tv CNN Newsroom With Alisyn Camerota and Victor Blackwell CNN November 17, 2021 11:00am-12:00pm PST
has rested. and of course he's not just any witness. he is the man who killed ahmaud arbery. that's not an allegation on my part. that is not in contest here. we know it happened because millions of people have witnessed the altercation, which was that video that was taken by one of the defendants, william "roddie" bryan, on his cell phone, which a struggle ensues over the shotgun. in are three blasts, two of which we know struck arbery and killed him. what we have been hearing so far is number one, the element of concern of crime in the neighborhood. this is something that the state has not wanted to bring up. it's an essential element the defense says to understand the mindset of these three men as to why they were so concerned by at
that time a stranger, being seen several times in the neighborhood at a home under construction. and then travis mcmichael's attorney who is doing the question, he moves on to travis mcmichael's background which is that he served in the coast guard. he did that from 2007 to 2015. he goes over the training, not just the training of how to rescue people in distress on the water, but law enforcement. what kind of understanding did he have about the law. how do you approach and try to happen he apprehend someone, and then the various techniques up to confronting and usely deadly results, although travis testified never in the coast guard did he have to resort to
deadly force. the reason for the break, it was asked has travis mcmichael ever had occasion to use his weapon. he did. we haven't heard why. that's what the state objected to. >> martin, thank you very much for all of that. bring us the elements as it happens. it is a busy news day so we will turn to capitol hill, because gr gosar may be stripped of his committees. he had a meme attacking it archl oc. he took the site down but never
apologized. >> gosar is no stranger to this. he was a perpetrator of the big lie. he has been given a pass. but many believe this is dangerous especially after the insurrection. sn >> there was a question whether or not he would show up to take his punishment. is congressman gosar on the floor? >> he is on the floor. the question will be what happens later today. that's when the actual vote will be to censure him. we expect all democrats to vote for it and a handful of republicans as well. there are republicans who have broken with donald trump and on the committee investigating
january 6. they are expected to vote for it. will others? one congresswoman, i asked her whether or not she would vote for this. she said she had not made a decision yet, but she said threats of violence cannot be tolerated. there are moderate republicans who have broken with the party leadership and said they may also vote against this. there is one of ten republicans who voted to impeach donald trump. he said he will be a no, calling it overly broad. and the congressman from south carolina said it is a stupid tweet but not deserving of a censure. we will see how it plays out. it will be approved, but not many republicans are expected to support it. >> we will bring that debate when it happens.
let's go back to the courtroom as travis mcmichael is on the stand. >> -- the station. i pull in and see two younger males next to the side. i thought it was a little weird that they were paying attention to me and people going in and out near there so i stepped out of the truck and went to the atm. >> did you have a gun on you? >> i did. >> what kind? >> a 1911 u.s. army service pistol. >> did you have a permit or license to carry? >> i had a concealed carry permit and it was concealed. >> you were at the atm. >> as soon as i put my card in, the two males approached on either side, one told me to give him my money. all i did was pulled up my shirt and showed i had a weapon and
they turned and jumped the fence and was gone. i pulled the money out and went to work. >> did you call the police? >> i didn't call the police. that was it. >> what is the second time you had to use your gun -- that time you didn't really have to use it. just showed it. >> the second one was in 2011. i was going in to work. we had a high value asset coming in. the road i was coming in on was real dark. i was stopped at a red light, had the windows down. sitting at the red light listening to music and somebody came to the passenger door and popped the lock. >> was the window down? >> he popped it open.
it was right there. it was a gmc. he started yelling and getting in the truck. >> you say he started yelling? >> yes. i don't know what it was, but i took the pistol out and pointed it out him and told him to get out. i got to the station and we had three reservists, told them about it, and i believe we had a report made on it. >> i want to focus your attention back. >> was there ever a time that you yourself tried to figure out if any particular person was involved in some of the crime that had been happening over that summer in 2019? >> yes. >> can you tell us a little bit about that circumstance?
>> yes. around -- i believe it was first of july, my neighbor at the time, she had her purse stolen. or told us her purse was stolen out of a vehicle. neighbors talked about it. something else has happened. a few days later, a week or so later, i was coming back from a fishing trip. i have a boat doing charters on the side. i was coming back to my house with some clients on fancy bluff creek. >> i have a map. fancy bluff creek. >> under the bridge, the highway 17 bridge. >> i am going to pull this back. the state has a similar exhibit that they have used. this being google earth. >> i was coming from the north and coming back down towards fancy bluff.
>> you were aware -- >> just a bunch of trash under the bridge. it's very close to at the neighborhood. there are two. driven by thinking that neighbors had a purse stolen, so let me check this out. if there are homeless persons under there, they might be the ones going into the neighborhood. we got home -- >> we don't see it on the map, but does this connect coming up around this side? >> fancy bluff creek joins south of the neighborhood. so you boated around back? >> yes. >> go ahead.
got back, finished with the clients and told my father that it looks like there is a homeless camp under the bridge. this purse was just stolen. i will see if there is anybody down there. he said i will join you. we get in my truck. i carry a weapon everywhere because i have concealed weapon. not sure if my dad was armed. we tried on the neighborhood side of the road. >> if you look at the -- >> was there a way to drive over here? >> there is a power line that parallels. it is an overgrown field. we couldn't get to it from there. rocks and stuff, it's too bad. so i crossed highway 17 on to fancy bluff road and then there is a four-wheel trail.
>> so the drive comes across 17. >> it does. >> is this fancy bluff here? >> it is. there is a wooded lot directly across. >> what did you do? >> me and dad walked down the four-wheel trail. he is behind me. goes down, me anders around a couple of trees, gets to the creek, goes right and goes under the bridge. i turn and don't see anybody. i get under the northbound lane and i see somebody fishing. he had a machete. it was at any time a fillet knife -- >> let me stop you there. as you are doing this, you are going down there with your sidearm -- how is it that you
feel comfortable going down there to inspect the situation? >> i didn't see any threat. there was no threat. first, i didn't see anybody down there, and if i did, then i would talk to them. >> so what happened? >> i get between him and his knife -- >> why did you do that? >> for safety. >> okay. >> talked to him and said how are you doing. he was a friendly guy. i asked him if he was living under the bridge. he told us he wasn't, that he was living on a road off fancy bluff road neighborhood. i don't remember what it was. i told him straight up there is a bunch of stuff being stolen in the neighborhood, seeing if there is anything down there. he said i haven't seen anything. i think my dad looked at some of the tarps.
we didn't see anything. i am sure he was living under the bridge. >> what were you looking for? >> purses or anything that -- boat motors or tackle boxes, purses, anything -- it would be odd. as soon as we left, my dad called the nonemergency number and informed the police. they are aware of what has been going on in the neighborhood and said there is a homeless person, check it out. >> i want to stop you there. just to be sure we are on the same page -- >> we are going to take a break from this arbery trial and go to
washington, d.c. nancy pelosi is taking the floor and they are having a censure for representative gosar. >> -- a place where slavery was abolished, a place where we have taken our men and women into service to protect freedom and democracy throughout the world, a place where medicare, medicaid, social security and a place where so many things needed by people goes on and on. the list goes on and on. 12,000 people have been elected to this body, only a few hundred women, but all great heroes and many great have served in this institution including president
abraham lincoln. that's before it was where his desk was memorialized to this day. so when we come to this great institution, we understand that there are 435 members of congress, but only one from each district. only one of us represents the thoughts, aspirations, dreams and hopes of our constituents. there is no bigger fear for any one of us be it speaker, leaders or caucus bestow on us to be as prestigious as to say i speak for the people of my district. in my case the district of san francisco. when we come here we have a responsibility to uphold a high standard of integrity, decency
and respect for the constitution. the constitution charges us to be accountable to the people and we must represent the house of representatives in a manner all americans should be proud. house rule 23 provides for our code of official conduct. this provision requires that we, quote, shall behave at all times in a manner that will reflect credibly on the house. sadly, extremely disturbing actions taken by another member of congress threatening a member, these actions demand a response. we cannot have members threatening to murder each other or threatening the president of the united states. this is an insult to the institution of the house of representatives. it is not just about us as
members of congress, it is a danger that represents to everyone in the country. if you are viewing this and thinking, well, when you run for congress you get the threats -- you are not expected to get them from your colleagues -- but the example in this house is one viewed across the country. women across the country feel vulnerable if insults as existed here are allowed to stand. when a member uses his or her national platform to encourage violence, tragically people listen to those words and may act upon them. words spoken by elected officials weigh a ton. people hear them differently. as the resolution the committee is putting fourth states, depictions of violence can
foment violence and jeopardize the safety of elected officials as exhibited in this chamber on january 6, 2021. it's inconceivable that a member of our community would wish to repeat the violence of that dark day, deadly day. as a woman speaker of the house, i want to be clear, these threats specifically target a woman, a woman of color, which is a global phenomenon meant to silence women and keep them from participating in public life. this is about workplace harassment and violence against women. yet the member has never apologized for his actions. it's a cartoon, relax he said. really? a cartoon, relax?
and he wrote and said this cartoon was not contentious or hyper bollic. he said i am allowed to speak to people. really? this is not just about members of congress. anyone threatening anyone. disguising death threats against a member of congress and a president of the united states in animated video does not make those death threats any less real or less serious. and indeed conveying them this way makes them potentially more dangerous by normalizing violence. it isn't funny. yes, you have a right to speak and so do we have a right to react to what you are saying when you are threatening the lives of members of congress and the president of the united
states. it is sad that this entire house must take this set because of the refusal of the leadership of another party. indeed it took nine days for the minority leader who publicly spoke out about this threat and when he did he said it was not the member's intent to ever harm anyone. really? many other members on the other side of the aisle have refused to condemn this action. one said unfortunately, in this world we all get death threats, no matter the issue. death threats from our colleagues, members of congress? we all get death threats. members think it is okay to encourage death threats against their own colleagues? the resolution is about accountability and integrity in this house. it will serve as a reminder to this congress and country that
the house is committed to upholding the highest standards of decorum in all we do. shall reflect in a manner that reflects credibly on the house. we must be mindful of all who make up our congressional community, not only members, but committees, the committee staff, institutional staff, and thank you for your service, the custodians of the capitol, the capitol police and others. as we continue to make progress for the people, let us be guided by the love of this institution. again, an example that we wish to show to the world. again, a threat against anyone is wrong, whether you are a
member of congress or not. so this is just about the example, again, that is a total violation by the action of the members. yes, indeed, madam speaker, it is a sad day for the house of representatives, but a necessary day so that we can engage in a manner that shall reflect credibly on the house. with that i thank congresswoman jackie spear in bringing this resolution forward and yield back the balance of my time. >> lady from indiana. >> the gentleman is recognized for one minute. >> it's an old definition of abuse of power. rules for three, but not for me.
that's exactly what is happening here today. house democrats preparing once again to break another precedent in the united states house of representatives. it is no secret that people are facing substantial challenges today. many of these are washington inflicted of one party rule caused by a biden administration incompetency and radicalism, kay ya chaos on the southern border, a broken supply chain, an historic labor shortage, a failing education system, and, of course, the humiliating surrender in afghanistan. will this congress be remembered as the congress that addressed those serious challenges? not a chance.
instead i think this congress will go down in history as the broken congress. for nearly four years the house republicans have been voicing the needs of millions of americans, house democrats have broken every standard in order to silence dissidents for their radical and unpopular agenda. they broke the motion to recommit for the first time in the history of congress. they broke impeachment not once, but twice. they broke in person voting and replaced it with proxy voting for the first time in history. and they broke the minority's rights to appoint members of its own choosing to committees. the speaker is burning down the house on her way out the door. what is worse, we got to this point on the basis of a double standard. democrats want to change the
rules, bus refuse to apply them to their own caucus. i listened to the speaker talk about the highest standards. madam speaker, when a democratic chair woman flew to minneapolis and told an angry crowd during a trial to stay on the streets, get more active, get more confrontational, we have got to make sure we know they mean business, that high standard, the democrats refused to take action. the trial judge actually signaled her out on her comments on an on going basis which he said could become an issue on appeal. but this wasn't the first time. no, this is three times. at a rally in los angeles that same chair woman told a mob if you see anyone from that cabinet in a restaurant, in a department
store, at a gasoline station, you get out and create a crowd and push back on them and you tell them that they are not welcome anymore anywhere. she later defended that comment in another speech in l.a. saying, the same chair woman, of the high standards, i did not threaten trump, constituents and supporters, i do it all of the time, but i didn't do it that time. this side of the aisle didn't ask that chairwoman to lose her committee. we simply ask for an apology. meanwhile speaker pelosi defended her. when asked about her minneapolis comments, leader hoyer described her as passionate, she believes she should get in your faces.
speaker pelosi, what did she do? with that high standard, she compared her comments of minneapolis to dr. king's civil rights movement. you see, why would they do that? rules for three, but not for me. just this month the dossier's principal source was arrested for lying to the fbi. think about everything that dossier put this country through for two years based on fabricated evidence. the infringement of due process, the spying on the presidential campaign and the $32 million spent by hard working taxpayers for the mueller investigation. and yet the democratic chair says i don't regret it. why? rules for thee, but not for me. when the speaker of the house on
this very floor engaged in personalities, the floor shut down for three hours because no one wanted to take it to the top. her entire caucus that believed in the higher standard voted to keep her words in the record rather than strike them down. why? rules for thee, but not for me. the speaker said i stand by my statement, i am proud of the attention that's being called to it. never happened before in the history of this body. why? because it's a broken congress that believes in rules for thee, but not for me. when a congressman on an intelligence committee was targeted by a suspected chinese secret agent for years,
democrats kept him on the committee. why? rules for thee, but not for me. when a congresswoman sadisid -- said israel is all about the benjamins. and the democrats actually did something. they defended her. why? rules for thee, but not for me. when a member of a democratic leadership tweeted lock up kyle rittenhouse, in an attempt to sway the trial, the democrats said nothing, why? rules for thee, but not for me. let me be clear. i do not condone violence and
representative gosar had echoed that sentiment. the video was deleted, but democrats won't listen because they will do anything to distract from the failures of one party year in one year destroying a nation. for democrats this vote isn't about a video. it's about control. that's the one and only thing democrats are interested in, not condemning violence, not protecting the institution, not the quarum or decency, just control. they want control and don't care about the consequences. they are destroying the institution, silencing the minority and therefore silencing millions of americans. when i talk to democrat leadership, when they told me what they wanted to do, i asked a simple question, have you seen the video? no, haven't seen it. but they knew exactly what they
wanted to do. it's interesting. without even watching they decide the punishment. why? no need. rules for thee, but not for three. -- me. what they have started cannot be easily undone. their actions today and in the past have forever changed the way the house operates. it means that the minority rights that have served this body as well are the things of the past. furthermore, it means that under the pelosi president, all of the members that i have mentioned earlier, will need the approval of a majority to keep those positions in the future. what was interesting is it's not just the speaker that's making those decisions.
when the chairwoman incited those ideas three times, everyone had the ability to vote. because of those high standards they all voted to table, not to remove this woman from the committee, but to ask for an apology. why? because you all believe in rules for thee, but not for me. that is the real culmination of speaker pelosi's career. the house is weaker, more partisan, more self-focused today than when speaker pelosi bake became speaker less than four years ago. the american people have suffered because of it. they won't soon forget it. it's about control.
it's not about a standard that everybody lives by. it's a standard you enforce on one, but not upon yourself. you encourage your own side to engage further when you all took a vote to table. it would be interesting to see if your leadership hasn't watched the video, how many of you who voted today have watched it. the video was taken down and he said he doesn't believe in violence to anyone. but when those on the other side of the aisle incite violence, it's okay because it's rules for thee, but not for me. unfortunately this body has suffered greatly and a new standard will be applied in the
future. >> the chair will recognize the gentleman from florida. >> i yield five minutes to congresswoman ocasio-cortez. >> thank you. i have been serving in this body for three years. in that three years an enormous amount has happened. but in response to the republican leaders remarks when he says that this action is unprecedented. what i believe is unprecedented is for a member of house leadership of either party to be unable to condemn incitement of violence against a member of this body. it is sad, a sad day in which a
member who leads a political party in the united states of america cannot bring themselves to say that issuing a depiction of murdering a member of congress is wrong. and instead decides to venture off into a tangent about gas prices and inflation. what is so hard? what is so hard about saying that this is wrong. this is not about me. this is not about representative gosar, but this is about what we are willing to accept. not just the republican leader, but i have seen other members of this party advance the argument including representative gosar himself, the illusion that this was just a joke. that what we say and what we do
does not matter so long as we claim a lack of meaning. now this denialism runs deep and conveys and betrays, a certain contempt for the meaning and importance of our work here. that what we do so long as we claim is a joke, doesn't matter. that what we say here doesn't matter. that our actions every day as elected leaders in the united states of america, doesn't matter. that this chamber and what happens in it doesn't matter. and i am here to rise to say that it does. our work here matters. our example matters. there is meaning in our service.
and as leaders in this country, when we incite violence with depictions against our colleagues, that trickles down into violence of this country. that's when they must draw the line of independence of party or belief. it is about a core recognition of value and worth. so when we talk about, as mentioned in the illusion. this is about racist masogeny.
this vote is not as complex as perhaps the republican leader would like to make folks believe. it's pretty cut and dried. do you find -- does anyone in this chamber find this behavior acceptable? would you allow depictions of violence, of women, of colleagues, would you allow this in your home? do you think this should happen on a school board, in a city council, in a church? if it's not acceptable there, why should it be accepted here? lastly, when the republican leader rose to talk about how they are all of these double
standards and lists a litany of all of these different things, not once did he list a member of congress threatening the life of another. this is not about a double standard and what is unprecedented. what is tragic is the dissent of transgression in this body. i grew up as a little girl with awe about our nation's capitol. the reverence and important -- >> you have 30 seconds. >> the gravity of our work here. so the question i pose to this body in response is will we live up to the promises that we take our children, that this is a place where we will defend one another regardless of belief that our core human dignity
matters. if you believe that this behavior is acceptable, go ahead, vote no. but if you believe that this behavior should not be accepted, then vote yes. it's really that simple. thank you and i yield back to the chairman. >> indiana. >> i yield as much time as i consume. i am not here to defend any actions of representative gosar or his staff. in fact i am a recent victim of violence. a political activist attempted to run me over with his car. when this happened i immediately contacted law enforcement. if members of congress anywhere, anytime feels threatened, they should contact the police. unfortunately, this posted video is not the first video or
statement by a member of congress inciting or depicting violence. members on both sides of the aisle have made choices i surely wouldn't have made. but as the ranking member of the house ethics committee i find myself on the floor for the second time this year, to address an issue that has been addressed as ethics, but which has seen no committee process before coming to the floor for a vote. yesterday afternoon the majority party drafted this resolution and scheduled this debate for today. the house ethics committee has had no time to consider this matter through the ethics committee process. and there is a process. the nonpartisan staff should have the time to reserve and gather information. the committee members should have had conversations before
make pga d-- making a decision whether and who are to move forward. the chairman claims to have reached out to schedule an emergency committee meeting, but he did so at a time when we had been notified to appear on this resolution of rules last night. just for the record, the majority controls when this resolution was introduced, when the rules committee meeting was scheduled, when the ethics committee meets and when the resolution comes to the floor for a vote. if there is a scheduling conflict or excuse why we are standing here today rushing this to the floor, it was a conflict totally intended by the majority. so here we are today voting to remove a representative from his committee and censure him on the house floor. traditionally members are placed on committees by their own
party. and they are removed from committees by their own party. yet this majority has broken precedent again. removing the second republican member of this congress from their committees. let me just sagan, members on both sides of the aisle have made choices that many of us would not have made. by rushing this vote to the floor today and ignoring the institutional process, the majority is setting a precedent again. they may not serve this institution well in the future and i reserve the balance of my time. >> gentleman from florida. >> i yield my time. >> madam speaker, this resolution was referred to committee on ethics. it seems to censure representative gosar, we are acting on this resolution today because he recently used house
resources to disseminate a video that depicts the murder of a fellow colleague. i did see the video. i am sorry that the distinguished leader of the republican party chose not to or viewed it and deemed it something less than what it is which is the horrific depiction of the murder of a fellow colleague and threats to the president of the united states. we are acting on this because republican leadership has not taken responsibility for members of its own congress when a fellow member of congress has been threatened with violence. the house cannot wait indefinitely for republican leadership to find its collective conscious and condemn the threat when our colleague has been victimized, as women of color so often are, the house cannot ignore that, so congress
must -- just ten months ago this very chamber was attacked in an act of brutal, bloody, savagery. all of us experienced it firsthand. some were trapped in the upper gallery while an angry mob tried to beat down the door. since january 6 death threats against congress have multiplied and several individuals have been arrested. the threat against actual members of congress is real and growing. so this measure is vital to protecting our members' safety and also to stem the wave of political violence rising across this country which is why representative gosar's video and
his subsequent failure to apologize mus have action. this conduct violates the most basic standard of clollegiatety. if the rule is to have any meaning whatsoever, and if we are to fulfill our representation of the house, representative gosar must have consequences. it is claimed this wrongly bypasses the ethics committee, but the ultimate power to censure a member rests with the house. nothing in our rules requires the house to wait, nor should the house wrait in this instanc, not when there is clear and
present need to remove representative gosar from the committee. there are no unresolved questions of intent. it is clear from the video and from representative gosar's minimizing it, that's why this house must take action today. i reserve the rest of my time. >> indiana. >> i am pleased to yield to representative gosar. >> i rise to reject the characterization and accusations from many that my cartoon was dangerous or threatening. it was not. i reject it. i do not espouse violence
towards anyone. i never have. i voluntarily took the cartoon down, not because it was a threat, but some thought it was. out of compassion who generally thought offense, i self sensored. last week posted a video to young voters that are too often overlooked. even twitter did not remove the cartoon, noting that it was in the public's interest to remain. the cartoon directly contributes to the discussion of the real life battle of this administration's open border policies. this is part of the spending bill that provides 100 billion
and amnesty for at tens of mills of illegal aliens already in this country. i won't stop playing this out. illegal aliens, drugs and human traffickers are being let in and led around in the dead of night all by this administration. for this cartoon some suggest i should be punished. i said decisively there is no threat in the cartoon other than the threat to this country. no threat was intended by my staff or me. the american people deserve to have their voices heard in congress. no matter how much the left tries to quiet me, i will continue to speak out against amnesty for illegal aliens, defend the law -- >> 30 seconds. >> if i must join alexander hamilton, the first person
i yield back. >> three minutes to the author of the resolution, the gentle lady from california. >> gentle lady is recognized for three minutes. >> i thank my colleague for giving me this time. i take no pleasure in introducing this resolution. no one asked me to introduce. it no one tapped me on the shoulder. i am a victim of violence. i know what it's like. i also was in the gallery clamoring for life when the shots rang out in the speaker's lobby. we're here today because a sitting member thought it was okay, okay to post a deranged animated video of himself
killing a fellow member of this house. and also attacking the president of the united states. that video has been seen by 3 million people. it was up for over two days before it was taken down. inciting violence begets violence. congressman ocasio-cortez has become the go-to subject of the radical right to stir up their base. as too often is the case for women of color. it is disgustingly and profoundly unacceptable. tragically, the minority leader has not condemned the video. for eight days he said nothing. silence speaks volumes. silence normalizes violence. violence against women in politics is a global phenomenon.
a 2016 survey by the leader parliamentary union found that 82% of women parliamentarians have experienced psychological violence, and 44% have received threats of death, rape, beatings or abductions. the intent of these online threats against women is clear, silence them. strip them of their power. and discourage them from running for office. the congressman defends his post. published with house resources and posted on his official twitter and instagram accounts. it didn't stop there. he sent an e-mail to supporters that weekend stating that the full outrage was infantile. this is not faux outrage. this is not infantile. and then he went on to say the accusations are shrill and hyperventilating. it doesn't take a rocket
scientist to glean that this is gender coded language. the congressman shows no remorse. in fact, yesterday, the congressman said i did not apologize. 23 members of the house and the history of this country have been censured for actions including insulting the speaker or using unparliamentary language. certainly conduct by a member depicting murdering another member of the house deserves censure. let me be clear. if a democrat did the same thing, i would introduce the same resolution. with that, i yield back. >> gentle lady from indiana. madame speaker, i'm pleased to yield one minute to the gentleman from indiana, mr. baird. >> gentleman is recognized for one minute. >> thank you, madame speaker, and thank you to the lady from indiana. madame speaker, you know today i
rise in the light of recent events and i can no longer feel like i can stay silent. the hypocrisy of this body considering the censuring and stripping of committee assignments of repres representative gosatellite and radar is illustrative of the inability of this body to effectiv effec effectively legislate. it demonstrates why many americans have lost all confidence in our ability to be and provide effective leadership. i have found mr. paul gosar to be an honorable and effective legislator. and i have found him to care deeply for his colleagues and america. i yield back. >> gentleman from florida. >> madame speaker, i yield one minute to the gentleman from rhode island. >> i thank the gentleman for yielding and i thank the majority leader.
i rise in strong support of the censure resolution. i watched this video and i was sickened when i saw mr. gosar depicting a member of this body, and brandishing swords at the president of the united states. this is not just unfitting of a u.s. representative. it's dangerous and it can be deadly, as we saw on january 6th and 2011 when an individual shot gabby gifford after a video frs was sent out of shooting targets. this is not a joke. this is not about politics. it's about safety. while healthy debate on different policy issues is important, it's what keeps our democracy alive, this is not that. we cannot allow members to encourage and incite violence period. and mr. gosar, you are no alexander hamilton, you must be held accountable. i yield back. >> members are again reminded to address their remarks to the
chair. gentle lady from indiana. >> madame speaker, i'm pleased to yield two minutes to the gentleman from arizona, mr. biggs. >> i thank the gentle lady, and let's take a look at what democrats in congress are ignoring so they can censure a conservative republican because he posted a cartoon they found offensive and which he took down himself. more than 2 million illegal aliens crossing our border this calendar year. attorney general garland deploying federal agents to spy on parents, inflation, driving gas prices up, everybody's thanksgiving dinner is going up. a vaccine mandate that's clearly unconstitutional, a bankruptcy inducing bill by democrats, supply chain in shambles, democrats consistently ignoring calls of their own, calls that democrats have made to violence, and anti-semitic statements. foreign policy embarrassments,
americans languishing behind in taliban controlled afghanistan. china, north korea on the move. we have been ignoring those things. but we're here today. i have lived in japan. i lived in japan for several years. i speak japanese. i read it and write japanese. this is an anime. highly popular. stylized. intended to demonstrate the alienation people feel, particularly young people in their cultures. now, does anime have violence? yes. it's highly stylized violence. it is not meant to induce people to violence. >> i thank you: it was not mr. gosar's intention, and he's made that clear to induce anyone to
violence. i also condemn violence. i would ask you to reconsider further usurping and taking control of this body for political purposes because that's what's happening here today, madame speaker, i yield. >> the chair will, again, remind all members to address their remarks to the chair. gentleman from florida. >> i yield one minute to the house majority leader. >> gentleman is recognized for one minute. >> i thank the gentleman for yielding. i think all of us would wish that we were not here, madame speaker, on a subject of this gravity. on a subject so present in our society at large. the exhortation to violence to accomplish one's objectives. i've been sitting here since we
started the debate, which is about 45 minutes ago. so many get up and say i do not support violence, i do not support this action. but i will do nothing about it. now, of course they don't say the last sentence, they just don't do anything. as i sat there as mr. mccarthy was talking, i was thinking that he was getting up in my face and up in nancy pelosi's face. i think that's what he was doing. i expect that. in vigorous debate. they focused on a non-analogous action by a member of this house, the chairman of the finance committee.
why did they do that? because there is no analogous event to this event. in the 40 plus years that i have served here, there has never been a case like this. never. this is not about control as the majority leader would represent. it is about decency, democracy, and security. and the rule of law. we have seen, madame speaker, over and over again in our politics that words matter and actions matter even more. vitriol, the glorification and promotion of violence, hate speech and the failure to condemn all of those when they occur have created an atmosphere in o