Senate Majority Leader Nathan Hanlon, TX wrote:
In spirit, I support this resolution. Even were it not for President Roux-Johnson's increasingly erratic behavior, the fact of the matter is that recent additional leaks have indicated that-no matter who is responsible for the Haitian Papers-something sinister is afoot.
In practice, I have objections to this resolution on multiple levels: the way this resolution was rushed back into discussion and out of the House after breaking revelations came to light, for one. I have since met with my House colleagues listed in the register as having voted against it, hoping to determine their reasons. Overall, I heard two main reasons: the first is that they felt it was potentially inappropriate to step into this matter while it was still the subject of court action. The second, and by far the most overwhelming in the objections noted, was fears that our Republican colleagues were attempting to turn this into a witch hunt.
Now, Representative Hust, in his statements to the House, mentioned his previous hesitation to back this resolution in that chamber due to his own fears of a witch hunt. I do not think his fears were unfounded: while the reports issued by the Star indicate that this was a wide-reaching conspiracy, these new leaks indicate that not only is any anti-Haitian plot far narrower but I am led to believe, it possibly involved government officials in place prior to the election of Charles Stone.
Senator Clayton, you speak of bipartisanship, and maybe you believe that the House was not simply whipped into a frenzy and set to supporting the wide-ranging "fishing trip" investigation that Representative Carpenter has made it abundantly clear he and Representative Perez wanted, with no changes despite the changing nature of our collective knowledge in this terrible affair. Quite frankly, you're free to believe that if you want, though I find you mistaken-I think it clear that a witch-hunt mentality is exactly what is brewing, and I can only hope those of us can exercise the moderating function that it was created for, though the fact that some of my colleagues across the aisle seem intent on gaslighting the rest of us, and adamantly decrying that it does not go far enough when it was in fact drafted from the crassest of knee-jerk reactions.
But clearly a simple vote against this bill is not what is needed-only leaving people in the dark and fueling this troublingly reactionary mentality among my fellow Congressmen. No, what is needed is to make it clear that this resolution is not a blank check to drag anyone the least bit associated with the current president to be seized and dragged into the court of public opinion.
Therefore I propose the following amended resolution:
- Appointment of an independent and respected special prosecutor to investigate the leak, and whether the Haitian Papers are genuine.
- Immediate Arrangement for a tripartisan House Committee hearing investigating the legitimacy of the Justice Department filing for an injunction on the Kansas City Star, and where this order came from.
- Immediate arrangement for a tripartisan House Committee to hear expert testimony on the authenticity of reports by the Denver Post.
It is clear that of utmost importance is actually determining the authenticity of the claims being thrown about, and of the facts that are known, what action is available to this Congress in response. Apart from the call for a nebulously defined "government" and "administration" to make statements, given the President and multiple administration officials have
already made statements on the subject that was called for by Representative Perez when submitting this resolution, there is really no statement of just what he or this resolution's backers think would be gained from this. If he expects all of this individuals to suddenly have a new story, it is doubtful that this will occur. If he hopes to see the President or someone else perjure themselves under oath, then calling for a "clarification" is unlikely to get him that. This should not be taken as a suggestion by my colleagues to miss the point of warning against witch hunts and propose dragging the president or a whole slew of administration officials, or passing acquaintances of Mr. Roux-Johnson into testimony.
In summation, we do indeed have a duty to the American people to find the truth, ladies and gentlemen. We also happen to owe it to them to find that truth in a calm and measured way, without falling into hysterics. We owe it to them not to engage in rational debate rather than emotional manipulation and deception. We owe it to them not to declare their representatives excommunicate from further discussion for daring to act according to the information currently available to them at the time, rather than allowing them to come to modified conclusions based on new information. Most of all we owe it to them to at least
try not to go into investigations without preconceived notions, which is the absolute antithesis of the justice our Founders guaranteed to all Americans.
So I encourage my fellow Senators to act with calm reservation and move towards the goal of finding truth, not confirming suspicion, and to consider this amended proposal.