By John Q. Hosedrinker 
Arizona’s seventh congressional district has been without representation for weeks due to House Speaker Mike Johnson’s refusal to swear in Adelita Grijalva, the representative-elect. This unprecedented move is seen as a tactic to silence a political opponent and deny voters their representation, possibly to prevent Grijalva from supporting a vote on releasing confidential files related to Jeffrey Epstein. The delay is also speculated to provide the White House time to pressure Republicans to withdraw support for the petition. Ultimately, Johnson’s actions set a dangerous precedent and raise questions about future transfers of power, particularly if a Democratic majority is elected.
Read the original article here
So, let’s dive into why the US House Speaker is refusing to seat an elected Democrat. It’s a pretty loaded question, and as you can see from the comments, a lot of different theories are swirling around, but one key theme keeps bubbling to the surface.
The most frequently mentioned reason seems to center around the potential release of documents related to Jeffrey Epstein. Specifically, the elected Democrat in question is believed to be the potential 218th vote needed to force a House vote on the release of these confidential files. If she were seated, this could trigger a vote, bringing the contents of these files into the public eye, a prospect that many suspect the Speaker is desperately trying to avoid.
It’s also pointed out, rather bluntly, that the Speaker might be protecting individuals implicated in the Epstein scandal. This includes potential involvement of powerful people, which would explain why they are fighting so hard to keep the documents under wraps. The speculation is that the Speaker’s refusal to seat the Democrat is a strategic move to maintain control and prevent the release of damaging information, possibly about people connected to the current administration.
Another angle is the idea that this is a test run for future elections. If the Speaker gets away with refusing to seat this Democrat, what’s to stop them from doing it again? This behavior, some commenters suggest, shows a disregard for the will of the voters. This is an attempt to establish a precedent where the Speaker can pick and choose who gets to represent their constituents, effectively undermining the democratic process.
Some commenters are very direct, asserting that the Speaker’s actions are rooted in corruption, and that he is motivated by the desire to protect pedophiles. The Epstein files are seen as a treasure trove of incriminating information, and the Speaker’s behavior is interpreted as an attempt to shield individuals from exposure and potential legal consequences. This view paints a picture of a deeply compromised system, where political power is used to protect the guilty.
There’s also the view that this is simply an extension of the Republican party’s tactics. Some see the refusal to seat the Democrat as another example of voter suppression, gerrymandering, and the general disregard for democratic norms that they believe has become commonplace within the GOP. This behavior fits into a larger pattern of attempting to maintain power, even when it means circumventing the will of the people.
Moreover, some commenters highlight the potential for this situation to spiral. There are suggestions that the Democrats should simply find a way to seat the elected official, and push forward, regardless of the Speaker’s obstructionism. This could involve seeking creative ways to get the representative sworn in, such as having a judge administer the oath of office.
Another aspect that’s repeatedly referenced, almost in a sarcastic way, is the sheer audacity of the situation. The question is, why can the Speaker do this? Because there are no repercussions, because there is no accountability. It is implied that the rules are bent to the will of the powerful.
The implication, for many, is that there’s a deep-seated, and possibly criminal, motivation behind the Speaker’s actions. It’s a combination of factors, with the Epstein files and a desire to protect powerful people at the core. This goes beyond just politics; this goes into the realm of something much darker. In sum, the refusal to seat the Democrat is not just about politics but about power, secrets, and a desperate attempt to keep certain information hidden from the public.