In the Hari Sreenivasan interview of "Nicole Hemmer... an author and historian specializing in the history of conservative media in the U.S" in the June 10, 2022 How Laundering a Conspiracy Theory Can Turn It Into a Mainstream “Truth” | Amanpour and Company the following exchange happens after 10:05 (my transcription):
Sreenivasan: When you mention the Oklahoma City bombing, the response in the country to not just the perpetrators, but the leaders that were there at the time who might have shared some of these beliefs, and really the lack of accountability -- they were not all voted out! Did that set a pattern for how the Republican Part might have changed over time?
Hemmer: I believe so. I mean there were people in Congress at the time who had very close ties to militias and to white power groups, and during the Oklahoma City bombing they of course said 'We denounce the bombing, it was a horrific act'. 'At the same time, these militias have real grievances, and the US government has a real culpability here'. And those members of Congress didn't pay a price. They were reelected to office. They won their primaries, they were appointed to high profile committees.
And of course there were hearings on militias that happened immediately after the Oklahoma City bombing, many of which kind-of soft pedaled the violent rhetoric and ideology behind those militias.
And so because there was no political price, because there was an attempt to paper-over the violent ideologies at the heart of some of these movements, people learned that you don't pay a price for extremism, and in fact it can give you a bigger platform.
Question: Who were people in US Congress who had "very close ties to militias and to white power groups" who suggested the US government had "a real culpability" in the Oklahoma City bombing on April 19, 1995?
Based on Hemmer's background and activities as a historian one can assume there is substantial research behind these assertions. Though Hemmer's conclusions about the exact extent and nature of the "close ties" might be debatable, they would likely have been mentioned in several sources, and the suggestion of "a real culpability" seems to be a reference to some actual statements by members of Congress who "...were reelected to office. They won their primaries, they were appointed to high profile committees."
Thus my question seems to have a valid premise at least sufficient to be explored in well-sourced answers. Certainly answers contrary to Hemmer's assertions are possible.