OPINION: This article may contain commentary which reflects the author's opinion.
Congressman Scott Perry (R-PA) was in rare form speaking during a Freedom Caucus press conference Tuesday and tore apart the overtly biased framing of a reporter’s question which characterized the impeachment inquiry of embattled President Joe Biden as “political revenge.”
Perry is among many in Congress who have demanded a comprehensive impeachment inquiry be launched against Biden for months. An as-yet unidentified reporter asked Perry, “What actual evidence do you have as opposed to allegations to show to the American public that would merit an actual impeachment inquiry of Joe Biden and prove that today isn’t just about some of you?”
As Perry began to answer, “Oh, I don’t know,” the reporter suggested that many Americans view the inquiry as “enacting political revenge.”
Perry, visibly incensed let fly,
“This isn’t about political revenge. We have the bank accounts we can see, ma’am. You can see that the homes that the Bidens own can’t be afforded on a congressional or Senate salary.
You also understand that it’s not normal for family members to receive millions of dollars from overseas interests. Those things aren’t normal. That’s not normal. Have 20 shell country companies, these things are not normal.
And it alludes to not only just widespread corruption, but money laundering, if not influence peddling itself.
He continued, “And we also have the president, the vice president at the time on record saying that the prosecutor was fired. Well, son of a bitch! The prosecutor was fired, Right. Because the prosecutor was going after the company that his son was working on.”
“That’s what we have,” the Pennsylvania Republican concluded.”If you can’t see that. If you want, if you are that blind, I’ll turn it over to the attorneys.” The reporter answered flippantly, “The American people can’t see that, they think it’s political revenge.”
Perry yelled angrily,
“It’s because you don’t report on it!”
Perry as reported by Explain America in August last year, was notably targeted by the Biden DOJ when three FBI agents stopped him with his family and demanded he hand over his cellphone in connection to the January 6th Capitol Riot.
He described the outrageous scene, “This morning, while traveling with my family, 3 FBI agents visited me and seized my cell phone. They made no attempt to contact my lawyer, who would have made arrangements for them to have my phone if that was their wish. I’m outraged — though not surprised — that the FBI under the direction of Merrick Garland’s DOJ, would seize the phone of a sitting Member of Congress,” Perry said in his statement. “My phone contains info about my legislative and political activities, and personal/private discussions with my wife, family, constituents, and friends. None of this is the government’s business.”
Fox News reported at the time, “Perry has been a target of interest of the Democratic-dominated January 6 House select committee that is investigating the deadly 2021 attack on the Capitol by right-wing extremists and other Trump supporters who aimed to disrupt the congressional certification of Biden’s Electoral College victory. Perry was in communication numerous times with the Trump White House in the days and weeks ahead of the storming of the Capitol.”
The startling and unprecedented seizure of a Congressman’s personal cell phone occurred just one day after the infamous raid on former President Trump’s Mar-a-Lago estate in connection to allegations that he mishandled classified documentation, despite a 1988 Supreme Court Ruling that Presidents possess unilateral and unlimited declassification powers.
The court found, “The President, after all, is the “Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States.” U.S.Const., Art. II, § 2. His authority to classify and control access to information bearing on national security and to determine whether an individual is sufficiently trustworthy to occupy a position in the Executive Branch that will give that person access to such information flows primarily from this constitutional investment of power in the President, and exists quite apart from any explicit congressional grant.”