Freudian Slip from House Dem: ‘Trump Needs to Be Shot … Stopped’

Stacey Plaskett is a non-voting Democratic delegate to the House of Representatives from the U.S. Virgin Islands.

Weighing in on former President Donald Trump’s indictment during an appearance on MSNBC’s “The Sunday Show,” Plaskett had a rather unfortunate slip of the tongue. She said, “Having Trump not only have had the codes but now having the classified information for Americans and being able to put that out and share it in his resort with anyone and everything who comes through should be terrifying to all Americans.”

“And he needs to be shot — stopped.”

(Never mind that Hillary Clinton’s private server was likely hacked by foreign actors during her tenure as secretary of state.)

Plasket has represented the U.S. Virgin Islands since 2015, but it’s only been recently that she has made headlines. She is also the ranking member of the Select Subcommittee on Weaponization of the Federal Government.

Independent journalist Matt Taibbi testified before the subcommittee on March 9 about his work on the “Twitter Files,” which exposed the FBI’s collaboration with the social media giant to censor content that was deemed harmful to Democratic candidates.

You may recall that during the contentious hearing, Plaskett referred to Taibbi and his colleague Michael Shellenberger as “so-called journalists” and demanded they reveal their sources.

MSNBC host Mehdi Hasan interviewed Taibbi on his show shortly afterward.

According to the New York Post:

In his testimony, Taibbi said executives at Twitter took orders from nonprofits such as the Election Integrity Partnership (EIP) and government agencies such as the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA) about which tweets should be censored.

“Effectively, news media became an arm of a state-sponsored thought-policing system,” the 53-year-old said in his opening statement. “We learned Twitter, Facebook, Google, and other companies developed a formal system for taking in moderation ‘requests’ from every corner of government: the FBI, DHS, HHS, DOD, the Global Engagement Center at [the] State [Department], even the CIA.”

But Hasan accused Taibbi of conflating the CISA with a private nonprofit — the Center for Internet Security — to falsely argue the government agency had colluded with Twitter.

Taibbi admitted to mistaking one for the other in a tweet but has not said anything about his congressional testimony.

Following the interview, Plaskett sent Taibbi a five-page letter letter in which she accused him of contradicting his congressional testimony. She accused him of spreading “misinformation” in “alleging that CISA — a government entity — was working with the EIP to have posts removed from social media.”

She wrote:

While these inaccuracies may seem minor to you, they could lead Congress to rely on inaccurate testimony in considering and/or passing new legislation which would impact all Americans. In light of the potential for such serious consequences, I would like to offer you the opportunity to correct your statements before the panel.

She warned Taibbi that he had:

[S]igned the Judiciary Committee’s Truth in Testimony form, certifying that you understood that “[k]knowingly providing material false information to this committee/subcommittee, or knowingly concealing Page 5 of 5 material information from this committee/subcommittee, is a crime (18 U.S.C. § 1001).”24 In addition, at the beginning of the March 9 hearing, you swore “under penalty of perjury that the testimony you [were] about to give [was] true and correct to the best of your knowledge, information, and belief.”25

And then she reminded him that these crimes were “punishable by up to five years imprisonment.”

This woman is toxic, and regarding her slip of the tongue over the weekend, I think she had it right the first time.

Notice: All comments are subject to moderation. Our comments are intended to be a forum for civil discourse bearing on the subject under discussion. Commenters who stray beyond the bounds of civility or employ what we deem gratuitous vulgarity in a comment — including, but not limited to, “s***,” “f***,” “a*******,” or one of their many variants — will be banned without further notice in the sole discretion of the site moderator.

Responses