was described as “ridiculing” the request. (Politico)

A federal magistrate judge in Virginia openly scoffed Friday at White House press secretary Jen Psaki’s efforts to escape a deposition in a suit over alleged pressure on social media firms to censor posts on topics like Covid-19 vaccines and election fraud.

But even after roundly rejecting and even ridiculing arguments Psaki’s attorneys and the Justice Department presented against forcing her to testify, U.S. Magistrate Judge Ivan Davis ruled that the issue of Psaki’s testimony be sent to Louisiana to be resolved by the federal judge overseeing the case filed in May by the states of Louisiana and Missouri. That suit alleges that President Joe Biden and his appointees are violating the First Amendment by urging Facebook, Twitter and other firms to limit access to posts on controversial subjects.

Unfortunately, the judge didn’t put an end to Psaki’s request entirely. Rather than dismissing the case, the judge sent it to the court in Louisiana that’s currently overseeing the original lawsuit. That was apparently deemed to be the appropriate venue, but Psaki is seen as unlikely to prevail there either.

Psaki’s attorneys attempted to argue that obeying the subpoena would be an “undue burden” on her. They tried to explain that traveling to provide testimony would “take her away from her family for several days and interfere with her new job at MSNBC.” Yes. People who are called before Congress to provide crucial information in an investigation into potential wrongdoing frequently have to travel and may miss some time at work. What of it? The judge didn’t appear to be impressed with that argument either.

Shoes are starting to drop all over the place, or at least it seems that way. Just yesterday, David Strom reported on new information suggesting that the FBI has been receiving information from Facebook (or Meta) about social media posts unfavorable to the Biden administration and having that information suppressed.

For a long time now, anyone with an account on Twitter, Facebook, YouTube, or any other social media content carriers could have readily told you about the suppression of conservative news items or opinions. It was far too obvious to ignore. And you never heard a peep out of the White House or 90% of the mainstream media because “the right people” weren’t the ones being censored. (That’s “right” as in “correct,” not the opposite of “left.”)

As long as it was simply a business decision being made by the various Big Tech companies, it didn’t seem like there was very much to be done about it. But if the government was directly involved and participating in the process, that is almost certainly a case of censorship and a violation of the First Amendment. That’s the sort of thing that can get a person impeached, if not sent to prison.

Joe Biden’s “most transparent administration ever” has been more secretive than the Kremlin ever since he took office. And if it winds up being proven that they’ve been up to the type of shenanigans that are seemingly being uncovered, heads will need to roll. Let’s hope that the GOP leadership doesn’t wind up getting cold feet and going squishy on us.