They say if you want to know the truth, you need to “follow the money.” Well, the results don’t look particularly kindly upon Democratic Rep. Jerry Nadler.

The Daily Caller reported that during a congressional hearing with Google CEO Sundar Pichai, Nadler was quick to defend Google and took direct aim at his Republican colleagues and conservatives in general.

“Before we delve into these questions, I must first dispense with a completely illegitimate issue, which is the fantasy dreamed up by some conservatives that Google and other online platforms have an anti-conservative bias. As I have said repeatedly, no credible evidence supports this right-wing conspiracy theory,” Nadler said.

“I have little doubt that my Republican colleagues will spend much of their time presenting a laundry list of anecdotes and out-of-context statements made by Google employees as supposed evidence of anti-conservative bias. None of that will make it true.”

TRENDING: Pelosi Reveals Legislation Aimed at Limiting Trump's Presidential Powers

In an era of Democrats crowing about transparency in the government, there was a decided lack of it coming from Nadler. He neglected to mention that the company he defended is also his top donor.

OpenSecrets.org published a list of his donors, showing that his top donor, Alphabet Inc., contributed a total of $26,458 to Nadler’s campaign. Alphabet Inc. became Google’s parent company after it restructured in August 2015, Business Insider reported.

Do you think Rep. Nadler should have disclosed that Google's parent company was his largest donor? Yes No Completing this poll entitles you to The Western Journal news updates free of charge. You may opt out at anytime. You also agree to our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use You're logged in to Facebook. Click here to log out. 100% (136 Votes) 0% (0 Votes)

While the former Google CEO became the CEO of Alphabet Inc., Pichai took over as official CEO of Google. This is how the contributions from Alphabet Inc. tie in with Google, and why Nadler should have made a disclosure or recused himself from the proceedings.

But that isn’t the only place where Nadler went wrong in the hearings. Former Under Secretary of Homeland Security Michael Brown made a stunning point on Twitter.

.@RepJerryNadler just accused conservatives of conspiracy theories of @Google bias against consevatives, then breathelessly hoped Google could help stop other speech, such as hate speech. #cognitivedissonance #dumbassery Congressional hearings are #kabukitheater #googlehearing — Michael Brown (@MichaelBrownUSA) December 11, 2018

If the congressional hearing was supposed to be about the application of facts, truth and justice, the bias from Nadler was so blatant as to prohibit anything of the sort coming from him.

It’s not a “conspiracy theory” that his biggest single donor is the parent company of the company he so vigorously defended or that he said he wanted the company to engage in censorship of speech.

So if they already are doing exactly what he said he wanted them to do, would he hold them accountable for it? If they or their parent company are funding his campaign, is he going to bite the hand that feeds him?

RELATED: Trump Gains 4-Point Lead Over Biden with FL Likely Voters in Latest ABC/WaPo Poll

Further, if it was suspected that Democrats were being targeted by Google and other social media outlets, would he make the same claim of it being well within their rights because they are a private company? Or would he be outraged and call for regulation or sanctions?

“Even if Google were deliberately discriminating against conservative viewpoints, just as Fox News and Sinclair Broadcasting, conservative radio hosts like Rush Limbaugh, discriminate against liberal points of view, that would be its rights as a private company to do so, not to be questioned by government,” Nadler said during the hearing.

Google allegedly silencing conservatives is not the same thing as Rush Limbaugh speaking out against leftists or debating with liberal callers. It is also not the same thing as Fox News and Sinclair Broadcasting hiring and giving voice to leftists, even radical ones. It is not the same thing as those on the left being allowed to speak freely. In fact, it is the opposite.

Nadler’s bias was clear, as was his decision to protect his benefactor, even if his benefactor is behaving in a dishonest way.

We are committed to truth and accuracy in all of our journalism. Read our editorial standards.