analysis, you re probably thinking, wait a second, laura, another special counsel? yep. this would be the third all at once for the first time in history. i want to remind everyone for a second what the threshold is to get to a special counsel. it s not ruft mill, it s not an every day or every administration thing. among the grounds, number one, is it wid is it warranted? is the investigation itself worthy enough to have something so deliberate and extreme? is there a conflict of interest, the second point of inquiry? also, does the public have a special interest in knowing, or something more? when those three criteria are all on a collision course, then meet, then you have the special counsel. but the real question that everyone s asking is, why exactly did merrick garland decide to do this now? and maybe more importantly, since he was involved in the questionable plea agreement and
testimony of the individual. move to table. moved to table. we will call mr. chairman, we don t have to table. mr. chairman, can we have a recorded vote? not a proper point of order. you did a motion to table. your side did a motion to table. not a promotion. the chair has recognized the gentleman lady from california, five minutes of questioning. a point of inquiry, can i ask you a question, mr. chairman? can i ask the chairman a question? my sanchez. we ll restore the five minutes for ms. sanchez. i find it incredible that evidence that one side has garnered is not going to be shared with the other side. i think it s important that we
time for the lady has expired. i just want him to answer. he will answer. i am telling you your time is up. do you believe that nancy pelosi do you agree with the statement this person tweeted that nancy pelosi staged january 6th yes or no. no. thank you. bill: recognize ms. stefanik. i think you were going to indulge the congresswoman from florida in her point of inquiry. she is recognized. thank you. it is my understanding. what are you making a point of order? i m asking a question. a point of inquiry. it is my understanding that the minority in this committee under the rules is entitled to the same testimony, information, documents that the majority is entitled to. so i am not aware that you are able to withhold information from the minority that we would need to use to prepare.
way or the other on any legal proceedings or not that may or may not happen. let me remind the gentleman that the topic of this hearing afghanistan. i appreciate it mr. chairman. the secretary generally refuses to answer questions about afghanistan. i figure we talk about something he should be familiar with. have you sought to alter any of your testimony from last year s senate investigation regarding this topic? gentleman s time has expired. let me also for the record make clear that this is a hybrid hearing. as members had an option to come or to be other places, the secretary also. it s a hybrid hearing because we are not in session. mr. chairman, point of inquiry. just for me edification, was it expressed too the secretary
interviewed by the fbi since becoming secretary of state. again, i m not going to comment one way or another open any legal proceedings or not that may or may not have happened let me remind the gentleman the topic of this hearing is afghanistan. i appreciate it, mr. chairman. the secretary generally refuses to answer questions about afghanistan so i figured we would talk about something that he s familiar with. have you sought to alter your testimony from last year regarding this topic? mr. secretary? gentleman s time has expired. let me also for the record make clear that this is a hybrid hearing. just as members had an option to come or to be other places. the secretary also is a hybrid hearing because we re not in session. mr. chairman, point of inquiry. if i could.