“Old news.”

That’s what White House Press Secretary Karine Jean-Pierre called Elon Musk’s explosive Twitter revelations about orchestrated political censorship in the days just before the 2020 presidential election. Not “disturbing” or “troubling” or “an assault on our Constitution” or “an affront to the First Amendment rights of a free press.”

No, “old news.”

“We see this as an interesting coincidence,” she began, “that [Musk] would so haphazardly … push this distraction that is full of old news if you think about it. And at the same time, Twitter is facing very real and very serious questions about the rising volume of anger, hate, and anti-Semitism on their platform and how they’re letting it happen.”

Jean-Pierre must not have seen the “hate speech” chart Musk tweeted out a few days ago. “Hate speech impressions continue to decline,” he said, “despite significant user growth!”

That aside, KJP’s sophomoric dismissal was part punt and part smokescreen, and it brought back bad memories. Indeed, it took a page right out of the ol’ Clinton-Obama playbook, and it reminded us of those stonewalling flacks of yore: Dee Dee Myers, Mike McCurry, Joe Lockhart, Robert Gibbs, and Jay Carney. If the news was inconvenient and the allegations had been out there for a while, it was “old news.” Whitewater? Filegate? Zippergate? Old news. Fast and Furious? Benghazi? The IRS scandal? More old news.

Mark our words: When House Republicans hold hearings next year on the influence-peddling operation of the Biden Crime Family, it’ll be dismissed by one and all as “old news.” They’ll tell us about how the American people are struggling and about how they’re interested in solutions, not petty partisanship.

But is it really petty partisanship to point out that intelligent people are being silenced so stupid people won’t be offended? Is it petty partisanship to point out that those who speak out aren’t fascists but those who want to silence them are?

The First Amendment issue here is a deadly serious one, with far-reaching ramifications for a free republic. Twitter, as a private company, is free to censor whomever it wants. But when that private company silences others on behalf of government, it’s a clear violation of the Constitution.

This is what constitutional law professor Jonathan Turley calls “censorship by surrogate” — the instance whereby private entities do for the government that which the government is forbidden from doing itself. That’s exactly what Twitter had been doing for the deep state, and for the Biden campaign, and, it appears, the Biden administration.

Why do those on the Left have this insatiable urge to silence their political opposition? Because they’re on the wrong side of nearly every argument. Think about it: More spending or less? Higher taxes or lower? Increased regulation or decreased? Open borders or secured? Energy dependence or independence? American mediocrity or exceptionalism? Weak foreign policy or strong? Woke military or focused? Equity or equality? Color-consciousness or color-blindness? Defund the police or fund them? Devalue life or value it?

And, of course, less speech or more speech? Censored speech or free speech?

As Turley concludes: “The release of these documents has produced a level of exposure rarely seen in Washington, where such matters usually are simply ‘handled.’ The political and media establishments generally are unstoppable forces — but they may have met their first immovable object in Musk.”

The immovable Musk has promised more transparency to come, and that’s great news for our constitutional republic. Let’s hope he has a good security force and an ample team of food testers.