Democrats And Republicans Hold Hearing On Paul Gosar Following 'Awful' Tweet About AOC, Biden

green i said then and we quote serving on a committee isn't a right it's a privilege and when somebody encourages violence against a member they should lose that privilege end quote that's a standard that shouldn't be radical sadly another member congressman gosar has done something that is truly beyond the pale and causes us to act once again on his official government account congressman gosar posted a video depicting himself stabbing a colleague congresswoman ocasio-cortez i heard a lot of things from congressman gosar since the video was posted but one thing i haven't heard was i'm sorry and i did something that truly was wrong and awful and reprehensible is there no decorum around here anymore is there no decency congressman gosar and congresswoman ocasio-cortez serve on the oversight committee together and the thought of having to look across the diocese and work so closely with somebody who depicted your death is unconscionable to me i have to tell you i've you know i've been once again disappointed by the public silence and inaction of the minority leader a stern private phone call here is not going to cut it threats against members of congress are on the rise we cannot sit back and accept actions like this as if they're the new normal and that's why we're considering this measure today which takes steps that i think are totally appropriate and that includes censure maybe now maybe the minority leader and others find political advantage in defending um what mr gosar has done or his behavior maybe this strategy is to win at all costs i sure as hell hope not i hope all sense of decorum and decency is not lost and i hope that we can still agree that actions like this should have severe consequences let me just close with one other thing that i think a lot of members don't know you know congresswoman ocasio-cortez has to pay for her own security and and the threats that she gets the threats that she gets come as a result of behavior like we have seen with mr gosar and at some point it just has to stop and so um in any event i will now turn to the ranking member for any comments he wishes to make thank you very much mr chairman and as i'm sure is the case with you i don't particularly enjoy being here tonight tonight's hearing on very short notice is on a resolution censoring representative paul gosar and removing him from a seat on the oversight and reform committee for a video posted on his official twitter account last week before i continue i do think it's helpful for the committee to summarize the sequence of events last week representative gosar posted a video that was certainly provocative after the video was posted leader mccarthy reached out to representative gosar to discuss the issue then the video was taken down and mr gosar released a public statement making it clear that the video was intended to be symbolic and that he in no way meant to suggest or espouse violence or harm towards anyone earlier today representative gozar appeared at the republican conference meeting and explained the video in question he also reiterated that he does not condone violence does not endorse violence and did not intend his video to be viewed as an endorsement of violence as far as i'm concerned i think that should have been the end of the matter i also think that chronolog the chronology of events has been lost in the rush to meet today and the rush to condemn congressman gosar though his initial action may have been inappropriate he immediately took action to rectify his lapse of judgment and to make amends but instead of accepting that and moving on the majority is instead rushing ahead to force a vote on censoring representative gosar and then removing him from the oversight and reform committee this is in a clear contrast to institutional precedent i would remind the majority that historically the majority and the minority have respected the right of each of their conferences to assign their members to committees excuse me the decision about whether to seat a member on a committee or to remove a member from his or her seat on a committee traditionally rests with the respective conferences earlier this year the majority went against that tradition for the first time when they voted to remove a republican member of congress from her committee assignments today they're proceeding to do so again mr chairman this continues to set an extremely dangerous precedent for the future of this institution in future years this precedent may be used to give the majority veto power over the minorities committee assignments that's a dangerous dark road for the institution to go down but to make matters worse this is a road that the majority has not chosen for itself there have been plenty of instances of members on the majority side using intemperate language or taking controversial and provocative actions if the majorities never acted to remove its own members from their committee assignments i could give you a list as long as my arm of such members none of whom have been disciplined by the majority that's deeply frustrating but what's also deeply frustrating about today's hearing is that if action is necessary there are two much better options of dealing with representative gosar's action than what the majority is proposing today first the majority can and should do what it should have done earlier in this congress and leave this matter up to leader mccarthy and the republican conference indeed this was a topic of discussion at today's republican conference meeting second the house also has the option of referring representative gosar to the ethics committee this is also an appropriate course of action it would give the bipartisan ethics committee the time to review the matter allow representative gozar to present his evidence and arguments and give the committee the chance to make appropriate recommendations but instead the majority is once again rushing forward with a resolution to strip a republican member of a committee assignment without giving either the republican conference or the ethics committee the two appropriate venues a chance to resolve the matter make no mistake mr chairman though representative gozar's action should be questioned the actions of the majority are going to make this problem worse if the majority insists on continuing down this road one day which i think will come sooner than my friends would like the majority is going to change over and when that happens there will be a strong precedent set giving the majority veto power over the minorities committee assignments i do not welcome that but i can clearly see what the results of today's actions could be this is a dark and dangerous road the majority is going down mr chairman there's still time to pull back and reconsider i urge you for the future of the chamber to rethink this course with that mr chair i yield back well thank you and let me let just say let's not lose sight of what exactly uh is in the video um gosar swings two swords at a foe whose face has been replaced by that of biden in another scene um ocasio-cortez's face is edited over one of the faces gosar flies into the air and slashes her in the back of the neck killing her now if an average citizen tweeted this they might get a visit from the severe is from the surveyors of the severest kind from the fbi uh and i should also uh point out that um uh mr gosar's staff actually defended the video on on monday night uh telling us all to relax um so i mean um well whatever i'm happy to uh to welcome our witnesses today um chairman deutsch ranking member wolowski and representative escobar we are grateful that you are here i now recognize the gentleman from florida chairman deutsch thank you chairman mcgovern ranking member cole representative esquire ranking member wolarsky distinguished members of the committee i am saddened to be testifying before the rules committee for a second time this congress once again it is the refusal to apologize the refusal to show basic human decency and the refusal to uphold the reputation of the house that brings us together this evening once again republican leadership has refused to hold one of its members accountable for abhorrent statements and incitement to violence and so house resolution 789 is an unfortunate but necessary measure house resolution 789 which was referred to the committee on ethics seeks to censure representative gosar of arizona and remove him from his positions on two committees and i thank representative speer for leadership on this important resolution this resolution and representative gosar's video must be considered within the context of our current political climate not 10 months ago we all personally lived through and bore witness to the deadliest act of violence ever perpetrated against the united states capital some of our colleagues were trapped in the upper gallery of the house while an angry mob wielding weapons tried to beat down the chamber doors to disrupt certification of president obama's electoral college victory as that angry mob breached the capital those in the crowd chanted threats to hang vice president pence since january 6 congress has faced further threats of bombs and specific attacks several individuals have been arrested for carrying out such threats according to acting police chief pittman capitol police chief pittman death threats against members of congress doubled in the first two months of 2021 compared to the previous year in response many of our colleagues have had to upgrade their personal security to better protect themselves and their families the threat of actual violence against members of congress is real and it is growing now more than ever many of us fear for our physical safety which is why representative gosar's video in his subsequent public statements trivializing his conduct are so deeply concerning in the video posted from representative gosar's official twitter account on november 7th an animated figure bearing his image stabs and appears to kill a larger character on which representative ocasio-cortez's face is superimposed later in the video the animated figure with gosar's face lunges at at president biden with two swords drawn ready to slash and the video also includes images beneath the frame of spattered blood these are depictions of violence against elected public officials posted by another elected official the urgency here is that representative gosar has suggested the murder of a colleague who serves on a committee on which he himself serves the house cannot normalize this abhorrent behavior depictions of violence against elected officials can encourage others to inflict actual violence which further jeopardizes the safety of our colleagues and any member who uses his public platform to suggest physical violence in any form against a colleague and against the president of the united states reflects extreme discredit on this body conduct violates the most basic standards of collegiality civil discourse and public decency house resolution 789 was referred to the ethics committee but the ethics committee cannot remove a member from a committee nor can the committee censure a member the committee can recommend these sanctions and only after an investigative subcommittee has been impaneled to make such a recommendation to the full committee the ultimate power to censure a member of congress and remove him from committees rests with the house there are no open factual questions here there are no questions of intent the video is clear on its face it is clear from the content of the horrible video and from representative gosar's public comments minimizing it that his censure and removal from the natural resources and oversight and government reform committees is appropriate if clause one of the code of conduct is to have any meaning and if we are to take seriously our responsibility to uphold the reputation of the house representative gosar must be held accountable for his conduct and that's why i support house resolution 789 thank you mr chairman thank you very much ranking member wolowski thank you mr chairman the little light's on thank you miss thank you mr chairman here we are again to my surprise i find myself appearing before this rules committee for a second time this congress without prior ethics committee action i'm not here to defend any comments or actions made by representative gosar or his staff i condemn all acts of violence in fact as a member of congress i have been a victim of violence myself i'm here as the ranking member of the house ethics committee which has not had time to discuss or meet on this issue yet the majority decided a couple of hours ago to bring a resolution to the floor tomorrow to censure representative gosarin to remove him from a committee he now serves either the committee should be given adequate time to address this or the majority should bring this matter to the floor is a privileged question for a swift vote i yield back mr chairman thank you congresswoman escobar thank you mr chairman and thanks to the members of the committee um you know i i can't believe that we are here talking about this and it is a very sad state of affairs not just for the congress but for our country that we work in an environment where there is an unwillingness to protect the people who serve in that environment you know i was in the gallery on january 6th with some of the members of this committee as the terrorists tried to break in and thankfully we were able to escape before they made their way in and i really shudder to think of what would have happened had we still been in there when they uh made their way in that was not my my first experience with uh the power of words and the power of imagery when when uh fueling violence i i my community of el paso texas on august 3rd lived through a terrorist attack that was fueled by a lot of hate and by xenophobia and both of those things are in this video that mr gosar and his team put up for public consumption using public resources in order to i don't know i don't know if it was to create harm if it was to incite violence if it was to fuel hate but it probably accomplished all of those things we have an obligation to live up to the highest standards possible but also to hold each other up to those standards if we don't do it then we what we are doing is allowing for a new norm to be created and i don't know about you but allowing this to become the norm on our watch it would be one of the worst things that could happen i think for any of us as public servants to look back and to say that we stood silent while violence was being inspired using public resources a public servant and that fellow public servants looked the other way we absolutely cannot look the other way i support this resolution i think it's very important that we all stand firm and set a standard for one another this isn't just about representative ocasio-cortez although i do think it says something very um frightening and jarring that women of color in congress frequently are targeted but this should be about setting a standard where we demand that we are protected and that we will stand not for a new norm but that we will stand for one another so that we can work together in a place called the people's house thank you mr chairman thank you very much um i just you know i don't really have any questions i just want to say look when i when i saw that video um posted in the aftermath of what we all went through on january 6 i mean my reactions was what the hell is wrong with this guy how do you in what world is that an acceptable thing to do and you know and in the case of marjory taylor green we said like if you threaten the life of another member of congress if you threaten kind of direct violence that might cost somebody their life then you know what you don't deserve to be on a committee you don't have that privilege to be on a committee i i mean that's that's a really low bar i mean that's not radical um and at least it shouldn't be a radical idea and you know and it and it's it's interesting that we have a lot of members a number of members on your side of the aisle who are um advocating removing republicans from committees for just voting for a bipartisan infrastructure bill um and um what we're saying here is um you know that someone should not have the privilege of being on a committee um if they essentially threaten somebody else's life and um and i you know i mean i i i'm really sad that we're even at this point but at some point people have to say enough is enough and in any event i appreciate all of you being here today um and i'm happy to yield to the ranking member thank you very much i don't have a lot of questions mr chairman uh i would do have one to uh my friend from indiana did the ethics committee ever meet to discuss this issue ever called in to account for his actions so with no trial with no investigation with no opportunity for mr gosar to make his remarks which he has made remarks in front of the republican conference he has released public statements were any of those examined not that i'm aware of you're back thank you mr torres i i'm just not shocked at what um i'm hearing you know from my colleagues on the other side of the aisle you know when i first got to congress i served in a committee where the chairman constantly referred to me as a man it was always mr taurus um nobody stood up for me and said have some respect and it wasn't until yeah i finally got tired of having to say i'm mrs taurus that i approached him coming out of an elevator and said you know chairman [Music] respectfully i identify as a woman so unless you're going to um create a facility where i can use a transgender bathroom because you keep referring to me as a man please refer to me as mrs taurus from that day on he continued to refer to me as not congresswoman taurus not mrs torres but norma in this very committee i was going to ask questions it was my turn to ask questions of a witness that had come forward but the majority of the time that it was inappropriate for me to ask questions as a member of this committee of this specific witness and decided to take a break a recess and go over into that room all males republicans and try to figure out a way around shutting me down from being able to ask the question and it wasn't it wasn't until i angrily pointed to the crowd you see what the men do to women in this building i didn't realize that there were several constituents of that chairman sitting in the audience the group immediately came out and asked me invited me in ultimately it was decided that i could not proceed in a committee hearing a colleague was very upset about my comments and made this motion as if he was going to shoot me nobody stood up for me you know it's it's unfortunately that in in this generation women still have to defend themselves against these biases if they're not biases then what is it and how much time do republicans need in order to do something about a threat a violent threat against one of your colleagues so let me just ask you how much more time do you need to make a decision on what to do about your colleague how much time do you need well i would tell you as i've been a victim as well and i would say any member of congress that feels threatened should contact law enforcement immediately and i think what we're even talking about here today should be should have been an immediate referral of this tape if people feel threatened they file complaints they go to law enforcement and they immediately start investigations we don't even do that on the ethics committee so i'll ask you the question again since you were not able to respond to me maybe you didn't understand how much time do you need to bring forward a complaint against your colleague for the comments that he made the threats that he made how much time do you need well i would again say any member that feels threatened can immediately go law enforcement and should that is what we do in the house okay so do you not see that post that image those images as a threat of violence against one of your female colleagues i'll respond for the third time any member do you i'm asking if you personally you you are a member you are a female member you are my colleague who i respect i have been a victim before and i've gone to law enforcement and repeated it and reported it immediately this is our workplace is this behavior acceptable to you in the workplace if i ever felt threatened i'd go immediately to law enforcement and now and i have and that's exactly what the protocol has been i understand the protocol do you believe that this is a threat against one of your colleagues or not if i feel threatened okay i'd go directly to law enforcement so let me apologize to you because i know that this is very very difficult place for you to be in if i made you feel uncomfortable i apologize but this is a very uncomfortable place for us to be in as members of the rules committee and as a chairman of the ethics committee ultimately i think the republican party all of you need to think along very long and hard about what you stand for what do you stand for do you stand for violence against women or do you stand against it do you do you want to stand for violence against our democracy or do you stand against it do you stand for racism or do you stand against it unfortunately the silence is a horrible response i wish it was not the response that we deserve that this capital deserves that our democracy their constituents deserve we're meeting to censure an individual that is causing great harm to one of our colleagues a colleague that has been on the front lines of attacks by other employees federal employees like the cbp the border patrol agents when we visited el paso you remember that i'm sorry that we are where we are and i'm sorry that you cannot answer very simple questions whether you stand for violence against your colleagues or not i'm sorry that there are 13 republicans that were so courageous to vote on a bill to benefit their constituents are now having to lose their positions in their committees because that's been the priority for this republican group i understand and i'm sorry that we're not following the procedures set in this house of how to even handle this case to be notified of it right before i walked in this room and having a vote set up tomorrow that we haven't even discussed i'm sorry about that the procedure of these of this house is to have decency and common courtesy and a non-violent work environment not just for our employees but for our colleagues and i would say common courtesy hasn't even been extended to me as the ranking member and i am sorry for that i know that you're in a very difficult position i realized that and i'm sorry if my questions um to you made you uncomfortable and i yield back dr burgess thank you mr chairman um ranking member olarsky just let me ask as a practical matter normal procedure in the ethics committee you receive a complaint an investigative subcommittee is convened as i understand is that the normal procedure it can be if we have conversation and do some preliminary talking back and forth it can be there and there can be times that an isc is assigned but normally there's at least a conversation so that conversation did that take place in this case it did not um look i think there are members on both sides that sometimes have made uh some of their other colleagues uncomfortable with some of their actions and statements and certainly wasn't reflective or representative of the decorum of this institution we heard testimony tonight that we should hold each other to standards i feel obligated to point out that there was a democratic member of the house who was potentially compromised on the committee on intelligence due to his association with chinese national did the ethics committee ever publicly announce an investigation into this member no was there investigation that was not publicly announced no can't say we had another democratic member who made statements inciting violence against other house members and against members of the previous administration did the ethics committee ever publicly announce an investigation into this member no so now we're considering this legislation in front of us most of us haven't even had an hour to review it on another member's action without an ethics committee consideration so what is the threshold that might qualify for the ethics committee to publicly investigate similar matters and i'll ask that question via the chairman of the ranking member um ms burgess i that's actually an excellent question the house ethics committee can commence an investigation by forming an investigative subcommittee we can also commence an investigation of the chair and ranking member agreeing to commence an investigation ultimately the ethics committee is evenly divided between democrats and republicans uh as it should be as it should be and thus it requires uh at least one vote from uh from the other side in order to have a majority to move forward on an investigation when a vote launches that investigation but then again as a practical matter you do sometimes proceed right i've been here for a few years i can recall some of your efforts at the ethics committee that have actually landed on the house floor presumably that was not a unanimous i mean that was not a party-line vote when when that occurred um i if you could be specific i'm not sure what you're getting at mr burgess well the chairman of the ways and means committee got into some difficulty several years ago and was a subject of accenture by the uh by the ethics committee again presumably that at least one member of his party had to vote with the members of the majority at that time okay so it does happen i mean it's not impossible sure i think mr burgess it's worth pointing out again as as the chairman did earlier that i think the reason the reason that we're here is there there are no factual questions here there's a video i know there's some reference to the fact that that this is a new resolution the video itself has been out there for several weeks as i recall it it's a video no that's not the case i i don't believe so but um several days the dates a week when was the video let's just be clear for the record when was when did representatives november 4th tweet this on his official account what was the date i think this is november 4th is what i've been doing november 4th so it's it i think strains credibility to suggest that this is somehow new for any member of this committee that that the decision to look at a tweet by member of congress on his official account that depicts violence against a fellow member is somehow being discussed for the first time when i dare say respectfully mr burgess that this is all that most of us have been discussing since mr gosar tweeted this on his official twitter account at a time that we are just months away from the attacks on our capital well i'll just say in my own in my own case i did not hear about this until i'd returned i was involved with veterans activities all last week i don't can't say that i had heard or devoted any thought or i didn't even see the cartoon until today i presume you've watched it mr deutsch have you watched the video yeah ranking member larsky i mean subtle is the word that i would have wouldn't you know it doesn't apply this case but it wasn't it wasn't overt when i saw it the first time i had to look at it several times before i got the same impression that everyone's been talking about it's almost as if we've elevated this and now made it more of a problem than it ever was and i wonder why we do that sometimes well it does concern me that the rules committee is now becoming the committee of political expediency when we want to remove a member from their committee assignments and i do agree with the ranking member of the rules committee that there is the possibility that there will be a different structure in the house of representatives in the next congress and i don't want to see this type of activity continue i don't think it's right when you do it it won't be right if we do it and it's uh i think we all have an obligation to treat each other with respect but at the same time i don't think it shows great respect for the rules committee to be for us to be having this discussion tonight and i yield back i understand ms escobar [Music] would like to leave does anyone have any questions where do you want her to stay or thank you for being here you you can i i want to make you an experience i'm happy to stay if there will be questions yeah i think you can you can you should go when you well you can um yeah um thank you thank you mr chairman uh mr promoter thanks mr chair you know i'm so angry about this um particularly because i had a good friend who was shot in arizona uh thankfully she survived but some other people died and you know she was doing her official duties uh meeting constituents and i'm just angry with mr gosar who is a member from the state of arizona obviously he knows this situation very well i'm a co-sponsor of the motion discenture i will say mr deutsch that i do have some reservations about the immediate stripping of committee assignments i think it's probably appropriate um i think what i mean the employee in the office if for our office would have been fired on the spot for having done something like that um but i i want to hear the rest of the questioning and and just appreciate the bringing this forth because it cannot be accepted censure is the obvious uh punishment here expulsion requires two-thirds of us mr gosar in my opinion knows better and i'm gonna yield back to the chair but i may have some more questions after listening to the entire panel mr reshenthaler thank you mr chairman i appreciate it um and of course i associate my remarks with the ranking member uh chairman uh deutsche i just wanted to follow up on some questions that dr burgess was asking you and just to get some clarification uh you seem to indicate that you had hesitancy bringing this before ethics because you weren't sure what the results would be in the ethics committee and again i just want to get clarification no it's never it's never a considerate that's never a consideration the committee ultimately makes decisions um we vote like every other committee so yeah and i'm this is not a gotcha question i'm really trying to understand here because but when um dr burgess was saying that they're busy saying why didn't this go to ethics first my takeaway was there was uncertainty with how the procedure and the vote would turn out in ethics that was my takeaway but do you want to clarify um sure i will clarify um mr russian follower the moment that we heard that this was that there was likely to be a rules committee hearing on this i actually asked for an emergency meeting of the ethics committee so that we would have the opportunity to discuss it as i said in my comments there aren't factual questions here um the ethics committee ultimately can make recommendations and as the chairman laid out there are there are a good many reasons why moving forward with this resolution at this time is uh is the appropriate thing to do but i i do want to be clear i want to like to push back against the suggestion that the ethics committee has chosen um to to try to avoid this i actually had asked that we could have an emergency meeting so that we could take this up in advance of uh even the rules committee hearing yeah and chairman again that was this is not a gotcha uh question i just wanted to i just want you to clarify i have a lot i don't worry about this yeah it sounds good trying to get me or not i know look i got a lot of respect for you we were on two committees together we had legislation together uh you know i i just want you to know this is coming from a good place uh ranking member warlorski do you want to yeah i just want to interject that there was literally no time the chairs council contacted our council as we found out we had to appear here tonight so there was no time for an emergency meeting there was no time for anything when we found out we had to be here at 5 45. so i've just got some concerns because it seems like when we're not going through the ethics committee where the setting should be going through we don't have the due process we don't have uh well representative gosar clearly doesn't have the right to be heard he doesn't have the right to put on a defense before the committee that's unsettling to me i guess it's maybe a lot of background i just the due process the lack of due process here just does not sit well with me uh and i'm also worried about the larger precedent within within this body as ranking member cole was suggesting there could very well be a shift uh and we have a precedent now where the majority can dictate which members of the minority party can sit on that's a that's a dangerous precedent um but if the door is open it's frankly already been open with some of my other colleagues uh you know it's a present that's been said and you just want to note that uh ranking member willowski i just want to focus on chairman maxine waters in 2018 she said and i quote if you see anybody from that cabinet referring to the trump cabinet in a restaurant in an apartment store at a gasoline station you get out and you create a crowd and you push back on them and you tell them they're not welcome anymore anywhere end quote did ethics committee conduct uh investigation into those remarks uh no okay what about a 2017 gala when the chairwoman said i would go and take trump out tonight did the ethics committee do a public investigation of that no what about during the shaving trial when the chairwoman said we've got to stay on the street we've got to get more active we got to get more confrontational we've got to make sure that they know that we mean business um by the way those remarks were condemned by the judge the trial judge in that also said it could even be grounds for an appeal uh but did the ethics committee conduct an investigation of those remarks no thank you ranking member that i yield back yeah thank you and i um let me just say again the the standard that uh i think we set by the previous action we took is that if you you know that if you i know how you want to characterize that behavior whether you know being rude is different than asking to be rude is different than threatening somebody's life um and um and i in in the case of the previous action we took in this committee and in the case of what we're doing here today i mean it is about threatening another member's life i mean i i don't i'm having a tough time understanding why you know why this is so difficult i mean the the this is so beyond the pale um he's a member of congress and he posted a video threatening the life of the president of the united states and a colleague of ours his office made the video i mean they made the video so you know i mean and and you know and if his behaviors was bad enough to go to law enforcement you know but yet it's somehow not bad enough for accenture or to deny him a committee assignment i i i i think we all have to i mean look i'm i'm i if i you know and i hope and i pray that my friends don't ever take you know the majority of this um institution but if the standard is going to be that if any member threatens the life of another member you know that this action will be taken i can live with that i'm fine with that in fact i i don't i don't understand why this is so controversial but in any event i think we just maybe have a different perspective on things um mr raskin thank you mister did you mr chairman yeah you can get this i'm sorry yeah for the record um we're talking about investigations and i'm saying no but by the very nature of ethics there's no public investigations was there an event mr jordan absolutely um absolutely were there any investing are you allowed to comment if there was an investigate you're not allowed really not so i would just say there was no public investigations let me just rephrase okay oh back mr raskin thank you mr chairman i want to thank both of our witnesses and i believe mr deutsch provides the essential context for understanding the shocking moment we've arrived at right now to me it brought to mind the broken windows hypothesis advanced by james q wilson and a few other scholars back in the 1980s and the broken windows theory provides that if visible and pervasive signs of criminal and civil disorder and delinquency go unchecked and unpunished they will only encourage greater criminal violence and greater civil disorder so the failure to act in the face of violence only invites proliferation of such anti-social acts on january 6th of this year a mob of hundreds of violent and inflamed and deranged insurrectionists literally broke our windows literally broke our windows and then stormed the capitol leading violent attacks on police officers they left more than 140 capital officers in metropolitan police department officers with broken necks broken vertebrae broken noses broken jaws broken ribs broken legs broken arms missing fingers traumatic brain injury post-traumatic stress syndrome now on january 13th the house of representatives impeached donald trump for inciting this violent insurrection against us and a month later on february 13th the u.s senate voted 57 to 43 on a bipartisan basis to hold donald trump guilty and accountable for the actions he had been impeached for by the house of representatives that fell 10 votes short of the two-thirds constitutional requirement but established a powerful bipartisan and bicameral statement that this violent insurrection had been incited by donald trump and his pattern of speech and conduct in the weeks and days leading up to the attack on the capitol and yet there's been a constant effort to deny these events to rehabilitate the riders and insurrectionists as people who came to hug and kiss the police officers there have been constant efforts to lie about what had happened and now we're beginning to see the fruit of that extraordinary self-delusion and the spread of that big lie last week representative paul gosar posted to twitter an animated video depicting him killing his colleague representative alexandria ocasio-cortez and violently swinging a sword at president joe biden we've seen also in the last several days members tweeting out the office phone numbers of 13 republican members of the house who voted for the bipartisan infrastructure bill remember saying that they were going to teach them a lesson they needed to learn a lesson they've been called traitors and it's been documented that there has been a dramatic increase in violent threats received by both democratic and republican members in this tense and hostile atmosphere that has grown up in the wake of january 6th representative fred upton of michigan said he received not only thousands of angry calls but multiple death threats after his infrastructure vote calling it a sad day for america and it is a sad day when members cannot even vote their conscience without having other members try to train the wrath of the public against them our constitution in our entire system of law rejects the incitement of imminent lawless action and violence is somehow protected it's not it's not protected do we have to wait for someone in our body do we have to wait for one of our colleagues to be wounded injured or killed in this atmosphere are we really left only with the suggestion that if a member threatens the life of another member that you should tell security about it is that really all the house of representatives can do in the year 2021 it's a terribly sad day for our institution and it implicates all of us in the shameful degradation of the values of this institution the decorum of this institution but i want to thank mr deutsch for bringing this matter to our attention and bringing it forward because it's a matter of the utmost seriousness as we try to protect the physical integrity and the safety and the security of members who've come here to represent their constituents i yield back to you mr chairman thank you mr fischbach chair um thank you very much i just have a really uh a quick question for um chairman deutsch um mr reshenthaler was asking about a number of disturbing statements that had been made by some of our democratic colleagues and and ranking member wilarsky indicated i guess that there was no publicly announced complaints or actions against them regarding those statements and i'm just wondering did the um did the democratic conference um take any action or do anything about those um those statements that had been made internally on on the ethics committee no the the democratic conference you know did they do anything internally regarding any of those statements um you know because some of them were disturbing i i'm i'm not i'm not sure which statements and oh some other ones that uh congressman rashenthaler was just reading and and um he read one um from maxine uh financial services committee chairwoman maxine waters stated at a 2018 rally in california if you see anybody from the cabinet in a restaurant in a department store at a gasoline station you get out and create a crowd and you push back on them and you tell them they're not welcome any anymore anywhere i mean was there anything that the democratic conference did to um to deal with some then there's others i could read the rest you you could you could read all of them um and you can certainly any any uh discussions of those at the time with leadership of the demo the democratic caucus i'm sure is uh on the record and i i would encourage you i would encourage you to go take a look at whatever was whatever comments might have been made in response to those questions that i'm sure were asked at the time but that what just to follow up on on mr raskin's point in the chairman's point i i'm not i understand the desire to to try to compare language look at other statements by other people the reason we're here is because one of our colleagues tweeted a video depicting the murder of one of our other colleagues and violence against the president of the united states and so on on this and the reason that we gather here today i the the question i the question that i ask in response is is is there ever a moment is there ever a moment ever ever in the in this institution now in january 50 years ago or 200 years from now in which this institution should simply sit back and allow a member to do something as egregious as threatening in a video um that depicts that depicts the murder of one of our colleagues um that something like that should be acceptable ever well then mr chairman potentially you could address when chairman waters and i believe that congressman reshunthala read this chair uh chairwoman waters also stated at a 2017 gala i will go and take trump out tonight did the did the democratic conference address this in any way and and i don't know if it would necessarily be public statements but internally was there anything if you're if you're you said that this should never happen but in 2017 one of your members did to be to be clear mrs fischbach what i'm what i was very clear about is what should never be acceptable is for a member of this body to put out a video an image or anything else that depicts the murder the violent murder of one of our colleagues i don't i i'm not sure what's i respectfully i'm not sure what's complicated about that mr chair i i guess you're you're distinguishing between a video and a in a serious statement um and i guess i so so what i am hearing is that the democrats did nothing the the conference did nothing about this statement and that it appears to be okay because it was a statement as opposed to a video all right mr fischbach again i'm you can go back i'm not sure exactly what the statement is i'm sure there were questions asked at the time you i would refer you back to those but ultimately at this moment we're sitting here seemingly looking for way looking for reasons looking for a rationale to excuse an action by one of our colleagues in tweeting a cartoon depicting the murder of another one of our colleagues that's that's what i'm hearing and that's what's so so utterly disconcerting to me all right and mr chair i mean i i'm with all due respect i guess i'm just very i'm this is and i understand i'm reading you a statement you're not necessarily but it was pretty well publicized in 2017 that she had said this as i recall and so i'm just trying to figure out where at what point we distinguish these things um so that we end so that i understand better well right mrs fischbach i would be i i would i i'm sure staff i'm sure the committee staff my staff your staff can go back and take a look at all of the statements made around whatever that statement is that that you refer to that's but again it just feels like and i it and this is th this is this is what's so hard for me and i think it's so hard for so many people who who watch what we do here um because it it feels like what we're trying to do is to is to look for ways to find acceptable posting on an official government account a video in which a member of congress slays murders violently another one of our colleagues and i don't understand that and it's it's incredibly troubling to me as i know it is to so many others there's no i just to follow up on mr russell i asked a question earlier there there's there's no there's no intent issue here there's no um there's there's not a question about whether the video was posted there's not a question about whether the video was posted on mr gosar's official account there's not a question about how he reacted when this issue was raised there's there's nothing for us to learn there's only a question of whether we're committed to ensuring that we take seriously our responsibility to do all that we can both to uphold the reputation of this house and um to act in defense of our colleagues and act on behalf of the safety of our colleagues well and mr chair i i really am trying to figure out because this is this was a statement that was made i'm trying to figure out if you take seriously the statements of both of of members from both parties and that if this statement was taken seriously and i and to the best of my knowledge it sounds like because i haven't gotten a direct answer that the the democratic conference did nothing um when when this statement was made they took no action regarding this statement right again mr fischbach you continue to refer to some to some statement and as i told you before it's a statement that i i'm i would be happy to to come back to you as our staff would with a detailed analysis of whatever happened at the time but what but where we are at this moment and and as we have these as we have this exchange is um is a an ongoing effort to to try to um accept rationalize push aside the publishing on an official twitter account of a member of congress a video depicting the murder of a colleague and and i appreciate that and i will just state that this was not i will go out and take trump out tonight was not a concern to the democrats and so they took no action to the best that i can determine that there was no action taken on that and i'll move on miss walarski um was chairwoman water centered on the house floor for ins for any of this for any of the statements that you make no all right well thank you very much i appreciate it and i just i do want to um before i yield just associate myself with the um with the statements of the um of our of the other republican members um and and just state that we are really setting a really bad precedent here and um i'm very disappointed that this is how the majority has decided to deal with this issue barely any notice um ranking member willarski indicated that she had just seen it when she got seen the resolution when she got here you know they're skipping the ethics committee process and this is and and that process is something that this body has set up and has used and should be respected and you know i'm just disappointed that the majority has decided to not provide one of our own members with the opportunity to due process to make his statement to to um you know express what he was whether it was what he was thinking but but have the ability to go through that ethics process that we have established this body has established and uh with the gentlewoman you i don't know where it's coming from oh no corner okay you know what i'll be done in a minute and then you'll have your opportunity so i'll just but you know i think that we've talked a little bit about decency and i think that um when we talk about decency in this body the decency would be to allow the the member to have the process through the ethics committee and have the opportunity to make their case and provide them with due process and with that mr chair i yield back yeah thank you and um i just want to say right so while while that exchange was going on i i i googled um the remarks that the gentleman was referring to um um i looked up politifact and cnn.com and and found out that what the the gentleman from california was referring to was impeachment not about inciting violence and i just want to say again for the record that if any of my colleagues on the democratic side um tweeted a video showing them killing a fellow member of this body i would be doing the same thing today and so we get this what about ism and we can try to uh i think i hate to say mischaracterize some comments made that uh by another one of my colleagues we can argue over whether the best choice of words uh but the record was um was made clear about what that was referring to but seriously we are talking about a colleague of ours producing a video making a video in his office depicting him killing another member of this body if that's okay then we just have a different sense of values and decorum and what is appropriate uh in order to maintain uh a a a high standard for this institution um ms scanlon thank you chairman so we're here to address the conduct of a member of congress in disseminating and celebrating a video that depicts him murdering another member of congress and attacking the president and this is in the context of the attack on the capital on january 6 which along with law enforcement and our national security experts have confirmed that the rise of extremism and irresponsible rhetoric have created a clear and present danger of political violence in our country our national leaders need to condemn such violence instead of condoning or encouraging it whether against school and election officials members of congress or other public servants instead our colleagues across the aisle are more consumed with condemning their own members for voting for legislation that would improve our infrastructure while tacitly encouraging grotesque conspiracy theories and extremist rhetoric think of what would happen in any other workplace if an employee were to threaten or glorify violence against a colleague there would be swift and unambiguous sanctions probably firing but that takes two-thirds of the body here but here we see elected officials emboldened by the lack of accountability engaging in ever more egregious conduct placing both the integrity of congress and the safety of its members at risk i'm also tempted to be a mom i wouldn't accept this conduct from a child it's completely unacceptable from a member of congress so we know from research that when political leaders denounce violence their partisans listen the contrast here is that there's no apology to those impacted and there's also no denunciation when as here the research shows partisanship pandemic conspiracy theories and social conditions have created conditions ripe for political violence politicians have the match to light the tinder mr gozar is using his matches he's one of those candidates who's been willing to use violent speech and engage with groups that spread hate and the video that he posted had at least three million views before it was taken down i'm grateful to those few colleagues from across the aisle who've had the integrity and guts to condemn representative gozer's actions but once again republican leadership lacks the courage to publicly denounce or punish such conduct so congress as a whole must act i yield back miss ross um thank you mr chairman i i just want to say that i'm deeply concerned by the fact that any member of congress would engage in official action depicting violence against another member of congress remember this was official action and we've heard that today this wasn't saying something out on the street which shouldn't happen anyway but this was using the resources of the taxpayers of this country to engage in this kind of communication and this kind of conduct is dangerous coming from individuals who have been given the privilege to serve in the public interest while strong disagreement is a natural part of the democratic process our discourse must be civil and non-violent as ms ganlin said if someone were to make a similar post using the money equipment of their employer in any other workplace in any other industry that person would immediately be disciplined or terminated and my republican colleagues would say that that employer had the right to do that we must ensure that members of congress are held accountable for words and actions that put the safety of others at risk particularly when those members lack contrition and are unrepentant this is an appropriate way to deal with the situation it is an appropriate way to deal with something that was wholly inappropriate thank you and i yield back hey listen to goose uh thank you mr chair i have some brief comments i want to make but first i want to yield 30 seconds to the gentlewoman from california i believe she wanted to um thank you so much i just want to inform my colleagues on the other side of the aisle that after the angry mob outside threatened to hang vice president pence i introduced a bill to extend his security his personal security after he left office not a single one republican not a single one of you agree to co-sponsor that so i yield back to my colleague thank you so a couple of comments that i'd like to make i support the resolution of censure and the removal of mr gosar's committee assignments there's no question the video that he and his staff posted is offensive disrespectful and dangerous we've heard a lot about due process and so i the reason why i asked miss fishbach if she might yield is because i thought an example in recent memory might be a little bit illuminating in this regard in january of 2019 it was a colleague of of yours of horrors on the side of the aisle from iowa who made comments regarding white supremacy some of you may recall this and mr mccarthy republican minority leader made a decision to remove his committee assignments literally within a week a week and a half of those comments being reported in the new york times i don't remember many of my colleagues on the democratic or republican side clamoring for a referral to the ethics committee before mr mccarthy's decision could be implemented and the ranking member you're free to correct me if i'm wrong in this regard or if i'm remembering this incorrectly if i'm not mistaken that member mr king actually filed a complaint against mr mccarthy with the ethics committee chairman deutsch maybe this was publicly reported i don't want to get into what you may be able to report that's private against mr mccarthy for supposedly not providing him with due process and i am left to believe that that complaint although i know you all have limitations as to what you can and cannot say but clearly was disposed of in uh in a way that did not validate that particular member's complaint so i think the question around due process this is the point that mr reshenthaler was making i'm having yield for him for a moment if he'd like to respond to that actually i'll go ahead i'm just gonna say i mean the difference there and i get the argument the difference there is that we use republican conference took our colleague off the committees oh it's i mean that that's the difference you are precisely right you're precisely right mr eschenthaler and this is my point this was number two on my notepad i have to i'm not as uh well-versed as mister as my good friend mr rushenthal from pennsylvania so i have to write some of these points down this is precisely my point to the extent that my colleagues are worried about a race to the bottom for this institution and the precedent that is set we are asking we are begging our colleagues from the other side of the aisle to enforce those norms because republican leadership in the past has taken the step of removing members from committees as has democratic leadership in the past in this instance i don't think there's a single one of you who would post a video like this some of you i know more than others but i have no doubt in my mind not a single member of this particular committee republican or democrat would post a video depicting the murder of another colleague period i don't believe it and mr gosar as mr perlmutter said knew better and if a member on our side of the aisle did that they'd be removed from their committees and to the extent that is some new standard that is now set to become the president of this house i am comfortable living by that precedent and i suspect that the majority of the house will be one of my favorite things to do as a member of congress is to take folks on tours of the capitol i didn't know the fir when i was elected to congress i'd never been to the capitol before i was elected to congress i came here for the first time during orientation was elected the same year as mr reshenthaler and i remember how excited i was when i got my first tour of the capital and to be able to take constituents late at night you know pre-coveted on a tour of the capitol and i can hear miss fishburger saying she might not have been you know with covid and everything so i look forward to perhaps maybe the rules committee can do a field trip and the chairman and the ranking member can take us on a joint tour but my favorite part of the tour is the old senate chambers and showing constituents that room and informing them about the rich history of that room the great debates in our country's history that have taken place in that particular room one of those episodes that you all will recall having been on those tours or having taken those tours or guided those tours is when congressman brooks caned senator sumner on the floor of the senate in the years leading to the civil war and i never thought that this body would be a place where violence could potentially return i fear for where we are heading the normalization of political violence has got to stop and it is with that in mind that i'll be voting in favor of this resolution and i certainly am hopeful that my colleagues will do the same and with that i'll yield back gentlemen from oklahoma thank you very much mr chairman first of all it's important to note that mr gozar was confronted and then mr gosar issued a statement that said he did not intend to suggest violence did not condone it in any way will he apologize publicly would you i don't know maybe you should ask him but he's addressed the issue uh addressed it in our conference so to suggest and look i don't approve of the video in any way shape or form uh but to suggest that he meant to do that when he took it down said i didn't mean to do that you know i don't support that against somebody else you know it's just not true and believe me if we want to sit here and quote back and forth i mean things that you would think defensible i would regard as indefensible because there was violence going on in the streets the summer of 2020. there were people being confronted at restaurants we had members of this body urging people to do that urging them to do that my friends took no action about that my friends never discussed that my friends never brought it up we actually discussed this dealt with it and frankly if you didn't like our decision the ethics commission is an alternative where you could have gone that's not what happened here and so yeah due process does matter we're a country based on due process i would grant that to people i disagree with that's not been granted in this case it wasn't granted in the previous case where we actually held a member responsible under the rules of the house for things she said which i find reprehensible but before she was a member of the house we have no precedent for that and so please until i you know see an equal standard on both sides and i don't think there has been my friend may disagree fair enough but if you think this isn't a precedent if you think the tables won't turn someday and i would not be for that when and if they did i think that's a terrible way to operate but i think my friends wittingly or unwittingly are leading us in that direction now again we can deal with it within our conference you can deal with within your conference if we don't like what you do or you don't like what we do then we go to the ethics commission or as uh the gentlelady from indiana suggests we go to law enforcement there are ways to do this that's not what's happening here so if you made a summary judgment fair enough you got the votes but if you think this isn't a precedent and if you don't think there won't be demands it's used again i would just beg to differ and i think that's something that ought to be weighed in these discussions and these decisions mr chairman i i have to insist i've never jumped in for a second round of questioning on the committee as a rookie member but and with all respect to the ranking member they're of the 22 i believe 23 members of congress who have been censured by this body over the course of our country's history the vast majority of them were censored along before we had an ethics committee or the predecessors of the ethics committee the standards uh committee censured for spitting on other members of congress for saying uh disparaging comments on the house floor those actions went straight to the floor now i i hear what you're saying and i guess i would just simply suggest that in the case of the example that i offered with respect to mr king who was in fact removed from his committees with no action before the ethics committee mr king made the same arguments that the ranking member doesn't require action before the ethics committee if you decide as a conference you want to do something we don't have to wait on the ethics committee sure but if we are not satisfied with what you do as a conference or you're not satisfied with what we do as a conference then that's the place to go i believe not to come here i'll reclaim the floor tribunal sir with respect i'm going to be fair with respect i'll reclaim my time there is no rule within the house rules or in the ethics committee's procedures that requires this particular resolution this matter to go to the ethics committee before it comes to the rules committee i understand that you've devised what you believe to be the norm which is that if your conference takes action and the other conference disagrees with that action then therefore it must go to the ethics committee i understand that's your rule and i suppose that what you can glean from today's proceedings is that our rule is that if any member of the house produces a video depicting the murder of another member of congress that member of the house will ultimately face consequence on the floor that i think is a sensible rule i would certainly much prefer that the minority leader take the same step he took two years ago when he removed mr king from his committees for making comments about white supremacy i would hope that the minority leader would conclude after seeing this video that it would warrant mr gosar from being removed from his committees clearly he made a different choice mister with all respect you'll have a moment and you'll have a moment with all respect he's made a different choice that's his prerogative but at the end of the day it's clear that this majority intends to make a different choice and with that i'll yield it's very clear and i would just hope that you apply the same standard to your own members which i do not believe you have and frankly the minority leader did take action he did contact mr gozar the video did come down there was a statement uh repudiating violence and saying i did not mean it in that way i do not approve of that in any way shape or form now if that's not enough i think he ought to have had an opportunity to go before the ethics committee make his case he didn't get that opportunity fair enough you got the votes go right ahead but don't think that these things don't have longer term consequences and we have process for a reason even when we think somebody is wrong we have a process we go through in this case i think we've short-circuited that process in my view that's unfortunate would the gentleman yield for a moment just i just want to make clear that that mr goser may have made statements to the republican conference behind closed doors and apparently he has taken the video down but he has made no such public statement there's nothing on his twitter feed that got three million plus views indicating that he had any regrets that he condemned the depiction of murdering a colleague or anything else in fact he is using that platform now to complain that he's being silenced and that the left is out to get him so i don't think there's been the kind of contrition or denunciation of a depiction of murder of a colleague that one might expect if it were genuine i yield back one hour ago okay um yeah absolutely yeah just uh i would ask without except can we put mr gozar's statement in the record without objection uh but without objection yes thank you very much mr chairman all right okay we all set we all set but i was just wondering are we talking about the statement that he made before the republican conference because his official statement i do not espouse violence or harm mr chairman uh i do not spouse violence or harm toward any member of congress or mr biden the video depicts the fight taking place next week on the house floor and symbolizes the battle of stole of america uh when congress takes up mr biden's massive four trillion dollar spending bill that includes amnesty from millions of illegal aliens already in our country and was not meant to depict any harm or violence against anyone portrayed uh i don't even know the popular the pronunciation what amine or whatever uh not not a genre i'm familiar with videos truly a symbolic portrayal of a fight over immigration policy so you know he clearly denounces violence and says he certainly didn't mean it um can i read something mr torres this is a statement that is actually posted on his uh twitter account um where you know he says that the left hates that i am standing up and speaking out about the provisions in the buildback better plan so he is not sorry for putting out that statement all he's all he is doing is trying to talk around the issue and refusing to take responsibility for his actions including actions by other members that have incited an insurrection on this building thank you um [Music] i think we're all set here okay um thank you very much for for being here appreciate you both being here and i'd let me just say that i really do think this is an unfortunate moment and and i and i have to say that and i and i agree with what mr nagoo said that i don't think there's a single republican here who would ever post anything like that on their on their social media um i mean i i have some i have incredible respect for everybody my friend miss will wislowski as well who i think really do revere this institution uh have great respect for this institution um but i i gotta tell you i think as we we have to find a way uh i i would hope i've always find a way to distance themselves from this because it is um i know this is not who any of you are but this is this this really is a a disgraceful uh episode uh here in the house of representatives and i just you know well anyway i think we've all said enough so i thank you both for being here you can leave um you're all set thank you um by any of the members who wish to testify in h res 789 seeing none closes the hearing on hres789 at this time the chair will entertain a motion from the distinguished gentlewoman from pennsylvania ms scanlon mr chairman i move the committee grant hres 789 centering representative paul gozer a closed rule the rule provides one hour of debate equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the committee on ethics or their designees the rule waves all points of order against consideration of the resolution the rule provides that the amendment printed in the rules committee report shall be considered as adopted in the resolution as amended shall be considered as read i yield back you've heard the motion from the gentleman from pennsylvania are there any amendment or discussion mr cole [Music] so now hearing none now the question is on the motion offered by the gentleman from pennsylvania all those in favor will say i i oppose no and the opinion of the chair of the ice heaven the motion is agreed to mr chair on that we'd uh request a recorded vote the general has asked for recorded vote the clerk will call the roll mrs torres aye mrs torres aye mr pearl mutter aye mr pro mutter aye mr askin aye mr askin aye ms scanlon aye ms scanlon aye mr morally aye mr morrelly aye mr disonie aye mr dusogne aye ms ross aye ms ross aye mr aguse aye mr new goose aye mr cole no mr cole no mr burgess mr burgess no mr eschenthaler mr ration dollar no mrs fischbach mrs fischbach no mr chairman aye mr chairman aye the clerk will report the total nine yays four nays and the moshe's agreed to and um ms scanlon will carry it for the democrats all right without objection the committee is adjourned

Channel: Forbes Breaking News

Views: 27,102

Keywords: Rep. Paul Gosar, Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, President Biden

Id: 96oh3_dP2q8

Length: 88min 40sec (5320 seconds)

Published: Wed Nov 17 2021