She Said What? You Have Got To Be Kidding

Seriously, folks. This is so far out there, she has left the galaxy. It’s stunning that someone would just blurt this out. It took a good 30 seconds of staring at the page to believe it. Where do these people come from, and we hope they didn’t procreate, because OMG what? Let’s *cough* share the … something. No idea what. Much obliged for Raw Story:

A House Judiciary Committee hearing on the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) went sideways Tuesday when a GOP witness interrupted a line of Democratic questioning with a non-sequitur about infant genitalia. It started simply enough. Rep. Jamie Raskin (D-MD) pressed the panel on whether the Justice Department’s controversial $1.776 billion “anti-weaponization fund” — scrapped last week by Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche after bipartisan backlash — should have been shut down. SPLC Interim CEO Bryan Fair said yes.

Infant genitalia. In a Judiciary meeting about the (nonsense) case against the SPLC. And about the slush fund *everyone* screamed about, thank heavens. Where in the hail did *that* come from? It’s not even close to the subject matter at hand. Part of the shock is when and where she was when she took that left-hand turn at Albuquerque, when she should have stayed on the straight road.

Then Raskin turned to Dr. Alveda King.

“Dr. King, do you agree that that should be shut down?”

King — niece of Martin Luther King Jr., Fox News contributor, and chair of the America First Policy Institute’s Center for the American Dream — refused to engage.

“I will not speak on whether that particular fund should be shut down,” she said.

Raskin pushed harder. Yes or no?

“I will not answer,” she repeated.

Then, as Raskin pivoted to another witness, King cut back in.

“Stop killing the babies and cutting the penises off!” she blurted. “And so any slush fund — money in that is the problem.”

Raskin, visibly taken aback, pressed on.

Yes, everyone had to have been taken aback by that one. Not only was the subject not what was being discussed, but it also didn’t make any sense for what it was. That’s some conspiracy theory-level type of words. You can read it multiple times, and it still won’t make any sense. She also wouldn’t answer a basic yes-or-no question. Of course, when you look at it after the bit with the infant’s conspiracy theory, then it more or less makes sense for not engaging. She’s got to be far right. No ifs, ands, or buts about it. Her uncle must be spinning in his grave.

The exchange didn’t end there. When Raskin argued the SPLC’s use of paid informants mirrored standard law enforcement practice, King jumped back in. “So do you pay the same people to do the bomb and then go and comfort the people from being bombed?” she demanded. “That’s kind of a fraud to me. That’s weird and chaotic and confusing.” Raskin told her flatly she was “asserting a lot of things under oath, and you haven’t brought the evidence with you.” “I think I’ll get some for you,” King fired back. The clash between Raskin and King was first reported by journalist Aaron Rupar.

My, my, my. How the mighty have fallen. It’s painful to see a member of the King family do that. Kudos to Jamie Raskin for handling it very, very well. He might have gone home just shaking his head about that one. We shall see if she brings in legitimate information at some point, although we may not learn about it. What is this world coming to?

See you soon!

Friends, I know everybody begs you for money. I promise you that, of all the outlets bugging you for spare change, we are the smallest and the hardest-working. We’re a bunch of old, disabled people, except one writer in his mid-50s. But the rest of us are in our sixties and seventies, and this is a labor of love. All we’re asking for is the ability to continue our quest to tell the truth about Trump and help ensure democracy survives. If you can help, please do. Thank you. Ursula

Support the site with a subscription today and see no more ads!

Go Ad-free Now!