‘People Need to Go to Jail’: GOP Lawmaker Discusses What Will Happen if Party Wins Back Congress

Share the Story :

A prominent Florida Republican spoke candidly about cleaning up corruption in Washington, D.C., if the party wins back control of the House and Senate during the November midterms, as looks increasingly likely.

In an interview with Breitbart, Rep. Kat Cammack said she wants to see lawmakers address critical issues including election integrity, the coronavirus, and “all of the issues we’ve had in years past that have gone unresolved, like Benghazi.”

“When we take the House back in the 118th, first and foremost, we are going to be focused on accountability, people need to go to jail,” she declared.

“I’m talking about the Hillary Clintons of the world, I’m talking about the Eric Holders, I’m talking about all these people who have continued to cause strife and division, break the law, subvert the Rule of Law, and they have never been held accountable,” the congresswoman added.

Clinton was accused by Republicans of criminal mishandling of classified emails, but the Obama Justice Department refused to charge her.

Then-Attorney General Eric Holder was held in contempt of Congress for refusing to turn over documents related to the botched “Fast and Furious” gun-running operation into Mexico that led to the death of a U.S. Border Patrol agent, who was killed by one of the trafficked weapons.

“We’re going to go after the origins of COVID-19, we’re going to be looking at how we can earn the trust of the American people back,” she told the outlet. “Because for so long, there has been two standards: one for thee, and then rules for the other people that don’t have power, that aren’t well-connected.”

“With Afghanistan now, that’s going to be another one,” Cammack added.

She also noted that the plan is for Republicans to have an agenda that “that every single Republican will be running on, campaigning on, and committing to putting that agenda forward.”

“And once we take the House, we roll hard on executing that plan, because the American people they deserve accountability, and they deserve action,” Cammack told Breitbart. “And those are the two things that we’re going to be giving when we take over the House.”

As for Clinton, her problems may just be starting again.

Special Counsel John Durham’s investigation has informed a federal court that former members of  Clinton’s 2016 presidential campaign are under scrutiny for their possible roles in spreading Trump-Russia collusion allegations.

“Durham’s team requested that a judge ‘inquire into a potential conflict of interest’ connected to the lawyers for British ex-spy Christopher Steele’s main anti-Trump dossier source, Igor Danchenko, pointing out that a separate lawyer at their firm ‘is currently representing the 2016 ‘Hillary for America’ presidential campaign, as well as multiple former employees of that campaign, in matters before the special counsel,’” Newsmax reported.

“Danchenko was charged with five counts of making false statements to the FBI. Durham’s indictment said Danchenko, a U.S.-based and Russian-born researcher, made these statements about the information he provided to Steele for his dossier, which the FBI relied upon when seeking authority for the secret surveillance of a former Trump campaign aide but which now has been discredited,” the report continued.

KNOW MORE: House Intelligence Member Devin Nunes Provides Stunning Update on ‘Russian Collusion’ Narrative’s Real Origins During the 2016 Campaign: ‘It Was The Clinton People’

“The attorneys who took over as Danchenko’s lawyers this month told Judge Anthony Trenga of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia that Durham’s team was raising questions about Robert Trout, who is of counsel at their firm and previously represented Clinton campaign members, but insisted there is no conflict of interest,” the report continued.

There are 5 topics that may become relevant to Danchenko’s defense, according to Durham’s team:

1. “The Clinton campaign’s knowledge or lack of knowledge concerning the veracity of information” in the Steele dossier;

2. “The Clinton campaign’s awareness or lack of awareness” of Danchenko’s “collection methods” for the dossier;

3. “Meetings or communications” between the Clinton campaign and Steele about Danchenko;

4. “The defendant’s knowledge or lack of knowledge regarding the Clinton campaign’s role in” the dossier;

5. “The extent to which the Clinton campaign and/or its representatives directed, solicited, or controlled” Danchenko’s actions.

Durham noted that: “On each of these issues, the interests of the Clinton Campaign and the defendant might diverge. For example, the Clinton Campaign and the defendant each might have an incentive to shift blame and/or responsibility to the other party for any allegedly false information that was contained within the Company Reports and/or provided to the FBI.”


Share the Story :

Add Comment