Over the weekend, it was revealed that in early 2021, Arizona Secretary of State Katie Hobbs, now the governor-elect, successfully managed to have Twitter employees censor or remove posts at her office’s behest.
The revelation came in a trove of discovery documents from current litigation spearheaded by Missouri Attorney General Eric Schmitt, who’s suing President Joe Biden and his administration for allegedly colluding with Big Tech firms to suppress freedom of speech.
As a result of the findings, calls for a federal investigation into Hobbs and her office have intensified, according to Just the News.
Christina Bobb, a former attorney for President Donald Trump, tweeted a screenshot of the document from Schmitt’s discovery file. Her post triggered an avalanche of replies from justifiably angry conservatives.
“Unreal! Katie Hobbs’s office contacts Twitter to have posts removed! So, the democrat candidate, who ran the AZ election, censored her political opponents, disrupted Election Day votes, and then threatened counties with prosecution if they didn’t declare her the winner,” Bobb tweeted.
Unreal! Katie Hobbs’s office contacts Twitter to have posts removed! So, the democrat candidate, who ran the AZ election, censored her political opponents, disrupted Election Day votes, and then threatened counties with prosecution if they didn’t declare her the winner. pic.twitter.com/TWIgHHPqkd
— Christina Bobb (@christina_bobb) December 4, 2022
Georgia Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene responded to the revelation on Sunday.
“The SOS of AZ and Gov candidate, Katie Hobbs, used the power of the AZ SOS to collude w/ Twitter to unconstitutionally violate 1st Amendment rights of Americans for her own political gain. This is communism and Hobbs can not be governor. I’m calling for a Federal investigation,” Greene tweeted.
Plenty of others, including the Republican Party of Arizona, joined Greene in her calls for an investigation. The state party tagged Arizona Attorney General Mark Brnovich in a post calling for transparency in determining what tweets, exactly, were removed by Twitter employees at Hobbs’ request.
“The First Amendment was created to protect citizens against the government, Not the other way around,” the Arizona GOP tweeted.
At a minimum, Arizonans deserve to know what accounts/tweets were censored.
The First Amendment was created to protect citizens against the government,
Not the other way around. https://t.co/XDaa0uBxji
— Republican Party of Arizona (@AZGOP) December 5, 2022
On Tuesday morning, the Arizona Republican Party doubled down and posted images of a letter it wrote to Brnovich demanding an investigation into the matter.
“The Republican Party of Arizona calls on [Brnovich] to immediately investigate [Hobbs] over a government agency directing a private company to suppress free speech,” the party tweeted.
+ a few other violations of State Law.
Read Full Letter⤵️ pic.twitter.com/gwgYnu0nrt
— Republican Party of Arizona (@AZGOP) December 6, 2022
Though the initial exchange between Hobbs’ office and Twitter took place in January 2021, many social media users understandably have new questions regarding how Hobbs ran the 2022 midterm elections in her state. Hobbs was in charge of the entire Arizona election process, which had more than its fair share of hiccups on Election Day.
At this point, it’s fair to ask if there were other occasions when Hobbs and her office requested the removal of social media posts, and for what specific reason other than citing “election-related misinformation.”
While a federal investigation might be wishful thinking under Biden’s Justice Department, a state-led investigation by Brnovich’s office would be a good start. If there’s no “there” there, so be it.
Given what’s happened so far with the “Twitter Files” and the stunning but unsurprising revelations that the social media platform was used as a censorship arm of the Democratic National Committee, something tells us what’s unfolding now is the tip of the proverbial iceberg.
Truth and Accuracy
We are committed to truth and accuracy in all of our journalism. Read our editorial standards.