Jamie Raskin

She would filibuster.

And then she began to resort to ad hominem vilification, demonization, and insults of the members of the committee.

Oh, yeah.

I mean, you know, it would be a great class for seventh graders in logical and rhetorical fallacies because she'd be asked a question about the Epstein survivors.

For example, I said to her, well, Donald Trump wants $10 billion.

because his tax returns were released by a private contractor, and he's suing the IRS for $10 billion.

How much do the Epstein survivors get for your putting their names, their addresses, their phone numbers, in some cases, nude images of them online?

And then she would just radically change the subject.

People would ask her a substantive question, and then she would start saying, well, the Dow is over...

You know, whatever now.

And what about what's happening in your district?

And I don't like what you did about this or that.

I mean, it was just deranged.

I mean, she was clearly playing for Donald Trump, as a lot of my colleagues were, but it's playing terribly around the world and around the country.

And so I guess that's the question.

I mean, this is always the question for people who have an authoritarian mindset, which is, is it enough just to keep your loyalists with you?

And then when it comes to things like

the truth and justice and elections, you'll corrupt them, you'll steal them, you'll lie and so on.

I mean, we're getting to the end of the road with these people.

That would be the role of the chair.