The heat in D.C. continues to intensify as an FBI investigation into Alex Pretti’s death is underway. As the media tries to get answers from the GOP, responses have been vague and deflective. In a recent interview, J.D. Vance’s answer went beyond what many consider acceptable, and many are now calling it unacceptable.
“Do you plan to apologize to the family of Alex Pretti?” A reporter with the Daily Mail asks Vance. “For what?” Vance replies, seemingly confident in flipping the question back to his interviewer. “For, you know, labeling him as an assassin with ill intent,” says the reporter in return.
Vance’s response was devoid of empathy. “Well, again, I just described to you what I said about Alex Pretti, which is that he’s a guy who showed up with ill intent to an ICE protest,” he says. To this, the reporter cuts in, saying,“But if it is determined that his civil rights were violated by this FBI investigation, will you apologize?”
At this, Vance opts to speak in terms of “what ifs.” “So, if this hypothetical leads to that hypothetical, leads to another hypothetical, will I do a thing? And again, like I said, we’re going to let the investigation determine, we’re going to let the actual law come to the surface, and figure out what happened.” Vance goes on to state that he feels it’s unfair to pre-judge an investigation, and that it’s “not fair to those ICE officers.”
Backlash From the Public
While Vance’s response remains borderline, those watching at home have strong opinions. Many shared their thoughts on Reddit regarding the interview, ultimately disagreeing with the midline stance.
“He can’t apologize ever. That would mean he was wrong about something. They all take this lesson to heart. Never back down and never admit you’re wrong. I won’t hold my breath. Don’t know why we keep asking obvious questions when we obviously know the answer they will give,” one Redditor says. “We’re gonna let the investigation do its thing… Until then, guilty until proven innocent,” another chimes in.
Others called Vance out on glazing over the fact that a crime was committed. “Wow, what a dismissal. Glazing over the loss of accountability is tantamount to treason. How much more clearly can one show they are working for the public’s enemies, foreign or domestic,” one user says.
