Review of: “FBI Under Fire: Calls for Transparency on Monitoring, Censorship, and Political Influence”

FBI website homepage on computer screen.

FBI faces demands for transparency as concerns mount over social media monitoring and potential censorship.

At a Glance

Rep. Jim Jordan questions FBI’s monitoring of Americans’ social media posts
FBI’s Foreign Influence Task Force under scrutiny for potential censorship
Concerns raised about FBI’s interference in presidential elections
Allegations of Biden family influence peddling add complexity to the issue

FBI’s Social Media Monitoring Practices Under Scrutiny

The Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) is facing intense scrutiny over its practices of monitoring social media posts, particularly in the context of U.S. elections. U.S. Representative Jim Jordan, head of the House Judiciary Committee, has raised serious questions about the FBI’s potential role in censoring lawful speech on social media platforms. Jordan’s inquiry focuses on the bureau’s Foreign Influence Task Force (FITF) and its use of software that could potentially violate American citizens’ civil liberties.

The controversy stems from recent revelations that suggest the FBI may have overstepped its boundaries in monitoring and potentially influencing social media content. Congressional committees have already determined that the FBI “improperly interfered in presidential elections in coordination with social media companies,” according to Rep. Jordan. This interference allegedly included efforts to “prebunk” a true story about the Biden family’s influence peddling before the 2020 election.

Demands for Transparency and Accountability

In response to these concerns, Rep. Jordan has sent a letter to FBI Director Christopher Wray, requesting a briefing on the FITF’s activities and the software tools it employs. The letter seeks clarity on whether the FBI’s actions infringe on lawful speech, particularly political speech protected by the First Amendment.

“Congressional committees already have determined that the FBI “improperly interfered in presidential elections in coordination with social media companies,” – U.S. Rep. Jim Jordan

The Judiciary Committee’s concerns are heightened by testimony from an FBI analyst who confirmed that the bureau uses social media posts to prompt censorship by social media companies. However, when questioned about the nature and scope of the software tool used for this purpose, agency counsel reportedly prevented the analyst from providing complete answers.

Implications for the 2024 Election

As the 2024 presidential election approaches, the FBI’s continued coordination with social media companies to monitor and flag posts has raised alarms. Rep. Jordan emphasized the need for transparency, stating that the FITF “continues to coordinate efforts with social media companies leading up to the 2024 election to monitor and flag social media posts, by both American citizens and foreign actors, ‘indicative of potential criminal conduct.'”

“Although the analyst testified that the FBI uses this tool to pursue ‘criminal conduct,’ when questioned about the nature of the software tool and the scope of the FBI’s use of it, agency counsel repeatedly prevented the analyst from fully answering the committee’s questions. Therefore, we write to obtain additional information in order to understand whether the FBI has or could use this software tool to censor or infringe upon lawful speech, particularly Americans’ political speech.” – U.S. Rep. Jim Jordan

The Judiciary Committee has requested a briefing by November 26, seeking to understand the full extent of the FBI’s social media monitoring activities and their potential impact on free speech and democratic processes.

The Biden Family Controversy

Complicating this issue is the ongoing controversy surrounding the Biden family’s alleged influence operations. Hunter Biden’s involvement with Burisma, a Ukrainian gas company, has been a particular point of contention. Despite lacking industry expertise, Hunter Biden was reportedly paid handsomely by Burisma while the company was under investigation for corruption.

Further allegations suggest that Joe Biden, during his tenure as Vice President, used his influence to have a Ukrainian prosecutor investigating Burisma fired, threatening to withhold U.S. aid. These claims add another layer of complexity to the debate over government transparency and the potential misuse of power.

As the investigation unfolds, the American public awaits answers about the extent of government surveillance, the protection of civil liberties, and the integrity of electoral processes. The outcome of this inquiry could have far-reaching implications for the balance between national security and individual freedoms in the digital age.