1. You are being threatened with a car bombing, shooting, drone assault, staged car accident, harm to your family members, and more if you insist on full disclosure to you within reports now due to you through the Illinois Freedom of Information Act. Is that correct?
Answer: I have received these apparent threats, yes.
2. Who would possibly have approved of harms like these? Don't these threats fall under the heading of extortion?
Answer: You know, the threats certainly have a military component, given the repeated mention of drone assault. So I would consider the possibility that Pete Hegseth is offering "alternatives" in this circumstance.
The problem here is that concealed misappropriations may well be sequestered by the enemies of United States' sovereignty, such as Vladimir Putin, Xi Xinping, and others. And we need to assume that they will be if these misappropriated funds are not returned.
We don't want this case, which is intended to ensure Americans' sovereignty, to result in the foreclosure of their freedoms.
So, we need to ask that full disclosure be included in the reports, and we need to guarantee that this occurs.
3. That means that tremendous pressure is being exerted on a handful of people at this time, you and your family foremost among them, doesn't it?
Answer: It does, and I would also include key investigative personnel in the OIG Hotline, central accounting personnel, and others who know what the judgments have been over the course of this case. I'm not suggesting that all information is public information, but I am suggesting that, given my advocacy for the sovereignty of the nation as a whole, the disclosures to me should be complete, without redactions or omissions.
4. What about the suggestion that Pete Hegseth could order inappropriate aggression against you or your family and then simply lose his job at a later time?
Answer: It's a substantive risk, this kind of planned disavowal of responsibility. With ongoing turnover in the cabinet, those risks rise, certainly.
I think the best defense against that stratagem is to talk about it, as we're doing now.
5. Where does the ultimate responsibility rest with regard to planned aggression against an American human rights advocate?
Answer: Truman said it best with "The buck stops here." This is an Executive Branch responsibility.
6. Is President Trump now responsible for your health and safety, along with the health and safety of your loved ones?
Answer: Absolutely. This timing is critical, because of the fact that reports are now due to me. So, we all should be hale and hearty, including our pets, while that provision of information is extended to me in its entirety.
7. What about threats that a bomb has been placed in your vehicle? Don't those concerns inhibit your freedom to travel?
Answer: I'll be checking out of my hotel at 11:00 AM. That means that anyone involved in this alleged aggression has one hour to remove any and all harmful devices before I drive away. Fifty-five minutes, to be precise.
8. You are insisting on the American people's right to sovereignty in the long term by requiring the provision of reports in their entirety?
Answer: Yes, I am.
A tremendous number of our freedoms depend on this kind of benevolent but unyielding insistence.
This is the time for us to express it.
9. Will you please keep in close contact with us, given these circumstances?
Answer: Of course, yes.
10. Thank you for speaking with us this morning.
Answer: You are most welcome.
Lane MacWilliams
No comments:
Post a Comment