GOP Rep Threatens Action If Party Wins House: ‘People Need to Go To Jail’

A prominent Republican congresswoman has said when her party retakes the House during the 2022 midterms, Congress should hyperfocus on accountability, adding that “people need to go to jail.”

In an interview with Breitbart, Florida Republican Rep. Kat Cammack said Congress should address critical issues such as election integrity, the coronavirus, and “all of the issues we’ve had in years past that have gone unresolved, like Benghazi.”

“When we take the House back in the 118th, first and foremost, we are going to be focused on accountability, people need to go to jail,” she added.

“I’m talking about the Hillary Clintons of the world, I’m talking about the Eric Holders, I’m talking about all these people who have continued to cause strife and division, break the law, subvert the Rule of Law, and they have never been held accountable,” the congresswoman said.

We’re going to go after the origins of COVID-19, we’re going to be looking at how we can earn the trust of the American people back,” she said. “Because for so long, there has been two standards: one for thee, and then rules for the other people that don’t have power, that aren’t well-connected.”

“With Afghanistan now, that’s going to be another one,” she said.

Cammack went on to say the plan is for Republicans to have an agenda that “that every single Republican will be running on, campaigning on, and committing to putting that agenda forward.”

“And once we take the House, we roll hard on executing that plan, because the American people they deserve accountability, and they deserve action,” she said. “And those are the two things that we’re going to be giving when we take over the House.”

As for Clinton, her problems may just be starting, The Conservative Brief reports:

Special Counsel John Durham’s team informed a federal court that former members of Hillary Clinton’s 2016 presidential campaign are under scrutiny for their possible roles in spreading Trump-Russia collusion allegations.

“Durham’s team requested that a judge ‘inquire into a potential conflict of interest’ connected to the lawyers for British ex-spy Christopher Steele’s main anti-Trump dossier source, Igor Danchenko, pointing out that a separate lawyer at their firm ‘is currently representing the 2016 ‘Hillary for America’ presidential campaign, as well as multiple former employees of that campaign, in matters before the special counsel,’” Newsmax reported.

“Danchenko was charged with five counts of making false statements to the FBI. Durham’s indictment said Danchenko, a U.S.-based and Russian-born researcher, made these statements about the information he provided to Steele for his dossier, which the FBI relied upon when seeking authority for the secret surveillance of a former Trump campaign aide but which now has been discredited,” the report continued.

“The attorneys who took over as Danchenko’s lawyers this month told Judge Anthony Trenga of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia that Durham’s team was raising questions about Robert Trout, who is of counsel at their firm and previously represented Clinton campaign members, but insisted there is no conflict of interest,” the report continued.

KNOW MORE: He’s Not Done: John Durham Issues More Subpoenas In His Still-Ongoing ‘Russiagate’ Probe

Durham’s team said that there are 5 topics that may become relevant to Danchenko’s defense.

1. “The Clinton campaign’s knowledge or lack of knowledge concerning the veracity of information” in the Steele dossier;

2. “The Clinton campaign’s awareness or lack of awareness” of Danchenko’s “collection methods” for the dossier;

3. “Meetings or communications” between the Clinton campaign and Steele about Danchenko;

4. “The defendant’s knowledge or lack of knowledge regarding the Clinton campaign’s role in” the dossier;

5. “The extent to which the Clinton campaign and/or its representatives directed, solicited, or controlled” Danchenko’s actions.

“On each of these issues, the interests of the Clinton Campaign and the defendant might diverge. For example, the Clinton Campaign and the defendant each might have an incentive to shift blame and/or responsibility to the other party for any allegedly false information that was contained within the Company Reports and/or provided to the FBI,” Durham has said.