By John Q. Hosedrinker 
When creating an account, users acknowledge their agreement to the Terms of Use. These terms encompass a jury trial waiver and class action waiver, significantly impacting legal recourse. Simultaneously, users confirm they’ve reviewed the Privacy Policy. This policy outlines the company’s practices regarding the collection, utilization, and dissemination of personal information.
Read the original article here
Mike Johnson ducks Epstein files questions, refuses to swear in Grijalva. This situation feels like a blatant attempt to avoid accountability and it’s sparking a lot of heated reactions, understandably. The core issue is this: a duly elected Representative, Grijalva, is being denied her right to be sworn in, and the potential reason, at least in the minds of many, is to shield certain individuals from the revelations that might be found in the Epstein files.
The core accusations are concerning. There is a lot of speculation, and for many, it seems clear that Johnson is deliberately obstructing Congress by refusing to swear in Grijalva. This action is being viewed as a calculated move to protect individuals, and it’s being linked to the ongoing questions surrounding the Epstein files and the potential exposure of powerful figures. The implications of this go far beyond just one representative not being able to take her seat. It speaks to a larger pattern of behavior that is becoming increasingly concerning.
The implications of this go far beyond just one representative not being able to take her seat. It speaks to a larger pattern of behavior that is becoming increasingly concerning. The refusal to swear in Grijalva is seen as a direct attack on democratic principles and the voters’ right to representation. Several people have brought up the potential for legal challenges, suggesting that Grijalva could seek a federal judge to administer the oath of office. The question of whether she can simply start working, based on her election, is also being raised, highlighting the perceived absurdity of the situation.
The criticism is pointed, and some people are saying that Johnson is a traitor, and that his actions are “evil.” The focus is on the denial of representation, with some individuals suggesting that the consequences of this behavior must be dealt with. The fact that Johnson hasn’t sworn her in, after supposedly promising he would, is raising the eyebrows of many. Many feel as though Johnson and the rest of the Republican party are doing everything in their power to stall this and sweep it under the rug.
There’s a definite feeling of frustration about the situation. People are wondering what recourse is available to Grijalva and her constituents, and the general consensus is that the situation is unacceptable. There’s a sense of helplessness, but also a determination to hold those responsible for obstructing the democratic process accountable. It’s a real struggle to find any reasonable explanation for this behavior, other than a desire to protect people named in the Epstein files.
The discussion raises important questions about the role of the Speaker of the House, the importance of upholding democratic principles, and the potential abuse of power. If the speaker is refusing to uphold their duties, then what power do the voters have? The frustration stems from the feeling that the rules are being ignored when it suits certain political agendas, and that the people are getting shortchanged in the process. The emphasis is on the alleged obstruction, the denial of representation, and the implications it has for accountability and justice.
The anger is real, and it’s fueled by the belief that this is part of a larger pattern. The comments seem to suggest that the voters in Grijalva’s district are now being denied representation, a move that appears to violate the fundamental tenets of a representative democracy. There’s a call for the pressure to continue, with many people suggesting that the situation needs to be brought to the public’s attention.
The lack of response from conservatives is also noted, with some expressing disbelief and frustration that the situation is not being addressed. The feeling is that this is more than just politics; it’s a fundamental issue of fairness and justice. This is the kind of thing that erodes public trust in the system.
The underlying feeling is that the Republican Party will do whatever it takes to maintain power, and that they do not want to play by the rules. This includes manipulating the legal system to keep control, and is a tactic that is perceived to be increasingly dangerous. The fact that a duly elected official isn’t being sworn in is being viewed as proof that the Republican party does not actually care about the voters.