A bit of weirdness out of the January 6 Committee report regarding Ryan Kelly, a Michigan Republican politician that was running for Governor in the 2022 election, was present Jan 6 and running for office and thus arrested by the FBi on misdemeanor charges to hamper his gubernatorial run - nothing at all political about that, of course.
Here's where it gets a tad interesting: The Detroit News: Under oath, Ryan Kelley refused to identify himself in Jan. 6 videos
The Detroit News story, and the committee report, is all agog and aghast that Ryan Kelly refused to identify before the committee if a video did in fact show him at the Capitol doing stupid stuff.
Now, Kelly did sorta, kinda, take the Fifth before the Committee on that quesiton, but not exactly correctly, as you can read in the article. But, regardless, he refused to answer the question to identify if the person on the video was him all the same.
So, there's all this umbrage about the failure of Kelly to identify himself by a committee official.
So, now that you have the background, the story gives a nice bit of irony:
"Mr. Kelley, how would answering that question impede your ability to peaceably assemble? It's a video of a thing that happened more than a year ago," an official with the U.S. House committee asked him at one point during the exchange.
Later, an official with the U.S. House committee said Kelley was stating his "opinion of what the Fifth Amendment is."
"But I will again note for the record that the witness has refused to answer the question, and he's refused to raise a recognized privilege as a reason for refusing to answer the question," the official said.
The official's name was redacted in the transcript.
Yep, all this outrage over Kelly's failure to identify himself, and the "official" asking that line of questions has been redacted and unidentified in the report and their identity is a complete mystery.
You can't make that kind of irony up.
1 comment:
Leave it up to the federal government to make up rules that state exactly what language you must state, and even when and how you have to state the language, or you wave your right to avoid self incrimination.
I have seen this before, although to be honest, I don't remember when. It might have been during the Watergate time, with Leon Jaworski, or some other such time, when I was young, but still had enough on the ball to pick up on some of the issues that were going on.
It is almost like you have the first amendment right to free speech, but if you have not spoken in public by the time you are 21, you wave that right for the rest of your life, or something.
I guess that inalienable right thing is not all that important to the fed.gov now anyway.
Post a Comment