Terrible questions by this reporter (because she amplifies, uncritically, wild lies by the Trump regime without stating that THEY ARE LIES – why do that if you’re actually a journalist and not a propagandist???), but great answers by Rep. Suhas Subramanyam (D-VA10):
- “…part of the law that we passed and that the President signed into law states that they need to explain the redactions to us and they have not done that. They missed that deadline as well. So they haven’t been doing that. They told us last March that they had all the files ready to release that they were on Pam Bondi’s desk, the Attorney General, and they told us many times after that that they had the files that they’re ready to go….It seems like their story has been changing many times over the past year and a half…so here we are again, another new story by the DoJ. It’d be very easy. In fact, you know, really I’m just looking for 4 or 5 things, which is the witness interviews that the FBI conducted, the 60-page, 60-count indictment and the 80-page memo explaining those indictments, the one that was put on hold when they gave Epstein the sweetheart deal. I mean, I can narrow it down for them if they really want, if they really cared about transparency in this entire saga.”
- “Let’s be clear [Bill and Hillary Clinton are] being treated differently because they’re Democrats. They’re high profile Democrats and political opponents of President Trump. So that’s why we’re talking about contempt here. I do want them. I supported the subpoena to have them come to our committee, because I don’t want this to be partisan at all. But we have not held anyone else in contempt. And so to single them out and hold them in contempt when they’ve actually been quite co-operative in the sense that they gave sworn declarations of everything they know they’ve done other things they’re willing to talk to our committee under the right circumstances. I think we should be negotiating with them more to see how they would like to come in and how we can get them to testify. Given that President Clinton is a former President of the United States and Canada and just like President Trump assert an immunity, executive immunity. And so I think it’s an interesting special case, but we haven’t held anyone else in contempt. All the other people who have not co-operated, who have at times lied to us. And so we should be consistent, whether it’s Democrat or Republican.”
- “You know, this is the perception that the administration wants to put out there [that protesters in Minnesota are ‘paid agitators’]. I remember when we were having town halls last year, they told us that those were paid agitators. And so we started asking people to raise their hands if they were paid. We started trying to look into that. That was not true either. And so this is a common line that this administration puts forward. The reality is people are upset and they’re scared. They’re scared because now we’re seeing American citizens shot, right. We’re seeing people who are peacefully protesting, getting, brutalised. And I think the American people deserve to be safe in their communities. And so they don’t want to see this new police force going around harassing them and shooting them. And so that’s why they’re upset. And this is not the only incident that Kristi Noem has done to deserve resigning or being impeached. I mean, you know, again, all the corruption that, you know, she’s undertaken in her administration has been in and of itself worthy of, you know, leaving office or being impeached. So but certainly this is, I think, the straw that broke the camel’s back.”
********************************************************
