McCarthy Has Plenty Of Good Reasons To Boot Democrats From Committee Seats (Especially Adam Schiff)

You may have noticed certain types of established political media feigning There is confusion about why Kevin McCarthy, Speaker of the House, denies Eric Swalwell assignments to committees. There are many legitimate reasons for doing it.

Partisan retribution is the most obvious. Since Nancy Pelosi set a precedent, vetoing McCarthy was able to provide a justification for depriving minority Democrats of their picks as Republican picks for Jan. 6, investigation. It’s only a bonus that Swalwell, an internet troll who was once duped By a ChiCom honeypot will be denied a seat in the Intelligence Committee. Ilhan Omar is an antisemitic representative. equates The House Foreign Affairs Committee will not be able to seat the United States with terrorist groups like Hamas. Both are not intellectually, philosophically, nor experientially well-suited for such positions.

(Then again, when asked whether he would assign freshman fabulist George Santos — if that’s even his real name — a committee seat, McCarthy responded, “I try to stick by the Constitution,” Then, gibberish about voters’ will followed. This is the end of it. Terrible justification. Voters elect all sorts of absurd people. Nothing in the Constitution compels a speaker to accede to the minority party’s choices nor is he compelled to reward a man with a pathological mendaciousness This is reminiscent of Joe Biden. I wish D.C. had more principled actors. However, the speakership in D.C. is a partisan, managerial role. McCarthy would deny Paul Gosar, Marjorie Taylor Greene assignment when Democrats are picking “election deniers” To lead their own party?

Unlike Omar or Swalwell, however, the worst offender isn’t a radical or fabulist or a person professionally unfit for the job. It’s a person who blatantly breaks his oath of office. It is a constitutional obligation to deny the corrupt Adam Schiff any power

The latest issue of “Twitter Files,” we learned from Matt Taibbi that Schiff’s office had demanded the social media platform ban users who mocked He and Paul Sperry, censor journalists like Paul Sperry who they claimed were theirs, he said “repeatedly” Promotion “false QAnon conspiracies” They are also allegedly harassing users.

Schiff’s efforts are a textbook example of how ginned-up scaremongering over “disinformation” To suppress freedom of expression, politicians have weaponized it. Schiff was likely targeting Sperry for a RealClearInvestigations piece The alleged perpetrators are revealed “whistleblower” behind Donald Trump’s first impeachment efforts. Sperry’s story was legitimate and ethical — much like the Hunter Biden scoop that was censored over bogus “disinformation” fears. Nothing Sperry wrote had anything whatsoever to do with Qanon.

But, the House Intelligence Committee’s chair was perfectly content to demand that a private platform, ostensibly independent, censor journalist speech. Which probably shouldn’t be surprising in an environment where senators like Ben Cardin, purportedly a graduate of law school, feel comfortable arguing that the First Amendment doesn’t protect “hate” Davos participants can speak deem “disinformation” The “most existential” Threat to society. The establishment rejects the neutral idea of

*As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases