Discuss as:

McCotter defends apology resolution

NBC's Luke Russert's conducted a Q&A with Thaddeus McCotter's spokesperson about the House Republican's resolution wanting President Obama to apologize to the Cambridge Police Department.

Here's McCotter's office's e-mailed responses:

Q: What do you hope to accomplish with this resolution? 
A: The President will retract and apologize for his prejudging of Sgt. Crowley's conduct as inappropriate; and allow the appropriate authorities to make their full and fair determinations regarding the incident after due process has been afforded Sgt. Crowley.

Q: Sergeant Crowley isn't asking for an apology, how come you are seeking one? 
A: First, the President should have recognized his error and offered an apology without having to be asked. Secondly, the grossly inequitable power relationship is evident. The most powerful person in the world -- a friend of the other party to the incident -- has public (sic) prejudged Sgt. Crowley's conduct as inappropriate; thus, Sgt. Crowley is in a distinctly disadvantaged position to ask the most powerful person in the world for an apology. Further, as Kenneth E. Grabowski, Legislative Director of the Police Officer's Association of Michigan (POAM), agreed: "After admitting a bias against the police officer and an ignorance of the facts, the President used his bully pulpit to help a well connected friend by unfairly accusing an officer of misconduct in the performance of his duties. It must not stand. If it does, what officer will be next?"

Q: Crowley and Gates are having a beer together with Obama on Friday. They seem to be moving towards making peace. How is offering a resolution like this NOT politicizing the issue for personal gain? 
A: This is a question best asked of the President who raised it; unfairly impugned Sgt. Crowley; and continues to pursue the matter. As for the White House meeting, it should occur only after Sgt. Crowley is free of any and all potential legal and professional repercussions related to this incident. To attend this meeting prematurely would potentially compromise Sgt. Crowley's standing in a  legal or professional proceeding related to this incident.  

Q: Have fellow Republicans been supportive of your resolution? 
A: The more interesting question is whether Democrats will support the resolution. Do they all (sic) lockstep agree with the President's admitting bias and an (sic) lack of all the facts and, nevertheless, publicly denouncing Sgt. Crowley's performance of his sworn duty?