“That’s why we’re here” Rep. Stacey Plaskett Criticizes Jim Jordan for Defending Trump in Judiciary Hearing
BILL CLARK/CQ-ROLL CALL, INC VIA GETTY IMAGES
Representative Stacey Plaskett from the U.S. Virgin Islands sharply criticized Representative Jim Jordan of Ohio for organizing a hearing perceived as a defense of former President Donald Trump, who faces numerous criminal charges.
During Wednesday’s House Judiciary Committee hearing on the weaponization of government, Plaskett was outspoken about her views, asserting that Republicans were focused solely on protecting Trump. She pointed out that many Republicans rushed to New York City to show their support for the former president, reports Raw Story.
Plaskett emphasized that Trump expects unwavering loyalty from every Republican official, describing him as demanding and self-centered. She stated that Trump wants these officials to use their positions to assist in his criminal defense, portraying him as an “incorrigible, degenerate, spoiled brat.”
“Why are we back this time?” she asked. “We’re here because former President Trump is on trial in New York. That’s why we’re here.”
“On Monday and Tuesday of this week, his former attorney Michael Cohen delivered devastating testimony implicating former President Trump in a hush money payment scheme,” she pointed out. “We all know that the former president exacts loyalty from all of his followers, especially GOP officials and those who work for him. Blind loyalty.”
“We’re here at the beck and call of Trump fanatics and talking heads on cable and internet talk shows in the MAGA world who, like Bartiromo and Bannon, have goaded this committee to act,” she remarked.
Plaskett also suggested that right-wing media figures such as Steve Bannon and Maria Bartiromo had influenced Jordan to convene the hearing. According to her, these media personalities pressured Jordan to take action, highlighting the extent to which external conservative voices impact Republican strategies and decisions.
The hearing, which was intended to address concerns about government weaponization, instead became a platform for partisan debate. Plaskett’s pointed remarks underscored the deep divisions within the committee and the broader political landscape. Her critique reflects the ongoing tension between defending Trump and addressing broader issues of governance and accountability.
By drawing attention to the motivations behind the hearing, Plaskett aimed to highlight what she saw as a misuse of congressional resources to defend a former president facing serious legal challenges. Her comments resonated with those who believe that legislative efforts should focus on policy and oversight rather than partisan protectionism.
