On Thursday, the Republican-led House Judiciary Committee issued a subpoena compelling FBI Special Agent Elvis Chan to appear for a deposition before the Committee next month. Chan was scheduled to be interviewed by the Committee on September 15, but failed to appear after negotiations between the Bureau and the Committee broke down.
For months, the Department of Justice and the FBI have been stonewalling the Committee’s requests to interview Chan, who played a key role in censoring the Hunter Biden laptop story on social media ahead of the 2020 election.
“No amount of lies and excuses will stop the Committee from deposing FBI Agent Elvis Chan,” the Judiciary Republicans wrote on X. “The American people deserve to hear the full truth about the Biden censorship regime. And they will.”
On November 29, 2022, Chan was deposed as part of the State of Missouri, Schmitt et al. v. Biden, et al lawsuit.
According to the state prosecutors, Chan indicated that the FBI had played a major role in censoring speech online with actions ranging “from weekly meetings with social media companies to demanding takedowns of specific accounts and facilitating suppression of certain stories.” Chan testified that the platforms became far more aggressive in removing alleged “misinformation” during the 2020 election cycle than in previous election cycles, and they have remained so.
Last month, House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jim Jordan accused Chan of making false statements in his testimony regarding the FBI’s role in the suppression of the Hunter Biden laptop story.
Chan and Foreign Influence Task Force Section Chief Laura Dehmlow had met with representatives from Facebook on Oct. 14, 2020, the same day the New York Post published its bombshell story on the Hunter Biden laptop. Dehmlow and other members of the FBI task force spoke with Twitter employees by phone the same day.
When asked during that call whether the laptop was authentic, according to Dehmlow’s deposition, ”one of the FBI folks who was on the call did confirm that, ‘yes, it was,’ before another participant jumped in and said, ‘no further comment.’”
After that, the FBI was careful to say “no comment” when asked if the laptop was authentic even though the Bureau had possessed the laptop since 2019 and knew it was authentic.
During his deposition, Chan was asked if he had taken part in other meetings with Facebook other than the Oct. 14 meeting, and he responded that he was confident that he had not been “a party to” any other meetings with social media companies regarding Hunter Biden’s laptop.
When asked again whether he was aware of any other communications between anyone at Facebook and anyone at the FBI related to the Hunter Biden’s laptop, Chan replied “no.”
“COMPLETELY FALSE,” Jordan wrote on Twitter. The chairman shared a recently obtained internal Facebook document showing that Chan took part in a follow-up call on October 15, 2020—the very next day. Chan said during the call that there wasn’t currently evidence proving “a foreign connection or direction” to the laptop leak. Of course, the FBI knew by this point that there was no foreign connection—Russian or otherwise— to the laptop.
The Judiciary Committee Republicans notified the FBI as soon as the GOP won the House to let them know that they wanted to interview Chan.
“On January 17—after the start of the 118th Congress—we sent another letter to the FBI instructing them to make Chan and other FBI agents available for an interview,” The Judiciary Republicans wrote on X, adding that the FBI claimed they didn’t know about the request until March of 2023.
The Republicans posted the Committee’s November 2022 and January 2023 letters to the FBI to prove that they had made the request.
The FBI claims that they didn’t know about this until March 2023, but read the Committee’s letters from January 2023 and November 2022 for yourself: pic.twitter.com/T3ssk5JG1E
— House Judiciary GOP (@JudiciaryGOP) September 21, 2023
“As a courtesy, the Committee permits government witnesses without personal counsel to appear with agency counsel and avoid the financial burden,” they wrote. “But if the government witness has personal counsel, then the rationale for this accommodation no longer applies.”
However, according to the Committee’s protocol, the witness may appear with either the agency counsel or the personal counsel—but not both.
There is strong precedent behind this protocol. Morton Rosenberg’s “When Congress Comes Calling” summarizes it well: pic.twitter.com/7CYYpUjVst
— House Judiciary GOP (@JudiciaryGOP) September 21, 2023
“The Committee has scheduled and conducted dozens of interviews with current and former FBI and DOJ personnel following this exact, simple rule,” the Republicans noted.
The Bureau continued to stonewall, so the Committee finally authorized a subpoena to compel Elvis Chan to appear, and the FBI reluctantly agreed on August 30th to have him appear on September 15th.
According to the Judiciary Republicans, the FBI knew the about the Committee’s protocols and for two weeks, raised no objection to them.
Then, 65 hours before the scheduled deposition, the FBI threw a wrench into the proceedings, demanding that an exception be made to the Committee’s protocols so Chan could appear with both agency and personal counsel. For the next two days, the Committee and the Bureau negotiated back and forth with the FBI insisting that an exception be made, and the Committee stating unequivocally that that was not an option.
The dispute resulted in a showdown less than 90 minutes before the interview, with the FBI and DOJ declaring that they would be attending the interview and the Committee responding that “they should not enter the interview room.”
In the end, Chan did not show up for the interview, and the Committee was forced to issue another subpoena.
The Timeline, as posted by the Judiciary Committee on X:
**47 hours to the start of the interview**
By Wednesday morning, the Committee had spoken directly to Elvis Chan’s personal counsel, informing him that Chan may choose between agency counsel or personal counsel, but not both.
**23 hours to the start of the interview**
Thursday morning, the Committee again follows up with Chan’s personal lawyer, who replies “stand by.”
The Committee warns Chan’s lawyer that a subpoena has been authorized if necessary.
*22 hours to the start of the interview**
Thursday afternoon, Chan’s personal lawyer tells Committee staff that Chan will “not participate in a voluntary transcribed interview” under the Committee’s protocol.
Discussions continue well into Thursday afternoon and evening.
At 7:38 p.m., the Committee again states unequivocally:
“Mr. Chan can have either agency counsel or personal counsel accompany him at the transcribed interview—not both. It is Mr. Chan’s choice.”
**14 hours to the start of the interview**
Mr. Chan’s lawyer states: “I will be present on behalf of Mr. Chan tomorrow for the scheduled interview.”
No mention of DOJ or FBI trying to force themselves to appear.
Interview appears to be back on.
Less than 12 hours to the start of the interview**
DOJ writes to say that agency counsel will be attending.
The Committee says that is not an option being offered and DOJ should respect Mr. Chan’s wishes to appear with personal counsel.
**Less than 90 minutes to the start of the interview**
DOJ and FBI say that they will be attending the interview.
The Committee calls saying they should not enter the interview room.
At 10 a.m., Elvis Chan fails to appear for the interview. The Committee issues a subpoena shortly after.
“Elvis Chan is now compelled to appear for a deposition before the Committee on October 5th,” the Republicans said.
Elvis Chan is now compelled to appear for a deposition before the Committee on October 5th.
Stay tuned… pic.twitter.com/2fgJIVVQNr
— House Judiciary GOP (@JudiciaryGOP) September 21, 2023