RINO Sen. James Lankford (R-OK) has found himself again at the center of a political storm as an old deposition testimony resurfaced, coinciding with his involvement in a compromised uniparty border bill.
The senator, who has been a key player in pushing for the so-called “Invasion Authorization Act,” has faced a backlash over comments from a 2010 deposition suggesting his belief that a 13-year-old could consent to sex.
This bill was designed by Lankford, along with Kyrsten Sinema (I-AZ), Chris Murphy (D-CT), and Chuck Schumer (D-NY), to give power to Democrats and bail out Joe Biden, who opened the borders in his first act as president.
The national security supplemental package bill, totaling $118.28 billion, allocates a staggering $60.06 billion to Ukraine in response to Russia’s aggressive military actions.
In contrast, U.S. border security efforts are earmarked to receive $20.23 billion.
Sen. Lankford faced significant criticism from fellow Senate and House members over the “open border deal.” Opponents contend that the legislation represents a betrayal of the American public. Critics argue that Lankford “will be remembered as one of the worst traitors ever born in America.”
Now, a 2010 deposition involving Senator Lankford has resurfaced.
During his time as director of youth programming at Falls Creek Baptist Conference Center, a 13-year-old girl’s family brought a lawsuit against a 15-year-old boy for an alleged sexual assault at the camp Lankford oversaw.
While Lankford had no direct knowledge of the incident and was not accused of any misconduct, his testimony in the case has raised serious concerns.
Senator Lankford, before his tenure in Congress, testified under oath that he believes your 13-year-old kid can consent to sex. This statement stands in stark contrast to Oklahoma law, where the age of consent is 16, with a close-age exemption for minors between 14 and 17, leaving no legal provision for a 13-year-old’s consent.
When challenged by the girl’s family attorney, Kenyatta Bethea, even within the context of his role as a father, Lankford reaffirmed his position.
I wonder what the Democrats have on @SenatorLankford. pic.twitter.com/qjJc4xfMU2
— Laura Loomer (@LauraLoomer) February 5, 2024
AP reported:
In 2009, while Lankford worked at the camp, the family of a 13-year-old girl sued a 15-year-old boy who was alleged to have had sex with her at the camp. Lankford, who was not in Congress at the time, is not alleged to have had any direct knowledge of the alleged assault, has not been accused of any wrongdoing and was not a defendant in the lawsuit, which was settled for an undisclosed amount before it was scheduled to go to trial.
But in a 2010 deposition in the case, given a week after he was elected to his first term in the U.S. House, Lankford testified that he believed a 13-year-old could consent to sex.
“Yes, I think they can,” Lankford told Kenyatta Bethea, a lawyer for the girl’s family, according a 155-page transcript of the deposition obtained by The Associated Press.
When Bethea pressed if his answer was still the same “if I ask you that question in terms of your position as a father,” Lankford maintained his stance.
“Yes, they can,” he said.
In 2018, Senator Lankford acknowledged that he was involved in negotiating an amnesty agreement with Democrats “behind his voters back.”
In 2018, Senator Lankford admitted he was doing an amnesty deal with Democrats, behind his voters back.
— Cernovich (@Cernovich) February 6, 2024
Last month, Oklahoma GOP leadership passed a resolution to condemn U.S. Senator James Lankford for his involvement in an outrageous border security deal with Democrats.
The resolution, passed with immediate effect, states that the party will withhold all support for Senator Lankford until he ceases his involvement with the proposed legislation.
The OK GOP party emphasizes support for “limited legal immigration” and opposes any ‘path to citizenship’ that would favor illegal aliens over those who have pursued immigration through legal channels.
The resolution accuses Senator Lankford of undermining the rule of law and the safety of American citizens by negotiating a deal that could potentially lead to an ‘invasion’ of the borders, referencing Article IV, Section 4 of the U.S. Constitution which tasks the United States with protecting states against invasion.