I ask my friend from New York, is it not a fact that on February 17 the committee received notes of important substance from Mr. Gearan? And, isn't it true that on February 13, the committee received Michael Waldman's notes, which totaled over 200 of information? In addition, isn't it true that the committee received Harold Ickes' documents, which totaled over one hundred pages? That was just 8 days ago. How could the committee possibly evaluate that information? How could the committee possibly be expected to set a definitive date of when this investigation will be completed when we received subpoenaed information only 8 days ago? Do you not believe that this task is virtually impossible knowing that we have every reason to believe there is other material going to come in? I ask my friend from New York if he would feel that he is acting responsibly if he sets a definitive date of when the investigation would end, knowing that 8 days ago the committee just got several hundred more pages of information? How long does it take the professional staff to go through that information, and how long does it take the staff of the minority side of committee to examine that information?
Editor's note · Context
Questioning the feasibility of setting a completion date for an investigation given recent document submissions.
Share
More from Lisa Murkowski
For the past 180 years, the Smithsonian Institution has been committed to sharing objective historical evidence through research and education, not political narratives.
I’m glad to once again partner on bipartisan, bi-cameral legislation to develop and implement a unified National Resilience Strategy.
“I hope Mr. Blanche is able to achieve that, if confirmed, but I simply do not have confidence that will be the case.”
By providing women with the option to voluntarily prevent unplanned pregnancies and to protect themselves from transmission of the virus and have access to clinics, the United States can prevent further deaths of women and the cruel and…





