WEAPONIZATION OF GOVERNMENT HEARING-3/30/23-STACEY PLASKETT REPEATS DEMOCRATS BIG LIE

TRANSCRIPTION
Democrats are refusing to condemn something that we have no actual facts about the cases beyond our, uh, factual rec understanding at this time and what Republican, uh, other than what Republicans have told us today, thanks to a long and exhaustive examination by the January 6th committee. However, we do know for a fact that the Jan, January 6th was spurred by President Trump who used disinformation and violent rhetoric to egg on extremists and conspiracy theorists and Senator Schmidt and Mr.
Landry. The two witnesses who were dismissed before their extreme and false claims could be tested under cross-examination, played an active role in that. They were a key part of the Republican Attorney General's Association, which sponsored a robocall, urging people to come to the capitol on January 6th. That's what they were here for in their role as Attorney Generals. During that time, my colleagues, Ms. Wasserman Schultz attempted to play that call earlier, but technical difficulties prevented her from doing so. So I have asked that we can play that now so that everyone can see and hear exactly what Mr.
Landry and Senator Schmidt did and the violence and chaos that resulted
Morning from the Rural Law Defense Fund with an important message. The March Bay America's tomorrow in Washington DC at the Ellipse and President's Park between E Street and Constitution Avenue on the south side of the White House with doors opening at 7:00 AM at 1:00 PM we will march in a Capitol building and Colin Congers to stop the steal. We are hoping Patriots like you will join us to continue to fight to protect the integrity of our elections. For more information is March to build america.com with calls paid board and authorized by the rule of law defense line 2 2 7 9 6 5 8 3 8.
We just witnessed what was just given to us right now was real evidence facts. We just witnessed our very real crimes and violence that erupted because of what these witnesses actions did. If they had been here, I'd ask them about that. I wanna know also, and I'll yield time to see if any of my colleagues would like to condemn the violence of January 6th. Not just the violence of all things that are happening in America, but the violence on January 6th.
Yes. Did the general lady yield,
Are you gonna condemn it as a yes or no? Yes. Okay. Thank you. Same here. Same here. We all have on record many. No. You not all have not. And we know that. Oh, but he reclaiming my time. So, Mr. Landry's appearance before the committee today gave him free publicity. We know that he's running for governor and the chairman's decision to dismiss him in his role as Attorney General before questions means he can't be held accountable for the efforts to overturn the 2020 election. Another, no, I will not, not at this time. Okay, thanks.
But one of the things I would ask him about is other things that he was involved in with Donald Trump. As you can see on the screen, this is testimony given deposition of general, uh, the Attorney General Barr and it states. How about discussions General Barr, about the possible appointment of special counsel to invest the allegations of election fraud.
Do you recall any of that answer? Yes. I remember there was some discussions about special counsel, and I forgot how this came out, came up, but I didn't feel there was any predicate or basis for naming a special counsel, and I was opposed to it. And I think there was a proposal made. I remember a proposal being made to take a State Attorney general being appointed, and I wanted to find out, you know, I thought there might be a way to addressing that without just saying no. And it turned out state law precluded it. Question? Yeah. Was that Louisiana? Do you recall? Answer, I think it was Louisiana.
I think it was Jeff Landry maybe. Mr. Landry was President Trump's choice to be the special counsel to investigate allegations of election fraud. Mr. Sour and I, I apologize for not having pronounced your name properly before. Um, yes or no. Do you believe that the fraud impacted the outcome of the 2020 election? I'm sorry, you have to hit the,
I'm sorry. I have no opinion on that. That is totally aside from the evidence that we brought forth
The committee today. So you, at this time, you don't, you, um, you, that's no opinion. Do you don't have an opinion on whether there was fraud or
Not? I've never studied the evidence that you report, which were to I've never seen the deposition transcript. You
Just put, I didn't ask about the deposition transcript. I asked you if you believed that there was election fraud in 2020.
I don't have an opinion on that to express
The committee today. Mr. Selman, same question. Did fraud impact the outcome of the 2020 election?
No. Without question,
Was there any evidence of fraud?
There was no evidence of fraud in any amount that was remotely close to what would it would've taken to affect the outcome of the
Election. So how did so many people come to believe that such fraud existed?
Because they were told that by people who should have known better.