From Glenn Greenwald to Joe Rogan to Tulsi Gabbard to countless others, Democrats seem to reserve special loathing for their own.

On Thursday, I filed a $10 million lawsuit against California congresswoman Sydney Kamlager-Dove, who in opening remarks at a House Foreign Affairs Subcommittee hearing called me a “serial sexual harasser.”

The instant the words hit my ears, I remembered what Gabe Kaminsky reported last year: that Biden administration officials, during a briefing about the State Department’s same Global Engagement Center we were here to discuss, told members of another Congressional committee that “unsavory conduct in Russia” meant my reporting was “not to be trusted.” This followed a New York Post report on a document showing GEC officials strategizing responses to me and Kaminsky.

Did these members get the same briefing? Did they not know that story had been outed, or did they know it was outed and decide to proceed anyway? That would be mendacious and lazy. It went downhill from there:

For the rest of the session members thundered about hypocrisy on speech. Pramila Jayapal of Washington State, whom I’ve covered favorably in the past (also unfavorably), called it the “height of hypocrisy” to discuss the “fabricated censorship of conservatives” when the Trump administration is “launching the largest attack on free speech” in decades.

“Let’s talk about real threats to free speech,” she said. “This month, Secretary Rubio launched ‘catch-and-revoke,’ a horrifying program fueled by AI to monitor student visa holders’ social media accounts for pro-Palestinian views, and mark them for deportation…”

I don’t agree with Jayapal about many or even most things, but if she’d engaged with me, I’d have noted I too opposed the Antisemitism Awareness Act and the Trump Executive Orders that use the definition of antisemitism written by the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA). If asked, I’d have shared some of her concerns while pointing out many of the global censorship bodies I spent years researching (like the EU with its Digital Services Act) not only target anti-immigration protesters and nationalists, but outlaw the very causes Jayapal professes to care most about. For instance, Palestinian activism can be “illegal content” thanks to the same IHRA formula under the DSA, which still has a profound impact on speech on American platforms. It could have been interesting.

Everything you need to know about modern Democrats, particularly so-called progressives, is encapsulated in the fact that instead of turning to the witness with a lifetime of First Amendment advocacy, Jayapal opened the floor to Nina Jankowicz, a former Homeland Security official who came within a hair of becoming America’s first “Disinformation Governance” chief.

“Ms. Jankowicz, to clarify for my Republican colleagues,” Jayapal began (independents don’t exist in Congress, even when we sit in witness chairs), “is it true that the Constitution guarantees lawful permanent residents the right to free speech?”

While Jankowicz answered in the affirmative, my first thought was about a 2006 case filed against the Departments of Homeland Security and State over the so-called “ideological exclusion provision” of the PATRIOT Act, which was endorsed by both parties and used to bar immigrants for speech reasons long before Trump. It was a provision politicians had a chance to change for years, and didn’t.

Then I thought of the ACLU’s February 2016 efforts to investigate a new DHS “Countering Violent Extremism” program, and how coordination with that “CVE task force” shortly after became a responsibility of Barack Obama’s new “Global Engagement Center,” when he signed its executive order in March 2016. That was the whole point of this hearing, to ask if GEC and DHS took that authority to investigate ISIL and al-Qaeda and abused it by turning it inward, to target “peaceful protest” of Americans. But why would a progressive Democrat ask me about that, when a high-profile former DHS official was available?

“Is it true,” Jayapal said, “that engaging in peaceful protests is protected by the First Amendment?”

“That’s right, Congresswoman.”

I felt like screaming: Why can’t we have both? Why can’t we protect the right to protest and get rid of this horrendous digital censorship apparatus? What is it about Democrats and this issue? The party once had civil libertarians in its ranks. Where did they go?

Then I remembered how the hearing began. This is just who they are.

All political groups try to neutralize their critics, but the Democrats’ habit of turning on their own supporters, and casting them as monsters and moral reprobates in elaborate PR campaigns, is unique. If you make the mistake of trying to understand it, as I did for years, it can consume your life. No longer wondering why is what allowed the quick response this time.

Since 2017 I’ve been in a club that includes Glenn Greenwald, Joe Rogan, Jimmy Dore, Tulsi Gabbard and a long list of others, including non-Americans like Julian Assange and others whose cases are still unfolding. Commonalities include accusations of sexual indiscretion, secret affiliation with Russia or some other foreign power, and financial corruption. Enemies are always evil, not mere disagreers. That vehemence is what stands out. They don’t just excommunicate, they hate. It’s the only sincere part left. Not getting hopes up, but maybe now we’ll find out why?

https://www.racket.news/p/why-do-democrats-destroy-their-own