Connect with us

Tech

TRANSCRIPT: Jim Jordan OBLITERATES Google CEO Over Anti-Conservative Bias

Published

on

Tuesday, Google CEO Sundar Pichai fielded questions from the House Judiciary Committee regarding privacy concerns and alleged bias against conservatives. In an epic takedown, Rep. Jim Jordan (R-Ohio) put Pichai on the hotseat, making him squirm.

Transcript:

Jordan: “Mr. Pichai, in your opening statement you said ‘I lead this company without political bias and work to ensure that our products operate that way.’ Eliana Murillo is Google’s head of multicultural marketing. Does Ms. Murillo do good work?”

Trending: New Group of Turncoat Gun Owners is Being Launched to Push for Civilian Disarmament

Pichai: “I’m not very familiar with her work but she’s an employee of Google and, you know, we are proud of our employees.”

take our poll - story continues below

Did Kyle Rittenhouse act in self defense?

  • VOTE NOW: Did Kyle Rittenhouse act in self defense when he shot three BLM rioters? 

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.
Completing this poll grants you access to Big League Politics updates free of charge. You may opt out at anytime. You also agree to this site's Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.

Jordan: “Well you praised her work the day after the 2016 election. In a four page email she wrote about her work with the Latino vote she said ‘even Sundar gave our effort a shoutout.’ Is she referring to you, there?”

Pichai: “She was referring to my communication around translation for a different related effort.”

Jordan: “Okay, well I’m gonna look at two other sentences she had in that long email, again recapping her work in the 2o16 election with the Latino vote. She said this: ‘We pushed to get out the Latino vote with our features.’ A few lines down in her email she qualified that sentence and she said ‘We pushed to get out the Latino vote with out features in key states,’ and she specifically cites the states Florida and Nevada. Near the end of her email in a similar sentence she says ‘We supported partners like Voto Latino to pay for rides to the polls in key states.’ You with me? I wanna kind of analyze those two sentences. Is it fair to say the ‘We’ in those sentences, Mr. Pichai, refers to Google?”

Pichai: “Um, Congressman, we, we, we are very concerned over allegations like that. We, we are – ”

Jordan: “I’m not asking you that question. I’m asking you, is it fair to say the ‘We’ in both sentences refers to the company Google?”

Pichai: “As Google we don’t participate in any partisan efforts around any civic process, so I don’t think so.”

Jordan: “Okay, so this – ‘We pushed and we supported partners like Voto Latino to pay for rides to polls in key states and we pushed to get out the Latino vote during the 2016 election’ – and how were they getting that done? They were getting that done by, according to Ms. Murillo, your head of multicultural marketing, by altering your features or configuring your features in such a way and for paying for rides to get people to the polls. Is that accurate? That’s all I’m asking – is it fair to say that that’s what those sentences are talking about?

Pichai: “I’m not aware of all of the specifics but we did look into it – we found no evidence that there were any activities like that from Google, uh, as an organization.”

Jordan: “So she’s not telling the truth?”

Pichai: “For sure, we didn’t find any supporting evidence of any such activity.”

Jordan: “She said she paid for rides to the polls, and they configured their features in such a way as to get out the Latino vote. And look – I actually think that’s all okay. I think that that’s just a good corporate citizen encouraging voter participation, encouraging people to participate in our election process. I think so far those sentence are just fine. But then there’s three words at the end of each sentence that do cause me real concern. And those three words are ‘We pushed to get out the Latino vote with out features in key states.’ Now suddenly it gets political. ‘We supported partners like Voto Latino to pay for rides to the polls in key states.‘ Now that makes everything different. So I’ve got really just one question for you: Why? Why did Google configure its features and pay for rides to the polls to get out the Latino vote only in key states?”

Pichai: “Congressman, sincerely we found no evidence to substantiate those claims. The only effort we do around elections – ”

Jordan: “So your head of multicultural marketing, who you praised her work in this email, gave her a shoutout, was lying when she said you were trying to get out the Latino vote in key states?”

Pichai: “We, today, in the U.S., around elections – we make it – and this is what users look to us for – where to register to vote, where to find you nearest polling place, what are the hours they are open, and we do those things -”

Jordan: “That’s not what I’m asking. I appreciate that Mr. Pichai and I already said that’s just being a good corporate citizen. What I’m asking is why did you only do it in key states?”

Pichai: “We didn’t do any such activity as Google on any of these key states. I mean, there are employees, I think they are parts -”

Jordan: “Did you push to get out the Latino vote in all states?

Pichai: “As Google, we don’t have goals around pushing to get out any particular segment. We don’t participate in partisan activities. We engage with both campaigns. We support and sponsor debates across both sides of the aisle, and we provide users with information to get their election.”

Jordan: “Your head of multicultural marketing said you were pushing to get out the Latino vote, paying for rides to the polls for the Latino vote only in key states, and you’re saying that’s not accurate?”

Pichai: “Yes that’s right.  We haven’t found any evidence to substantiate – ”

Jordan: “So she just made it up out of thin air the day after the election and wrote this email to your top executives, and it’s not true?”

Pichai: “Congressman, happy to follow up, but the employees today do their own activities.”

Jordan: “I don’t want the follow up. I wan’t the real answers right here in this committee.”

Pichai: “As I’ve said earlier we’ve looked into it. We didn’t find -”

Jordan: “Did you push to get out the key vote in – I would say the two most populous states for Latinos would be California and Texas – did you push to get out the Latino vote and pay for people to go to the polls in California and Texas?”

Pichai: “We as a company did not undertake any effort to push out votes for any particular demographic that would be against our principles. We participate in the civic process in a, in a nonpartisan way. We think it’s really important we do it that way.”

Jordan: “Well I just think it’s interesting – Mr. Chairman I know I’m over time – I just think it’s interesting that their head of multicultural marketing writes an email the day after the election where she talks about 71 percent of Latino votes voted for Hillary, but that wasn’t enough, and she talks about paying for rides to the polls in key states for Latino votes, to get out the Latino votes in key states and the head of the company says that’s not accurate.”

Pichai sat dumbfounded in silence before the Chairman directed that the Committee move on to the next member. Watch the live hearings here.

 

Campaign 2020

Thanks to Spineless, Establishment Republicans, Senate Panel Delays Vote to Subpoena Big Tech CEOs

Republicans Continue to Show Pathetic They are on the Issues that Matter Most

Published

on

America First nationalist’s hopes of having Big Tech CEOs testify before Congress about allegations of censorship directed towards the Right were temporarily dashed on October 19, 2020.

Politico reported that the Senate Judiciary Committee delayed plans to vote on subpoenas to force the CEOs of Twitter and Facebook to go before the Senate and be questioned about their anti-Right wing censorship policies.

Some Republicans ended up having cold feet and decided to postpone the vote much to the disappointment of right wing activists who have complained about Big Tech’s anti-free speech policies.

President Donald Trump and a number of nationalist Republicans have sharply criticized Facebook and Twitter over their censorship of a controversial New York Post report that exposed Hunter Biden, Democrat presidential candidate Joe Biden’s son, and his corrupt behavior.

take our poll - story continues below

Did Kyle Rittenhouse act in self defense?

  • VOTE NOW: Did Kyle Rittenhouse act in self defense when he shot three BLM rioters? 

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.
Completing this poll grants you access to Big League Politics updates free of charge. You may opt out at anytime. You also agree to this site's Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.

Originally, GOP officials in the Judiciary Committee announced plans to hold a markup on October 20 to determine if they would subpoena Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey to get his perspective on allegations concerning his company’s policies that muzzle conservative viewpoints. Twitter denies claims regarding Twitter’s censorship policies.

South Carolina Senator Lindsey Graham, who is the Chair of the Judiciary Committee, revealed that the planned vote would also call on Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg to testify.

The panel stated on October 19 that it would determine whether they would issue subpoenas during a executive session on October 22 where it will also allegedly approve Supreme Court nominee Amy Coney Barrett. The committee declared in a statement that it will maintain negotiations with the companies “to allow for voluntary testimony” by the CEO. However, if an agreement cannot be reached, the panel will proceed to take a vote on the subpoenas “at a date to be determined.”

The subpoenas would compel the tech big wigs to testify on the reports of “suppression and/or censorship” of New York Post stories and on “any other content moderation policies, practices, or actions that may interfere with or influence elections for federal office,” according to a committee document released on October 19.

Texas Senator Ted Cruz, who is the chair of the Judiciary’s Subcommittee on the Constitution said to reporters that he’s expecting the committee to preside over testimonies from the Twitter and Facebook chiefs “shortly” regardless of whether they come to the decision on their own volition.

“One way or another, either voluntarily or pursuant to subpoena, they will testify and they will testify before the election,” Cruz stated.

In a separate hearing for the Senate Commerce Committee, Zuckerberg and Dorsey will join Google CEO Sundar Pichai on October 28 for a hearing on Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, which generally shields Big Tech companies from a liability.

Cruz, who is a member of both Judiciary and Commerce committees, wants each panel to carry out their own hearings with the tech chiefs before election day. “I believe we need a separate hearing in Judiciary because the issues being discussed in the two committees are different,” Cruz remarked.

Big Tech has become too powerful, especially during a time when social media has become the de facto public square. Republicans will need to get serious about making online speech receive the same treatment as general political speech.

 

Continue Reading
It's time to name Antifa a terror org! Sign your petition now!


Trending