By John Q. Hosedrinker 
Speaker Mike Johnson intends to swear in Rep.-elect Adelita Grijalva before a vote to reopen the government, breaking a long delay. Democrats have pushed for her swearing-in since her August election, even filing a lawsuit. As the Senate prepares to pass an amended continuing resolution, Johnson is calling House members back to Washington. The Senate’s version extends the resolution to January 31, 2026, and includes a minibus of appropriations, excluding extensions of Obamacare subsidies.
Read the original article here
Johnson to swear in Grijalva after nearly 50 days, and the first thought that springs to mind is, finally! It’s about time, right? After nearly 50 days of waiting, it seems Speaker Johnson is going to do what he’s supposed to do: swear in Representative-elect Grijalva. But let’s be honest, in the world of politics, particularly in the current climate, nothing is ever quite as straightforward as it seems. There’s got to be a reason, a catch, a hidden agenda, or a deal in place. The immediate reaction is to look for the “but.”
The delay itself raises eyebrows. Why the prolonged wait? What was being negotiated, bargained for, or hidden? The immediate consensus seems to revolve around the Epstein files. The constant refrain, “Release the Epstein files,” echoes throughout the discussion. Many believe the delay was a strategic move, a way to leverage the situation and extract concessions, possibly related to those controversial files. It’s a common assumption that Republicans, in this scenario, would only act if they have secured assurances regarding the vote on releasing these files, perhaps even flipping some votes.
The anticipation of a quid pro quo is palpable. The feeling is that Johnson wouldn’t simply comply without securing something in return. The assumption is that this involves some sort of agreement, whether it’s an agreement to vote against releasing the Epstein files or another political favor. There’s a widespread feeling that some kind of deal has been struck, and that this sudden move is not altruistic, but strategic.
The focus then shifts to the potential fallout. Will the promise of releasing the Epstein files be kept? And, perhaps more importantly, what will be withheld? The underlying cynicism is understandable; there’s a deep-seated distrust that’s prevalent. Many predict that the release, if it happens, will be heavily edited, censored, or delayed further. The fear is that the crucial evidence will be hidden, protected, or obfuscated.
Another major point of concern is the potential for further political maneuvering. The assumption is that this is simply the next step in a longer game. The fear is that the situation will be used to advance an existing agenda that may include issues like the ACA or other matters that are important to various factions. It’s hard to ignore the feeling that this is just one piece of a much larger, ongoing, and somewhat complicated political puzzle.
The atmosphere is ripe with cynicism. There’s a prevailing sense that the principles of democracy are being subverted in favor of power plays and game theory. Many feel that the rules are bent or broken when it suits the dominant party. The entire political structure is under scrutiny. This perceived manipulation of processes and ethics fuels a desire for comprehensive reforms.
The impact on individual politicians is being considered too. The names of Nancy Mace and Lauren Boebert are mentioned. Many anticipate that they may be forced to change their positions due to political pressure. It’s the assumption that they will now flip their votes, as part of the deal.
The overall sentiment is a mixture of skepticism, frustration, and a yearning for transparency. The collective voice is one that wants the release of the Epstein files and is ready to fight against any attempt to delay or obstruct it.
The final question is: what’s the real story? There’s a strong belief that the public is not seeing the whole picture. Some suggest that this move could be part of a larger plan, possibly to oust Trump, without the political ramifications of formally going through impeachment. The underlying question is: what is the ulterior motive? It’s a classic case of waiting for the other shoe to drop.