So many Republican elected officials sound like they’d be insufferable to actually be around in person.
During a hearing this week of the Senate Judiciary Committee, panel member Sen. Josh Hawley (R-Mo.) complained to FBI official Paul Abbate about his agency’s handling of a document that outlines unsubstantiated allegations of a bribery scheme involving the Bidens. The relevant Justice Department leaders have repeatedly been accused of some kind of substantial acts to conceal the substance of the allegations, which is false. In fact, the information was made available for review by members of the House Oversight Committee, and there’s no reason to doubt the details would be similarly made available for examination by the Judiciary panel if a similar subpoena was issued.
“The document has already been released, pursuant to a subpoena, to the House Oversight Committee,” Abbate calmly explained, as Hawley ranted. “We will work with this committee within the parameters that are established to meet the request… Senator, the document, as you know, contains sensitive information that has bearing on the life of the source of the information, potentially.”
Hawley, sounding like he thought he was just the smartest guy alive, subsequently moped that the name of the source could be redacted to protect that individual. Did he spend 30 seconds thinking about the issue? If the person could be endangered because of the information to which they had access, don’t you think a determined investigator in some criminal organization could piece together and narrow down who would have had access to the information… tracing right to the source? “In some instances, Senator, and I know you know this, that is not sufficient to protect people, and that’s what we strive and work to do each and every day, and I hope you would take that seriously too,” Abbate replied, discussing the prospect of redacting the source’s personal details.
Hawley subsequently launched into a tirade about supposed abuses at the FBI, including via a large number of examinations of American citizens’ data that were not allowed under the established surveillance frameworks. On the basis of what seemed like nothing but a hunch, Hawley rejected Abbate’s contention that the surveillance was not done intentionally. Watch it in the video below:
