Richard Blumenthal

I absolutely commit to that.

Did you consider it proper to meet with her without her attorney present? You knew she was represented.

And are you aware that in effect it denies that USOC had any responsibility for Larry Nassar?

They are coaching minors then?

So, in effect, you've washed your hands of it?

Did you authorize the filing of that Answer?

This illustrates a systemic and structural challenge that we have.

There was, in fact, with McKayla Maroney a nondisclosure agreement which contained a clause that would fine her a $100,000 if she were to speak out about her abuse.

By the way, that contention is belied by your own documents.

I want to be fair to you and give you a chance to go back to your previous answer.

The survivors are the most important thing and the reason that I took this job is because their voices and their courage moved me so much.

Congress must create an independent Inspector General position, as well as an Athlete Advocate, in order to protect our athletes by shifting power.

Not only was Nassar the immediate perpetrator of this unspeakably cruel and brutal criminal conduct, but also all of the organizations and individuals who were complicit by their silence or by their looking the other way, which was much…

It will make you part of any court order. The same goes for the United States Olympic Committee.

I've listened to your apologies and I would have found them more credible if today were Thursday before the filing of an Answer by your organization in court.

While establishing the U.S. Center for Safe Sport is an important step in the right direction, it should not be the only outcome of their suffering.

But that seems contrary to what you have said in court.

In effect, you have said you have no reason--the Plaintiffs have no reason to hold you accountable in a court of law.

Except being part of the legal process that will impose any sort of court orders, impose any kind of accountability or responsibility.

I believe Kaylee Lorincz and her account.

I think that is quite disappointing, particularly as the new CFIUS reforms will take time to get implemented.

We should pick some of the companies that have benefited the most from IP theft or forced technology transfer.

For the first time, the National Security Strategy mentioned China as a strategic competitor.

TPP is not the complete answer. It should be part of a broader answer set.

They are trying to wipe Taiwan off the mental map of all of us.