Representative erupts after congressional witness points out her ‘misogyny’

Bob Unruh
WND News Center

The demands by Democrats in Congress for absolute censorship of those with viewpoints contrary to the political party’s ideology have become “insatiable,” as evidenced by the actions of a party member from Pennsylvania, according to recognized constitutional expert Jonathan Turley.

Turley, a professor at George Washington University, often has testified before Congress on constitutional issues, and even has represented members in court.

His conclusion is that, “Democrats have embraced an anti-free speech agenda to silence opposing viewpoints” that has become “insatiable,” after Rep. Summer Lee, that Pennsylvania Democrat, lost her cool during a hearing.

She demanded that a witness statement, because it referenced her personally, be censored, even though Lee had barely finished attacking that witness.

It happened like this: Lee insulted witnesses scheduled to make statements as transphobic and hateful, with, “Madam Chair, I ask that while we sit through this hearing and the hateful misinformation I’m sure is coming our way, let us not forget the children at the core of this issue.”

Waiting to testify on the issue of Joe Biden’s agenda to promote transgenderism, no matter the injury to other innocent people, was Riley Gaines, famed as a college athlete after racing against Lia Thomas, a man portraying himself as a woman in college swim competitions.

Thomas responded to Lee’s attack with: “Of course, there is a place for everyone, regardless of gender identity, regardless of sexual orientation, regardless of race or what sports you play. There’s a place for everyone to play sports in this country. But unsafe, unfair and discriminatory practices towards women must stop. Inclusion cannot be prioritized over safety and fairness, and ranking member Lee, if my testimony makes me transphobic then I believe your opening monologue makes you a misogynist.”

Turley reported, “Lee than pounced and demanded that Gaines remarks be struck for ‘engaging in personalities.'”

He reported, “What followed was hurried consultation and presumably a few explanations for Lee on why witnesses are allowed to respond to such attacks by a member. Lee then withdrew her demand.”

He noted Congress has a rule that bans members from engaging in “personalities,” apparently to prevent personal attacks.

“However, Lee was attempting to use this against a witness who was defending herself against her own personal attack. It is a dangerous extension,” he warned.

He explained, “The fact that Lee’s immediate response was to censor a person who she had just attacked is telling. After labeling Gaines a hateful bigot, Lee did not believe that she should be allowed to denounce Lee’s own comments as an attack on women. It shows the slippery slope of censorship. Democrats have embraced an anti-free speech agenda to silence opposing viewpoints. That desire becomes insatiable even as citizens seek to rebut personal attacks from members in a congressional hearing.”

A commentary at RedState explained, “If a congressional member chooses to personally attack someone in a hearing, they shouldn’t be able to shut down a response just because they don’t like it.”

In fact, Turley pointed out that danger.

“That would create a nightmarish combination if members are protected from actions in defaming witnesses but then can censor them when they defend themselves.”

The commentary pointed out, “Democrats and their bureaucratic allies already believe they have the right to shut down speech they don’t like. It’s just a matter of whether the courts allow them to get away with it or not.”

The commentary’s conclusion?

“The Democratic Party is made up of entitled wannabe tyrants who believe they should be immune from the very things they do. They don’t want to live by their own standards, and that’s not a tenable position for a functioning society. The problem is especially acute among younger Democrats like Lee. She does her ‘yas queen’ rantings for the camera, accusing others of bigotry but can’t take the slightest bit of pushback. Meanwhile, she wouldn’t dare say that stuff outside the halls of Congress because she knows she’d be legally liable. It’s cowardly and pathetic.”