Monday, May 2, 2022

Stage managed: Senate Democrat fed question to DOJ witness, suggested answer ahead of hearings

Memos made public under the Freedom of Information Act show Ossoff, a freshman Democrat, fed his planned questions and even suggested an answer to Assistant Attorney General for Civil Rights Kristin Clarke ahead of two Senate Judiciary Committee hearings last fall.

"Sara, Just checking in to see if you know if your boss is planning to come to the three SJC hearings with DOJ witnesses this week: VAWA, Antitrust nominee, and Voting Rights, and what questions he might ask if he does come," Greenfeld wrote Schaumberg.

"We'd appreciate any intel you might have." Schaumberg obliged, confirming the senator would be going to the hearings and suggesting the line of questioning and even the preamble the senator would use to frame the question to Clarke.

"According to him, it's already illegal to discriminate in voting based on race, so no one's voting rights are threatened. [See TAB F] Yet Georgia just recently passed a law restricting voting access that particularly targets voting by mail."These restrictions were adopted right after the November 2020 election, where, incidentally, voters of color relied on absentee ballots at unprecedented levels and in the case of Black and Asian voters - at higher rates than White voters.

"Election workers are vital to free and fair elections," Schaumberg wrote, providing DOJ with the senator's "wind up," followed by his planned question and the answer he expected to elicit.

"Question: Do you expect these threats to continue to grow and why is it important to expand current protections in the law?"Expected Answer: It's critical that the law protects the full complement of people involved in ensuring elections are run smoothly.

Some alluded to an episode in the 2016 election in which CNN contributor Donna Brazile leaked a potential question to Hillary Clinton's campaign during a town hall broadcast.

https://justthenews.com/government/congress/stage-managed-senate-democrat-fed-question-doj-witness-suggested-answer-ahead 

No comments: