By John Q. Hosedrinker 
House Speaker Johnson delayed swearing in Representative Grijalva, reportedly due to the latter’s potential deciding vote on a petition related to the release of Jeffrey Epstein files. This delay coincided with the government shutdown at the beginning of October. With Congress and President Trump having since approved the files’ release, Johnson has now sworn in Representative Van Epps, whose vote is crucial for the narrow Republican majority. Van Epps, endorsed by Trump, won his election by a smaller margin than anticipated, causing concern among national Republicans.
Read the original article here
Mike Johnson proves, quite definitively, that the timeline for swearing in a new member of the House isn’t etched in stone. The situation with Adelita Grijalva, the Democratic representative whose swearing-in was significantly delayed, is starkly contrasted by the swift action taken to swear in a new Republican representative. This is pretty telling, isn’t it? It’s like a blatant demonstration of how the rules, or at least the application of them, can be bent to serve political ends. It makes you wonder how anyone can be surprised by this sort of behavior anymore.
It’s clear that there was a double standard at play here, and it’s frustrating to watch. It’s not just about the procedural delay; it’s about the implied message. The delay sent a message of obstruction and an attempt to use their power to gain an advantage. The sudden change of pace in swearing in a Republican representative feels like a direct response, a strategic move. It speaks volumes about the priorities and tactics employed in the House. It’s a textbook example of political maneuvering, and it’s hard to deny the hypocrisy involved.
The entire episode exposes a troubling pattern. The swiftness with which the Republican representative was sworn in highlights the selective application of rules. The implication is, of course, that the situation of Grijalva was deliberately delayed. It underscores the importance of holding those in power accountable. It is a clear reminder that those in power will lie to get any advantage, a political calculation. This whole thing makes you question the principles of fairness and the integrity of the process.
This blatant example also fuels the cynicism. The expectation that those in power will act with consistency and integrity is often shattered. It’s disheartening when the very people who claim to uphold these principles seem to abandon them for political gain. The question becomes whether these actions are criminal. This behavior erodes public trust and undermines the democratic process.
If we’re being honest, this isn’t exactly a revelation. This isn’t the first time we’ve seen this kind of selective enforcement. It underscores the need for transparency and accountability. The lack of consistency erodes trust and reinforces the perception that the rules are for some and not for others.
What happens next? This is the million-dollar question. It’s a real test of whether the Democrats will respond in kind if they regain the majority. Will they enact some new rule to counter the blatant political games? Whether or not the Democrats will respond in kind is something to watch. It would be satisfying.
One thing is certain. The double standard is clear. The speed at which the Republican representative was sworn in highlights the contrast. This whole situation is a perfect illustration of the political games.