I oppose the Kim resolution. Now, had it just condemned violence and thanked the National Guard and the Marines, who did not ask for this assignment, I think we would all be on board. Instead, the resolution really is engaging in partisan games with misleading and inflammatory provisions. Trump said he was going to go arrest and deport violent criminals. People are okay with that. Instead, armed, masked ICE agents, some refusing to identify themselves, aggressively, and in some cases even violently, took down day workers at Home Depot, busboys, gardeners, and a union leader, and regular people in Los Angeles objected to that. Then, as the First Amendment provides, they peacefully protested against it. Unfortunately, there were some hooligans and rowdies who infiltrated that group, and they committed violent acts and vandalism. For that, they should be prosecuted. They should be brought to justice and condemned, which we do. However, the resolution really creates a misleading picture of what happened. On the first page, it says: "Whereas these protests quickly escalated into violent riots across Los Angeles, where acts of arson, widespread looting, property destruction . . . lighting streets on fire. . . . '' The fact is that these demonstrations were largely confined to about a 10-block area in downtown Los Angeles. The police, LAPD, had the situation under control.
Zoe Lofgren: “I oppose the Kim resolution. Now, had it just condemned violence and thanked the National Guard and the Marines, who did…”
Editor's note · Context
Opposing the Kim resolution regarding protests and law enforcement actions in Los Angeles.
Share
More from Zoe Lofgren
Now, some of my colleagues say the Department of Justice, a Federal agency that is part of the Biden Administration, somehow directed the Manhattan District Attorney to indict Mr. Trump in a New York State case.
“It unfortunately is no surprise a president who has attacked NSF from day one would seek to destroy the board that helps guide the foundation.”
There are concerns with the IRS Final Rule, in that it may exceed the scope provided for in the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act. The rule also raises important issues that warrant further scrutiny, including its potential impact on…
I claim the time in opposition. The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is the gentleman opposed to the motion?





