[detbuch]

Originally Posted by wdmso

that government suppressed information about January 6, then I would be with you in saying that was wrong.

The elected government was the Threat from the Top down and many elected leaders to include Trump refused to testify. Willfully suppressing information.from Americas

Asking for testimony is searching for a story. If the story is not known, there is no story to suppress. The story, at that point is that someone is asked to testify but refuses to do so. If there are legal consequences for that, they can be imposed and that would be the remedy. There is no government suppression of speech in that instance--there is no speech to suppress. There is instead, in government seeking testimony, its attempt to coerce speech, not suppress it. And at the time that the Jan6 committee was asking for any testimony, Trump was no longer an acting government official.

As for Hunters laptop it’s a good thing it’ll go through a congressional committee, because it wouldn’t survive in a court of law and rules of evidence

Whether or not it survives anything is beside the point that it should not have been suppressed by an agency of the government.

If the DOJ doesn’t indict Trump, there’s no way they’re going to indict Hunter over a laptop

That is not a valid argument that a government agency should have falsely characterized the story with the obvious attempt to suppress it.

Hunters laptop is just noise for 2024 just like Benghazi was .

Yep, now that kind of unproven verbiage is one of the many ways to discredit and suppress speech. But since you are not a government agent, you have a right to do so.

and I quote

Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.), told Fox News’s Sean Hannity explicitly on Tuesday night that the Clinton investigation was part of a “strategy to fight and win.”
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

A typical political strategy--not that it was just a pack of lies. And it wasn't a government attempt to suppress speech.