By John Q. Hosedrinker 
Newly elected Congresswoman Adelita Grijalva arrived in Washington D.C. this week expecting to be sworn in, but was instead left waiting due to Speaker Mike Johnson’s delay. The delay appears to be a result of Grijalva’s intention to sign a petition that would force a vote on releasing files related to Jeffrey Epstein, a move opposed by Johnson and former President Donald Trump. While the House is out of session, Johnson has stated she will be sworn in when the House returns to work, which is dependent on the resolution of government funding.
Read the original article here
Mike Johnson hasn’t sworn in this new Democrat. Is it because she wants to release the Epstein files? Well, it certainly seems that way, doesn’t it? The core of the matter appears to be a blatant disregard for the democratic process, a pattern we’ve sadly become accustomed to. The simple answer to the question, based on the information, is yes. The extended, perhaps more cynical, answer? Also, yes.
Consider the facts: a newly elected Democrat, eager to represent her constituents, is kept waiting while the House Speaker, Mike Johnson, stalls. While the speaker may claim it’s due to some procedural technicality, the timing and the circumstances paint a different picture. Johnson administered the oath to two Republicans who won special elections with similar session timings, yet he denies a sitting member of the congress. This suggests a politically motivated decision.
The primary suspicion revolves around the Epstein files. Why else would a sitting congress member be intentionally blocked from participating in the legislative branch? It’s not a stretch to imagine that the potential contents of those files are incredibly damaging, potentially implicating powerful figures. This new Democrat could, theoretically, be a threat to exposing these secrets.
There’s a palpable sense of outrage in the air – a feeling that democracy is being actively undermined. The refusal to swear in this representative is not just a procedural delay; it’s a denial of the voice of the people. This is about more than just the Epstein files; it’s about power, control, and a complete disregard for the will of the voters. Some might see it as the Republicans genuinely hating democracy.
The issue of the Epstein files adds another layer of complexity. The cover-up, real or perceived, could be a major reason for the obstruction. Some people feel that this delay is, perhaps, an attempt to give Trump more time to distance himself from any potential fallout. This delay is very similar to the same strategies that was seen during Trump’s term, stonewalling until a particular outcome is achieved.
The question of why Johnson is delaying the swearing-in ceremony is a crucial one. Is it because he fears the exposure that could come from releasing the Epstein files? Is it because she is a Democrat? Perhaps it’s a combination of both. Whatever the reason, it’s clear that the speaker’s actions are undermining the core tenets of our democratic system.
The accusations against Trump and the alleged protection of pedophiles only deepen the situation. A lot of people are genuinely questioning if the government is even working anymore. The deliberate delay in swearing in the new Democrat appears to be a cynical tactic to maintain control and potentially protect powerful figures.
It also opens up important questions: are there any legal deadlines for when a new member of congress has to be sworn in? Can this obstruction continue indefinitely? And if so, what are the ramifications for the affected district and the broader integrity of the House of Representatives?
It’s important to remember that the Speaker is not the only official who can administer the oath. The oath of office for Members of Congress can be administered by any federal judge, other Members of Congress, the Vice President, or other officials. This fact underscores the political nature of the delay; it’s not a matter of technical impossibility. The problem is that the speaker is derelict in his duties and this could be an impeachable offense.
Whether it’s a partisan tactic, a calculated move to protect powerful individuals, or a bit of both, the delay is wrong. The implications are far-reaching, touching on issues of transparency, accountability, and the very foundations of our democratic system. We must remain vigilant and continue to demand answers.