in ,

Democrats Seek to Silence RFK Jr.’s Witness Testimony In Free Speech Hearing

RFK Jr. Fights Back Against Claims of Prejudiced Statements


Democratic Representatives sought to bar President Joe Biden’s Democrat primary competitor, Robert F. Kennedy Jr., from delivering public statements during a hearing dedicated to scrutinizing governmental censorship.

Kennedy was among the witnesses who presented their views on the perceived collaboration between the Federal Government and Big Tech companies to suppress free speech to the House Judiciary Select Subcommittee on Corruptions within diverse Federal Government sectors.

Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz, a Democrat from Florida, raised an objection based on House Rule 11, Clause 2, claiming a violation attributed to Mr. Kennedy.

She proposed to transition into a closed-door session because she believed Mr. Kennedy had publicly espoused prejudiced comments against Jews and Asians in the week leading up to the session.


Receive a FREE Gift for Subscribing to the Newsletter!

House Rule 11, Clause 2 outlines the necessity of a private session when a House witness is expected to share testimony that might ‘defame, degrade, or incriminate any person.’ In such a scenario, it’s deemed appropriate for the testimony to be held away from the public eye.

Kennedy, during his time on the stand, strongly disagreed with the labeling of his past comments, asserting he was misunderstood.

‘In the course of my entire life, there has never been an instance where I willfully uttered statements that can be perceived as racist or antisemitic,’ refuted Kennedy, addressing the House panel.

Upon hearing the proposal for a transition to executive session, Rep. Thomas Massie, a Republican from Kentucky, argued to set aside the proposal from Wasserman Schultz. In response, Wasserman Schultz called for a recorded vote, to account for every member’s position.

Republicans serving on the subcommittee unanimously supported Massie’s move to continue with open testimony. The Democrats, on the other hand, supported Wasserman Schultz’s call for a private venue for Kennedy’s statements.

Taking a stand against what she perceived as a degradation of rules and personal integrity, Wasserman Schultz expressed her decision as a vote against ‘permitting a testifying witness to demean others and breach the established protocol, amplifying his controversial perspective instead of sharing it in a closed, executive session.’

Sharing similar sentiments, Rep. Dan Goldman, a Democrat from New York, clarified that his decision stemmed from his resolve to say, ‘No to hate speech.’

Robert F. Kennedy Jr., a prominent figure in America, being the son of the past attorney general and New York Senator Robert F. Kennedy and nephew of former President John F. Kennedy, is now posing a strong challenge to President Biden for the Democratic presidential nomination.

‘Not only a Democratic administration but the Trump administration too has tried to restrict my voice,’ added Kennedy, accentuating his own experience with censorship during the hearing. He added that he was the inaugural individual targeted for censorship by the present Biden administration just two days into the office.

Marking the scenario, Rep. Massie pointed out what he viewed as the ‘irony and incongruity in the opponent’s stance that is truly astounding.’

‘This meeting, planned to deliberate on the issue of censorship, started with an official move from the opposing party to muzzle Mr. Kennedy,’ observed Massie. In his view, such actions expressed an imposing reluctance to allow Kennedy to voice his thoughts and opinions.

Massie’s contention was founded on the fact that the very focus of the hearing aligned with the need for Kennedy to express his views. However, he was being silenced, in Massie’s perspective, via a collaboration of governmental forces and private entities, sparking a debate on free speech and censorships.


Receive a FREE Gift for Subscribing to the Newsletter!