House Republicans swiftly act to obstruct on Trump’s behalf

It's clockwork at this point. Whenever seditionist Donald Trump is accused of another crime, House Republicans rise up to obstruct justice. It's been happening since before Trump's first impeachment. It happened the very moment government agencies began looking into possible connections between Russian hacks of Trump's Democratic opposition and multiple members of Trump's own inner circles. (See: Stone, Manafort.) Trump has been indicted three times now on nearly 100 felony charges, and House Republicans have immediately jumped in to crookedly target his prosecutors every time.

CNN reports that the House Judiciary Committee, led by professional crime enabler Rep. Jim Jordan, is expected to open an investigation into Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis "as soon as Thursday." The reasons are as shallow as the ones given for the attempts to obstruct the criminal cases levels against Trump in New York and by special counsel Jack Smith. Jordan and the rest of the House organized crime bunch say they want to know whether Willis used federal money to investigate Dear Leader or whether her office was secretly conspiring with Smith in filing the charges against Trump.

But the real reason for House Republican interference is spelled out just as boldly: Jordan is again demanding that law enforcement turn over evidence in the case to Jordan and other Republicans who have remained in contact with Trump after his coup attempt.

That those Republicans have been coordinating with Trump himself is already known. The purpose of demands that prosecutors hand over their evidence is, of course, so that Trump's seditionist allies in Congress can leak the prosecution's evidence to Trump directly.

It's the same play these same Republicans have used throughout each of Trump's numerous scandals. They use their government powers to uncover the witnesses and agents who brought evidence against Trump, then publicly demonize those witnesses to the point of fomenting death threats.

Campaign Action

Jordan's been running an organized crime ring from inside Congress for a good long time now, inheriting the role from Rep. Devin Nunes, who ducked out of Congress under suspicious circumstances only to turn up in a cushy Trump-provided job. The players include the alleged coke orgy guy, otherwise known as Rep. Matt Gaetz; Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene; and the whole assortment of House Republicans who sought to invalidate Trump's reelection loss with an assist from a Trump-provided rioting mob.

I'm not sure what it's going to take for journalists to start treating Jordan as the chief toady of an organized attempt to sabotage law enforcement from inside Congress itself. None of it is being hidden: We know House Republicans are coordinating with Trump in attempts to sabotage the criminal cases against him.

This is how CNN puts it, and it sure doesn't illuminate much:

It all amounts to a familiar playbook for House Republicans, who have been quick to try to use their congressional majority – which includes the ability to launch investigations, issue subpoenas and restrict funding – to defend the former president and offer up some counter programming amid his mounting legal battles. But they’ve also run into some resistance in their extraordinary efforts to intervene in ongoing criminal matters, while there are questions about what jurisdiction they have over state-level investigations.

Yes, the "some resistance" part of "some resistance in their extraordinary efforts to intervene in ongoing criminal matters" part is because such interference is brazenly illegal, and Jordan and team are skirting a very fine line in relying on congressional protections to dodge prosecution for what would have already landed them with felony indictments themselves if anyone not in the U.S. Congress was foolish enough to try it. It is broadly known that Congress does not have jurisdiction over state-level investigations, which is why the only real threat Jordan can make is to defund any law enforcement office that investigates potential Trump crimes.

But there's simply no question that it's all very crooked, and that the crookedness is specifically aimed at letting an indicted political ally skate free if there's any skating to be done. Jordan's been staking most of his political power on extended efforts to make sure Republicans can commit felonies without repercussions. It's what he wants to be known for. His signature accomplishment.

CNN also obliges the Republican narrative with a now-rote section about how all of this is meant to be "keeping the spotlight on Biden," and as usual doesn't point out that the Republican "spotlight" on Biden is overtly another tactical move to allow Republicans to get away with felonies.

What are Republicans "investigating" Biden over? Well, they've charged him with having a son with addiction struggles who has used his proximity to his important father to land some too-sweet gigs or sell some paintings for more than his talent deserves, while being simultaneously unable to prove that the aforementioned father had a damn bit to do with any of it. It's an unusual focus for a party brushing off a $2 billion foreign investment in another struggling failson, one simultaneous to big foreign gifts to the ex-president who carted the failson into international politics.

Unless, of course, you're trying to blur the lines of "corruption" so that the public considers one to be equivalent to the other, just politics as usual as opposed to post-coup foreign purchases of loyalty.

C'mon. It's been self-evident from the first moments Rudy Giuliani oozed his way through Europe looking for "evidence" that it was Ukraine and Biden who were crooked, not Russia and Donald. The media has been in broad agreement from the first day that Giuliani's push was a transparent stunt, dishonest in premise and vouched for by international criminals. What's with this media insistence on hiding information from the public under layers of fawning quotes and cheap mental shrugs?

More than anything else, this latest House Republican attempt to intervene on behalf of a Trump-led criminal conspiracy should be a reminder that among House Republicans, there are many co-conspirators who assisted in a plan to nullify a United States presidential election rather than abide by a temporary loss of party power. Many. They promoted hoaxes to discredit the election's valid and certified results. They pushed state legislatures to override the vote totals in their states and declare Trump to be the winner by fiat. They supported the plan to "object" to the electoral counts from Biden-won states, a plan that would have seen the fraudulent slates prepared by Republican co-conspirators introduced instead if Trump's vice president could have been convinced to present the forged versions.

This isn't a case of House Republicans looking to let Trump skate from a crime they were uninvolved with. The majority of the caucus were in on the very conspiracy they're now obstructing the prosecution of.

You'd think that'd be front and center in these stories. "House Republicans still working to cover up their own criminal conspiracy" is a hell of a lot bigger a story than whatever bluster Jordan might be offering up to keep his cover-up going.

Everyone always talks about redistricting, but what is it like to actually do it? Oregon political consultant Kari Chisholm joins us on this week's episode of “The Downballot” to discuss his experience as member of Portland's new Independent District Commission, a panel of citizens tasked with creating the city's first-ever map for its city council. Kari explains why Portland wanted to switch from at-large elections to a district-based system, how new multimember districts could boost diversity on the council, and the commission's surprisingly effective efforts to divide the city into four equal districts while heeding community input.

RELATED STORIES:

House Republicans demanding Bragg's evidence against Trump have been coordinating with Trump himself

Florida man Matt Gaetz wants to censure judge in Trump case

Bragg lawsuit shreds Jordan's 'constantly shifting' justifications in intimidation campaign

Republicans consider a novel way to obstruct investigations of Trump

Marjorie Taylor Greene's plan to impeach everyone reaches Merrick Garland

House Republican threatens to defund the police if they keep investigating Donald Trump

Republicans consider a novel way to obstruct investigations of Trump

Well, here we go again. House Republicans have been shrieking that they're going to impeach a whole passel of top officials in the Joe Biden administration for supposed crimes that include investigating seditionist Donald Trump too much and investigating Hunter Biden too little, but every once in a while one of them remembers that Congress also has the power to simply zero out the salaries of any executive branch employees they don't particularly like.

It's akin to a bill of attainder targeting a particular executive official's career. Frustrated congressional cornballs have been sporadically remembering the power for years now, especially whenever some government agency does something that they really super do not like but can't muster the legislative votes to actually change.

Politico reports that House Republican cranks are again threatening to use this power, probably after someone in the Freedom Caucus sobered up long enough to remember it existed. The possible targets reportedly include Attorney General Merrick Garland, FBI Director Christopher Wray, and "some are hoping to use the procedure on investigators working for special counsel Jack Smith."

That last part is another bit of nice, clean proof that at least "some" House Republicans are eager to use their positions as U.S. congresscreatures to interfere specifically with the ongoing investigations and criminal charges against the coup-attempting, document-stealing Donald Trump. As House Speaker Kevin McCarthy's bag of deplorables prepare to begin impeachment proceedings against Garland for not finding anything except petty crimes to indict Hunter Biden on, yet again disrupting one of Rudy Giuliani and Republicanism's most grand pro-Russia, anti-Ukraine conspiracy theories, and enraging the petty fascists of the party beyond all hope of reason, there are at least some bozos in the caucus eager to target the Jack Smith investigation specifically.

It’s a simple enough strategy: Zero out the salaries of any Department of Justice or FBI official involved with prosecuting Trump for lying to federal officials about stolen national security documents, and you'll neatly empty out the offices of anyone willing to pursue Trump's crimes. It's a gleefully corrupt act, all premised on the House Republican insistence that the government must arrest their enemies for committing crimes they can't prove while letting powerful Republicans get away with crimes even if they're caught in the act.

And this is why it's perfectly reasonable to conclude that the Freedom Caucus and allies are not so much a political caucus as an organized crime ring. Not a well-organized crime ring, mind you, but organized enough.

Now that Politico has brought us this news, it's time for the usual caveats. Guess what? House Republicans won't actually be able to zero out salaries whether they "want" to or not, and that's because the whole scheme has the same flaw that supposed impeachment of federal officials does. The Democratic-held Senate would have to agree, and the Senate has no interest in helping Jim Jordan's crime spree along. A bill to do this would go nowhere.

It's also an arcane enough move that one imagines it wouldn't be worth all that much for House Republicans to try it for the sake of campaign trail bragging rights: "I tried to take away Merrick Garland's paycheck but it didn't work" isn't the best bullet point for a campaign flier. House Republicans will instead probably keep moving forward with a Garland impeachment "investigation," solely because it would be an opportunity for an extended, months-long spectacle. Jordan and other House Republicans are still clamoring for revenge against House Democrats who had the audacity to impeach Trump twice: once for attempting to extort the Ukrainian government for personal gain, and once for that whole "attempting to violently overthrow the United States government" thing.

Remember, too, that Jordan's been demanding state and federal prosecutors turn over their case materials to him in the cases where Trump has already been indicted. House Republicans aren't just interfering with the multiple criminal investigations of Trump, they're doing it repeatedly, continually, and as an explicit strategy. And why wouldn't they? They were willing to obstruct investigations of an attempted Republican coup, they're hardly going to recoil at this sort of old-school corruption.

RELATED STORIES:

Jim Jordan uses House Judiciary to sabotage Manhattan case against Donald Trump

House Republicans demanding Bragg's evidence against Trump have been coordinating with Trump himself

Republicans use House powers to protect Trump

Republicans use House powers to protect Trump

Every single time we have learned that sedition-backing Donald Trump likely committed a crime, it takes no more than a day for House Republicans to begin planning out how they will best defend him. Every single time, the chosen defense is not that Trump didn't do whatever astonishingly crooked thing investigators have uncovered; instead, they declare that whoever discovered the corruption is part of a vast conspiracy against the career con artist, and that the investigators are the ones who need to be punished and/or jailed.

And every damn time, a coatless Rep. Jim Jordan flings himself in front of the news cameras to be the loudest person whining about it.

Now the House Judiciary Chair, which is about as neat a summation of Republicanism's decline as you could ask for, Jordan is already leading the House Republican charge to sabotage the new federal indictment of Trump under Espionage Act charges. He and his fellow Republicans have settled into a pattern; Jordan is using his perch in Congress to demand that the Justice Department turn over documents about the active criminal case. CNN is now reporting that Jordan is "exploring ways to force [special counsel] Jack Smith to testify or provide information" about the criminal case, and that Jordan has declared that "all options are on the table" when it comes to forcing Smith and others to comply.

This is the now-standard means by which House Republicans look to undermine all investigations into Trump's various acts of corruption; Jordan and House Republicans turned to it immediately after Trump's indictment in New York for cooking Trump Organization books to hide hush money payments during his 2016 campaign. It quickly came to light that House Republicans were coordinating with Trump himself in their efforts to discredit the Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg.

The reasons House Republicans have been demanding investigators turn over their evidence are, of course, obvious. The intent is to share that evidence with Trump, either directly or by leaking it to the general public, and to identify key witnesses against Trump so that they can be publicly marked and demonized, and to tease out the direction of any ongoing investigative threads so that those, too, can be leaked and Trump's team alerted. All while undermining federal prosecutors and the judicial system itself.

Campaign Action

The House Republican pattern is now rote, in fact. Rep. Devin Nunes made a name and career for himself before Jordan took the reins; this was the go-to Republican plan during the Robert Mueller investigation into Russian espionage and election interference and during Trump's first impeachment, as well as during every other lesser scandal.

The catch now, however, is that Jordan is not attempting to sabotage a federal probe or an impeachment trial. Jordan and his fellow House Republicans are attempting to sabotage state and federal criminal cases against Trump; in demanding that the indicting prosecutors turn over their notes, their witnesses, and their evidence, Trump's Republican allies are plainly attempting to obstruct prosecutors, not investigators. And that is usually something that is a really top-notch, prison-worthy crime for anyone who is not a sitting member of Congress.

There's really no question that the intent is obstruction, either. CNN also notes that sedition-backing House Republicans like Jordan and Reps. Marjorie Taylor Greene and Matt Gaetz are pushing colleagues to defund the special counsel's office and otherwise strip funding from the Justice Department in order to pressure the department into dropping the charges against Trump.

As for why attempting to obstruct an ongoing criminal probe and indictment isn't illegal if you're a member of Congress, that's a hell of a question. Republicans are relying on congressional speech and debate protections to blur the lines, but those protections wouldn't protect Matt Gaetz or the others if they were, say, indicted on federal drug charges or for participating in a sex-trafficking ring, or for taking bribes or punching reporters or any number of other actual crimes. Demanding prosecutors expose their case strategies, evidence, and path of their ongoing investigations isn't a criminal act of obstruction, though? We'll have to have the experts explain that one to us all.

It needs to be again emphasized, though, that Republicanism now defines itself around the notion that Republicans get to do crimes. The latest Trump indictment is the most serious charge against him so far; Trump was caught hoarding an array of classified documents describing some of the country's most closely guarded national security secrets and, when federal officials attempted to get them back, took repeated steps to hide the documents from the government and his own lawyers so that he could keep them. At Mar-a-Lago. In publicly accessible rooms.

This is an extraordinary crime no matter who was doing it; it is one thing to misplace such documents, but it is unquestionably a crime to intentionally attempt to keep them by lying to the federal government about their whereabouts. It's also a much more straightforward crime than "seditious conspiracy" might be, and is trivial to prove compared to charges that might revolve around "intent" when pressing state election officials to "find" new votes on Trump's behalf.

It is a big-boy crime, a big-boy federal crime that prosecutors appear to have caught Trump and his aide dead to rights on, and one that may very well be amended in the future with actual espionage charges, if Trump had the sheer audacity to share the documents not just with aides and ghostwriters but to Saudi or other foreign officials he was trying to impress. That is the investigation and indictment that House Republicans are attempting to obstruct.

They're not doing it for Trump. Nobody gives that much of a damn about Trump, not really. Jordan and the others leap to the same defenses and the same obstructive acts whenever any powerful or half-powerful Republican faces a new corruption scandal. House Republicans are devoted to the idea that Republicans get to commit crimes and get to charge their political opponents with false ones, and they've got an entire fascist movement egging them on with that.

RELATED STORIES:

Jim Jordan uses House Judiciary to sabotage Manhattan case against Donald Trump

House Republicans demanding Bragg's evidence against Trump have been coordinating with Trump himself

New York Times whitewashes Jim Jordan's part in wrestling scandal

Donald Trump is facing even more legal jeopardy and the sharks in the Republican Party seem to sense there is some blood in the water. Chris Christie has made his campaign all about going directly at Trump, and Ron DeSantis seems to be closer and closer to becoming completely isolated from the field.

Morning Digest: Anti-machine activist could be top contender for key New Jersey House race

The Daily Kos Elections Morning Digest is compiled by David Nir, Jeff Singer, and Stephen Wolf, with additional contributions from Daniel Donner, David Jarman, Steve Singiser, James Lambert and David Beard.

Subscribe to The Downballot, our weekly podcast

Leading Off

NJ-07: Former Rep. Tom Malinowski told the New Jersey Globe's David Wildstein on Tuesday that he won't run to regain his old House seat from Republican Rep. Tom Kean Jr., but another well-connected figure may be interested in campaigning for North Jersey's 7th Congressional District.

Wildstein reported in March that Sue Altman, who runs the New Jersey Working Families Alliance, was considering seeking the Democratic nod for this competitive district, which Joe Biden took by a narrow 51-47 spread, and he now writes she "could emerge as a leading candidate" with Malinowski taking his name out of contention. Altman is a one-time Republican who emerged as a prominent force in state politics by challenging the power of longtime party boss George Norcross. (Her organization is the state affiliate of the national Working Families Party, which usually backs progressive Democrats rather than run its own general election candidates.)

Altman, Politico wrote last year, has been a crucial backer of Gov. Phil Murphy, especially during his first term when he worked to pass his agenda over Norcross supporters in the legislature. She doesn't appear to have publicly expressed interest in taking on Kean, though she drew attention last month by organizing a protest against the congressman for failing to hold a single in-person town meeting.

It's quite possible that others will also consider running for the 7th, which is based in the southwestern New York City suburbs and exurbs, now that they know they won't face Malinowski. Few names, however, have emerged so far. Former state Sen. Raymond Lesniak, who would be 78 on Election Day, didn't rule out the idea in February, but we haven't heard anything from him since. Wildstein, meanwhile, says three other Democrats have decided not to run: Assemblyman Roy Freiman; former Treasury official Jim Johnson; and Matt Klapper, the chief of staff to U.S. Attorney General Merrick Garland.

Anyone who wants to defeat Kean in the 7th District, which is entirely located in the ultra-expensive New York City media market, will be in for a difficult battle, but it's one Democrats will want to engage in after the Republican's surprisingly underwhelming win last year. Kean, who is the son and namesake of the popular former governor from the 1980s, first challenged Malinowski in 2020 under the old map and held him to a 51-49 victory even as Biden was prevailing here 54-44.

Kean quickly made it clear he would run again after that close loss, while the incumbent's standing took a hit after news broke that he'd failed to disclose millions in stock trades during the beginning of the pandemic. Malinowski's broker claimed the trades were made without the congressman's "input or prior knowledge," but that did little to quiet intra-party fears that his political career would soon come to an end.

Malinowski's future only grew more dire when his own party decided to target him in redistricting. New Jersey Democrats preferred to sacrifice one of their own to ensure the rest of the state's delegation could enjoy friendlier districts, and it was Malinowski who drew the short straw: Democratic power brokers convinced the state's bipartisan redistricting commission to adopt a map that slashed Biden's margin of victory in the 7th from 10 points to just 4 while shoring up vulnerable members elsewhere.

Malinowski decided to run again anyway despite all the obstacles arrayed against him, but while he received some help from national Democrats, they did not make his contest a priority: Though the two largest outside groups on the GOP side ended up deploying $5.7 million to help Kean, their counterparts on the left spent just $1.4 million.

The intense Democratic pessimism may, however, have turned into a self-fulfilling prophecy: Kean, who had been expected to walk over Malinowski, prevailed by just a 51-49 margin. While a win is a win, Kean's squeaker—despite everything else seemingly going his way—will likely ensure that Democrats take a much bigger interest in this race in 2024.

The Downballot

How can Democrats win the messaging war? It turns out there's actually a science to it, as strategic communications consultant Anat Shenker-Osorio tells us on this week's episode of "The Downballot." Shenker-Osorio explains how her research shows the importance of treating voters as protagonists; how Democrats can avoid ceding "freedom" to Republicans by emphasizing "freedoms," plural; and why it actually makes sense to call out "MAGA Republicans" (even though, yes, it's all Republicans).

Co-hosts David Nir and David Beard also break down a major retirement in Delaware, which paves the way for the state to elect its first Black senator, and discuss how the entrance of a prominent candidate in Michigan's Senate race likely means that Democrats will in fact host a genuinely contested primary. It all adds up to the possibility that more Black women will join the Senate in 2025 alone than in all of American history. Finally, the Davids lay out the five-year plan for Democrats to win back the North Carolina Supreme Court and drive a stake into GOP gerrymandering—again.

Subscribe to "The Downballot" on Apple Podcasts to make sure you never miss a show—new episodes every Thursday! You'll find a transcript of this week's episode right here by noon Eastern Time.

Senate

CA-Sen: Democratic Rep. Barbara Lee has released an internal of next year’s top-two primary from a trio of firms―FM3, EVITARUS, and HIT Strategies―that shows her deep in fourth place before respondents learn more about her:

  • 2022 attorney general candidate Eric Early (R): 27
  • Rep. Katie Porter (D): 24
  • Rep. Adam Schiff (D): 21
  • Rep. Barbara Lee (D): 11

The memo argues that Lee’s deficit comes from her relatively low name recognition, and it shows her doing better once positive bios are read about all three Democrats. (The text of those statements is included.)

This is the very first poll we've seen testing a field that includes Early, who grabs one of the two general election spots here. However, Inside Elections' Jacob Rubashkin notes that Early almost certainly won't be the only Republican on next year's ballot (ten Republicans ran in last year's top-two for California's other Senate seat) and thus won't be able to monopolize the GOP vote the way he does here.  

MT-Sen: While Republican Rep. Ryan Zinke still hasn't quite closed the door on running against Democratic Sen. Jon Tester, he sounded unlikely to go for it in a recent interview with the Flathead Beacon. The congressman instead talked up retired Navy SEAL Tim Sheehy, whom NRSC chair Steve Daines is trying to land.

"We're looking at the [potential] field," Zinke added, "but honest to God I am also concentrated on Appropriations, because I was elected to this job and [it] needs full attention." After citing his other committee assignments, he also declared that "as far as Montana goes I'm in a good position to make sure our interests in the state are well served."

TX-Sen: UT Tyler finds Republican incumbent Ted Cruz leading Democratic Rep. Colin Allred 42-37 in the very first poll we've seen testing this matchup. Allred is currently the only serious Democrat running, though state Sen. Roland Gutierrez reportedly is preparing to jump in after the legislative session ends May 29.

House

AZ-01: Former TV news anchor Marlene Galan Woods on Wednesday joined the busy Democratic primary to take on Republican Rep. David Schweikert for a seat in the Phoenix area that Biden narrowly carried. Woods is the widow of Grant Woods, who served as Arizona's Republican attorney general in the 1990s, and she also identified as a "lifelong Republican" before joining the Democrats during the Trump era. The new candidate, who identified herself as a "moderate" in January, herself hasn't run for office before, though she chaired Democrat Adrian Fontes' victorious campaign for secretary of state last year.

Woods is competing in a crowded nomination contest where there's no obvious early frontrunner. The field includes businessman Andrei Cherny; orthodontist Andrew Horne; former Arizona regional Red Cross CEO Kurt Kroemer; and state Rep. Amish Shah.

AZ-06: Businessman Jack O'Donnell, a former Trump casino executive who has spent decades denouncing his former boss, on Wednesday declared he'd seek the Democratic nod to take on freshman Republican Rep. Juan Ciscomani. He joins a primary that includes 2022 nominee Kirsten Engel, who lost to Ciscomani 51-49 two years after Biden carried this Tucson area constituency by a bare 49.3-49.2.

O'Donnell back in 1987 became a vice president of Trump Plaza in Atlantic City, New Jersey, an experience he followed up four years later with a book titled "Trumped! The Inside Story of the Real Donald Trump—His Cunning Rise and Spectacular Fall." O'Donnell went on to lead a development company and work in what azcentral.com characterizes as the "addiction-recovery industry," but most of his national exposure came during the 2016 election when he made several TV appearances talking about his time with Trump. "When he used the word Mexicans and rapists, together, I went, this is his bigotry at its finest," he told "Frontline" in one interview, "This is really Donald Trump. Because in 26 years, it hasn't changed."

O'Donnell launched his bid by pitching himself as a centrist, arguing, "I think if we continue—and the Democrats can be just as guilty as the Republicans—if you continue to elect people who are far right and far left, it will continue to be more polarized than what it is today." The candidate, by contrast, said, "I really do feel like I am somebody that is in the middle."

CA-14: The House Ethics Committee on Monday informed Democratic Rep. Eric Swalwell that it had closed its two-year probe into allegations that he had ties to a person suspected of being a spy for China and would not take any action. House Speaker Kevin McCarthy cited the allegations earlier this year when he prevented Swalwell, who had served as a manager during Donald Trump's first impeachment, from serving on the House Intelligence Committee.

"Nearly 10 years ago I assisted the FBI in their counterintelligence investigation of a campaign volunteer," the congressman said in statement Tuesday, which he followed up with a tweet declaring, "For years MAGA GOP has falsely smeared me to silence me."

CA-40: Allyson Damikolas, who serves as a trustee on the Tustin Unified School District, announced Wednesday she'd campaign as a Democrat in next year's top-two primary against Republican Rep. Young Kim. Biden carried this constituency in eastern Orange County 50-48, but it's remained friendly to Republicans like Kim down the ballot. Damikolas is the first notable candidate to challenge Kim this cycle, though retired Orange County Fire Capt. Joe Kerr filed FEC paperwork weeks ago.

Conservatives last year tried to recall Damikolas and two of her colleagues for ostensibly promoting critical race theory. Damikolas responded, "The racial subtext seemed obvious given that I'm only the second school board member of Hispanic heritage elected to the Tustin school board in our 50-year history." While the head of the county GOP issued an apocalyptic warning that a failed recall "will only embolden the uber-left," no one turned in signatures to force a vote against any of the three members before the deadline passed.

NY-02: Businessman Rob Lubin declared Tuesday that he'd seek the Democratic nomination to face GOP Rep. Andrew Garbarino, and he said the next day that he'd brought in $220,000 during the first 24 hours of the campaign. Lubin's team tells us that only $6,600 of this came from the candidate, who is the founder of a company he describes as "an industry-leading online marketplace for fashion and apparel."

Donald Trump carried this constituency, which includes the south shore of Suffolk County, just 50-49, but this is another Long Island district where Democrats badly struggled last year. Republican Lee Zeldin, who represented a portion of this seat under the last map, beat Democratic Gov. Kathy Hochul here in a 61-39 landslide, according to Bloomberg's Greg Giroux, while Garbarino won his second term by that very same margin.

OH-09: Former state Rep. Craig Riedel has once again earned the backing of 4th District Rep. Jim Jordan, the prominent far-right extremist who represents a seat to the south, in the GOP contest to take on Democratic incumbent Marcy Kaptur, though that endorsement proved to be of limited value last time. Riedel ran commercials during his 2022 effort touting Jordan's support, but primary voters ultimately favored QAnon ally J.R. Majewski 36-31. Majewski, despite his disastrous general election campaign, is once again competing with Riedel for the right to take on Kaptur.

International

Alberta: One of the most compelling elections this year is taking place on Monday in our neighbor to the north. Though Alberta is a contender for the title of Canada's most conservative province, polls show the center-left New Democratic Party could dethrone the governing United Conservative Party in the race for the province's Legislative Assembly.

  • An eight-decade conservative reign: From 1935 until 2015, right-of-center parties ran Alberta without a break. That finally ended when a far-right splinter party split the vote with the incumbents, allowing the NDP to score a historic victory, but after conservatives reunited under the UCP banner, they easily reclaimed power in 2019.
  • Sound familiar? This time, there's no disunity on the right thanks to the UCP's new leader, an extremist, media-savvy demagogue with a penchant for conspiracy theories that have alienated moderate suburban voters. The UCP's rightward march is a key reason the election is as close as it is.
  • The critical races: As in the race for any state legislature in the U.S., Canadian elections are decided on a district-by-district basis. The key battleground is Alberta's largest city, Calgary, where conservatives have kept a stubborn grip despite the city's growing diversity. The NDP will need to make inroads here if it's to flip enough seats for a majority.

Will the NDP do it? Read more about how this contest has taken shape and find a list of key districts to watch on election night.

Jim Jordan unable to stop Democratic lawmakers from dissecting his farce hearing

America got another chance to watch Rep. Jim Jordan’s circus act he calls a House hearing on Thursday, as he wasted the universe’s time on “weaponization” of the FBI.

To make their case, Republicans invited  three former agents and “self-described FBI whistleblowers” to testify, as well as a lawyer who worked in the Office of the Special Counsel under former president Donald Trump. The three agents have had their security clearances suspended by the FBI because of Jan. 6 conspiracy mongering, and only one of them, former agent Stephen Friend’s previous testimony was available to Democratic lawmakers.Jordan refused to allow Democratic members of the committee to see any of these tales of whistleblowing.

Ranking Democratic committee member Rep. Stacey Plaskett, along with Reps. Dan Goldman, Gerry Connolly, Linda Sanchez, and Debbie Wasserman Schultz, proved that brains and not brawn can win the day, successfully exposing what all Jordan-chaired hearings are: Attacks on our democracy and attempts to justify MAGA-world’s crimes and grievances.

RELATED STORY: Tough guy Jim Jordan turns outrage on teachers, unions

The hearing began with Democratic lawmakers pointing out the rules of House committees and how Jordan has not been able to follow a one of them. Plaskett explained in her opening statement, that Democratic members only found out what “witnesses” were going to be at the hearing by way of “British tabloids.”

She very pointedly wondered aloud “Are Republicans scared of giving us the information so that we can do our own due diligence on these conspiracy theories, these ideas they want to put forward.”

Her opening statement: "My colleagues on the far right are on a mission to attack, discredit, and ultimately dismantle the FBI. This is defund the police on steroids." SO FREAKING GOOD @StaceyPlaskett pic.twitter.com/sooCD94AT1

— Victor Shi (@Victorshi2020) May 18, 2023

Plaskett and Goldman pressed Jordan on whether they would have any access to the information the committee is supposedly “investigating?” Jordan’s dismissiveness came across as particularly cowardly and unreasonable—which it was.

Plaskett asks Jim Jordan why he isn't sharing transcripts of witness testimony with Democrats. Jordan says flatly "right now you're not getting the testimony." pic.twitter.com/IRGh18Nw2C

— Aaron Rupar (@atrupar) May 18, 2023

Sanchez used her time to remind the public that,“this committee is a vehicle to legitimize the events of January 6 and the people who perpetrated it.”

"I find it incredible that evidence that one side has garnered is not going to be shared with the other side. That's not how committees work." -- Rep. Linda Sanchez pic.twitter.com/Xa1khsjUfi

— Aaron Rupar (@atrupar) May 18, 2023

Then came Wasserman Schultz and Goldman, both hitting Jordan again for refusing to follow any committee rules and for its brazen stonewalling.

Jim Jordan is making clear that there are no rules other than his whims for this committee pic.twitter.com/brHmbuiHgy

— Aaron Rupar (@atrupar) May 18, 2023

Connolly, whose district staff was recently attacked by a man wielding a baseball bat, focused on Republican hypocrisy, wondering where this “concern for protecting whistleblowers was in the Ukraine episode, in that ‘perfect’ phone call Donald Trump had with President Zelenskyy—when Col. [Alexander] Vindman, was in fact subsequently punished for reporting on that phone call which led to the impeachment of the president of the United States.”

Connolly dismissed the so-called whistleblowers’ testimony as nothing more than “employee grievances.”. He concluded, “I'm not quite sure why we had this hearing.” Maybe it was because Kash Patel, the former Trump administration official and insurrection adviser, was financing two of them, as Goldman got them to admit.

Finally, Plaskett summed up exactly what we are seeing from Jordan’s circus sideshow—a misinformation campaign against the truth and, therefore, our democracy:

Tough guy Jim Jordan turns outrage on teachers, unions

On Wednesday, American Federation of Teachers President Randi Weingarten testified before the House Select Subcommittee on the Coronavirus Pandemic, where the odious Rep. Jim Jordan tried to grill her on school closures during COVID and “culture wars.” To no one’s surprise, his effort was a flop.

According to the subcommittee’s Republican chairman, Rep. Brad Wenstrup of Ohio, the committee’s job is to investigate “the decision-making process behind school closures [during the COVID-19 pandemic] and the effects it had so that we can do better in the future.” 

Weingarten was brought in by Republicans because the conservative movement in our country wants the trials and tribulations we all dealt with during the pandemic—in this case, school closures—to be blamed on workers in all sectors of society, especially teachers and school staff.

Like most Republican-led committee meetings, this one was part circus, part conspiracy theory, and all useless. Committee hearings under Republican leaders are a cauldron of hypocrisies—too many to enumerate here. This committee could have made an effort to actually find out how school closures impacted students and educators. But instead, the general tenor of the Republicans’ questions for Weingarten was “unions and labor rights are bad.” After enduring some new lows from moral sewer-dweller Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene, who used her time to attack adoptive parents (including Weingarten herself), Weingarten had to answer a series of Jordan’s “gotcha” questions.

RELATED STORY: Marjorie Taylor Greene finally shuts up. It wasn't her decision

While Greene’s attacks on Weingarten were clearly personal, Jordan’s low-level interrogation was an attempt to paint Weingarten as a left-wing radical culture warrior for the implied crime of closing schools during a lethal pandemic. There are very few people who are less smart than Jordan, and Weingarten ain’t one of them, so Jordan’s plans blew up in his face.

Jordan, no stranger to wasting breath, began his interrogation by asking Weingarten, “Who cares more about a child's education, the teacher's union, or the child's parents?”

Weingarten replied that both parents and teachers care about children, and that obviously no one cares for individual children more than their parents. It’s hard to know what response Jordan thought he was going to get, but he evidently didn’t get the one he wanted—so he asked the question again. Weingarten easily circumvented Jordan’s sophomoric line of questioning, saying, “Look, I'm not here to be in a competition. Parents are so important in children's lives. Teachers are so important in children's lives, too.”

Jordan, whose cross-examination style might be a result of watching too many “L.A. Law” episodes, asked Weingarten, “Who are the ‘extremist politicians’?” The attempt to put Weingarten on her heels by employing a non sequitur failed miserably. Jordan read  Weingarten’s writing aloud on the matter of school safety during the pandemic, where she asserted that “attacks by extremist politicians have undermined teachers in schools.” That led to this amazing exchange:

REP. JIM JORDAN: Well, who are the extremist politicians?

RANDI WEINGARTEN: I think you just heard one, sir.

JORDAN: So Ms. Greene’s one of them.

Indeed. Weingarten pivoted to explaining how the conservative preoccupation with “culture wars” is anti-educational, then implied that book banning is a tell-tale sign of having lost an argument. Another swing and a miss for Jordan!

It is important to note here that Jordan—a coward of a man who clearly likes to talk fast but allegedly kept conspicuously silent when young men under his charge were being sexually molested at Ohio State University—pretends to do a lot of busywork when he’s supposed to be listening. It is his attempt to seem like he’s got everything under control, but he so clearly has nothing under control. His next question: “Who started the culture wars?”

Weingarten responded by explaining, once again, that the moment you start banning books about people like Anne Frank and Roberto Clemente, you’ve stepped into a place that can only be called “wrong.” Jordan, desperate to resuscitate his pointless existence on this committee, tried a transphobic attack, which Weingarten redirected back to the question he said he was asking.

The Republican Party’s extremism comes with an enormous price: narcissistic incompetence. Even when they are in control of congressional committees, they cannot turn their circus “investigations” into anything worthwhile. Instead, like all Republican-led committees at this point, the House Select Subcommittee on the Coronavirus Pandemic is mostly a performance art space for right-wing political theater performed by dunderheaded goblins like Marjorie Taylor Greene and Jim Jordan.

RELATED STORIES:

Marjorie Taylor Greene is wrong (again): Non-biological parents are parents. Full stop

MTG offers up ludicrous series of questions with fake 'facts' during committee hearing

Twitter has a field day with Jim Jordan's craven behavior at impeachment hearing

One Florida school district with optional masks has had 17 staff die of COVID-19 since August

Watch AOC let loose on Clarence Thomas on ‘The Daily Show’

This week, longtime “The Daily Show” correspondent Jordan Klepper is taking his turn in the guest host seat. He kicked the week off with a bang, scoring an interview with Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez on her home turf of New York City.

And while the interview began as a conversation about violence and social services in America, it ended up touching on Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas’ ethics failures, the fight for reproductive rights, and Donald Trump being the only person who is crying for Donald Trump.

RELATED STORY: Supreme Court Justice Thomas' Republican donor buddy also collects Nazi trinkets

After Klepper joked about a theoretical Beyonce Knowles collecting Third Reich memorabilia, Ocasio-Cortez brought the interview back on track and succinctly drilled down to the bottom line:

“Supreme Court justices are required, if they are receiving money from people—they shouldn't even be receiving money from people. This is why we pay salaries to public servants. And if they want to live that kind of lifestyle, then they can resign from the court. They can retire.

Campaign Action

Before Klepper ended the interview, he brought up the orange elephant in the room. Did Ocasio-Cortez think people “were crying,” as Trump claimed, during his recent arraignment on charges of falsifying business records?

“Maybe George Santos and Marjorie Taylor Greene were, but not me,” Ocasio-Cortez said. She went on to say that Trump’s indictment is a symbol of the deep inequalities in our justice system, as she watches “people get treated far worse for doing far less” than Trump. “If you hurt one person, you get ten years in prison. But if you hurt millions of people, you get your name on a building.”

You can watch the whole interview below, as well as read a transcript of the interview.

RELATED STORIES:

Witness calls ‘b-------’ on Trump’s claims people were ‘crying’ at arraignment

The Clarence Thomas scandal keeps growing

Clarence Thomas’ lavish vacation getaways are so corrupt, even Republicans think they're bogus

Justice Clarence Thomas has reported up to $750,000 in income from a company that doesn't exist

Transcript:

Jordan Klepper: I considered going into the medical profession. I thought I could play a handsome doctor on TV. Didn't pan out. While we were on the subject of national embarrassment, I had to ask the congresswoman about Clarence Thomas and his BFF Nazi, swag collector, Harlan Crow. I want to talk a little bit about Clarence Thomas. You've said you would even draft articles of impeachment for the things that he's done. Has there been any quid pro quo? And I said quid pro quo, partially because it took all that effort to learn what quid pro quo meant back in the Ukraine days, and it feels apropos of now. And I don't think I used apropos correctly.

Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez: I think that quid pro quo is this bar that doesn't even need to be met. The justice is required by law to disclose something like that. And he hasn't been.

Jordan Klepper: Can you empathize, though? If Beyoncé came through here, wanted to take you on a sweet vacation, wouldn't you say, “Yes.” And let her show you her Nazi memorabilia.

Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez: Tell someone about it. But hey, don't! Don't put Bey's name on that.

Jordan Klepper: I'm not saying she has. I'm saying if she invested in Nazi memorabilia to show that she hates Nazi memorabilia, she'd want to show it off.

Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez: And that whole thing is just, I mean, bizarre. You also don't keep the linens around …

Jordan Klepper:--All the Nazi linens?

Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez: Yeah. Who does that?

Jordan Klepper: Don't you think if you had $1,000,000,000 and you bought everything, you'd probably eventually get to Nazi linens?

Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez: This is the distraction of that whole issue.

Jordan Klepper: You're right. We're just focused on that as opposed to all the money that's going over to Clarence Thomas. Although if you're a billionaire, can't billionaires have friends?

Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez: They can. Supreme Court justices are required, if they are receiving money from people—they shouldn't even be receiving money from people. This is why we pay salaries to public servants. And if they want to live that kind of lifestyle, then they can resign from the court. They can retire.

Jordan Klepper: Now I want to talk about the court. It's looking as if the Supreme Court is going to rule on some of the conflicting rulings around mifepristone. Who do you think is going to write the final decision that takes away these vital rights from women? Is it going to be the guy who cried over beer or was it going to be the buddy with the Nazi memorabilia guy?

Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez: You know, my hope is that they—we do not get to that point. But we also have to face the reality that the Supreme Court has chosen to give up huge swaths of their own legitimacy. Chief Justice Roberts, Clarence Thomas, Brett Kavanaugh, the Republican Party: In them giving up trying to take seriously the legitimacy, the standards, the integrity of the court, they have given up a very large degree of their authority.

Jordan Klepper: The new news in Florida this week is the six-week abortion ban. How do women approach that or fight back against something like that that's happening in Florida?

Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez: Of course, there's the standard, like, vote and mobilize. But I'm going to put that aside for a second. We do not have to accept tyranny, and this is a form of tyranny. It is a form of violence. Women will die. People will die because of this decision. And it will be, by and large, the men who signed these laws that are killing the women that will die by them.

Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez: And we have a responsibility to help one another, whether that is supporting organizations that mail mifepristone, which has significantly reduced risk, certainly safer than medications like Viagra. But ultimately, we cannot continue to accept people in power who will abuse others for their own gain.

Jordan Klepper: Indictment week was last week. It might also be a month from now, too. We could have a lot of indictment weeks. How do you think New Yorkers treated former President Donald Trump?

Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez: I think they treated him like a Florida man. He don't belong to us no mo’, okay? You're not from Queens anymore. He's a citizen of Mar-a-Lago at this point.

Jordan Klepper: And you said New Yorkers treated him as such?

Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez: Yeah. Why wouldn't we?

Jordan Klepper: Do you think people were weeping when he was booked, as he claims?

Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez: Maybe George Santos and Marjorie Taylor Greene were, but not me. Take it back to LaGuardia.

Jordan Klepper: Take it back to LaGuardia, which is in your district?

Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez: Yes, it's in my district. And so is Rikers. And so we have, I have to go in every single day watching people get treated far worse for doing far less and then, you know, it's like this red carpet that gets rolled out. I mean, if you hurt one person, you get ten years in prison. But if you hurt millions of people, you get your name on a building.

Jordan Klepper: Congresswoman, thanks for talking with us.

Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez: Thanks for having me.

On today’s episode, Markos and Kerry are joined by a friend of the podcast, Democratic political strategist Simon Rosenberg. Rosenberg was one of the few outsiders who, like Daily Kos, kept telling the world that nothing supported the idea of a red wave. Simon and the crew break down his strategy for Democratic candidates to achieve a 55% popular vote in all elections—a number that a few years ago would have seemed unattainable, but now feels within reach.

Things are going great! Republicans walk out en masse on Florida man Gaetz during speech

The House of Representatives still does not have a speaker. The 20 or so Freedom Caucus members holding up the proceedings realize that they, like the Republican Party itself, don’t believe in majority rule. The fact that the Republican establishment has kowtowed to them for the past decade or more has only emboldened their position.

Of course, that doesn’t mean that the craven establishment leaders don’t want to remain in power—or at least seem to remain in power. On Friday, Florida man Rep. Matt Gaetz stood up to nominate—wait for it … wait for it—well, before he named his nominee for the speakership, Gaetz made a long speech attacking Kevin McCarthy, calling him the “LeBron James of special interest fundraising in this town.” 

It’s Jim Jordan! Sorry, I couldn’t wait. He named the guy who stayed silent while young man after young man allegedly told him they were being sexual assaulted and abused by a wrestling team doctor. That Jim Jordan. However, at least half of the people on Gaetz’s side of the aisle were not simply unhappy about the nomination but clearly could not stand to sit through the more-than-five-minute cringeworthy speech Gaetz subjected everyone to—and they left!

RELATED STORY: Matt Gaetz hits a new low—even for him—and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez shuts him down

Hello darkness my old friend...

After saying Jordan’s name, Gaetz decided to attack reports that his crew of freedomers were too obstinate to make any deal with the 200 or so McCarthy backers. “Let's start with purity. Many of you have seen the reports that there are negotiations to determine whether or not on this side of the aisle there can be a deal, a meeting of the minds, a grand bargain that would allow us to proceed with the speakership. And I want all of my colleagues to know, regardless of your perspective on me, how impure some of those negotiations have gone.”

“Impure!” Matt Gaetz! Somewhere just shy of the four-minute mark where Gaetz began airing out his point of view on the dirty laundry exchanges behind closed doors, Republican members of the House began standing up, looking at their phones and walking out of the chambers.

Best part? Jordan continues to vote for McCarthy.

RELATED STORY: Twitter has a field day with Jim Jordan's craven behavior at impeachment hearing

What a way to start the new year! On the first episode of season two of The Downballot, we're talking with Sara Garcia, the strategy and outreach manager at Crooked Media—home of Pod Save America—about everything her organization does to mobilize progressives and kick GOP ass. Sara tells us how Crooked arose to fill a void in the media landscape, how it not only informs listeners but also gives them tools to take action, and some of her favorite shows that she loves to recommend to folks.

Co-hosts David Nir and David Beard also discuss the Republican shitshow currently unfolding in Congress—and starkly different outcomes in two state legislatures that just elected new House speakers via bipartisan coalitions; the landslide win for the good guys in a special election primary in Virginia; why George Santos faces serious legal trouble that will very likely end with his resignation; and the massive pushback from progressive groups and labor unions against Kathy Hochul's conservative pick to be New York's top judge.

Ethics gone awry: Jan. 6 probe calls for ethics probe of GOP leader McCarthy, 3 fellow GOP lawmakers

For their failure to cooperate with the investigation of the attack on the U.S. Capitol, the Jan. 6 committee on Monday officially requested that the House Ethics Committee assess whether four Republican lawmakers violated congressional ethics rules. 

Those referred to the House Ethics Committee are House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy of California and Reps. Jim Jordan of Ohio, Andy Biggs of Arizona, and Scott Perry of Pennsylvania. 

The decision is unlikely to gain serious traction given the current dynamics in Congress: The House will be Republican-controlled next year and the House Ethics Committee itself is evenly split between Democrats and Republicans. Additionally, Investigations by the ethics committee into members of Congress are rare and often move slowly, given the required steps to conduct such a probe. Daily Kos interviewed David Laufman, former investigative counsel to the House Ethics Committee, last October to unpack the process. 

All five lawmakers were subpoenaed earlier this year and refused cooperation while simultaneously criticizing the probe publicly as a political witch hunt. Both Biggs and Jordan echoed those sentiments on Monday after the committee announced its referrals.

RELATED: Jan. 6 panel subpoenas five GOP members of Congress including Kevin McCarthy

Biggs, who is running for speaker of the House against McCarthy, called the decision by the Jan. 6 probe its “final political stunt” on Twitter Monday and said it was “inappropriate” to utilize the House Ethics Committee to reach a “pre-determined” conclusion.

Biggs’ commentary on what is or is not appropriate may seem odd given his most recent tirade relying on conspiracy theory over fact.

Biggs was an early advocate of Trump’s Big Lie and messaged then-White House chief of staff Mark Meadows on Nov. 6, calling on Meadows to appoint alternate electors for Trump. Trump, Biggs urged, should not concede his defeat. 

In the executive summary of the select committee’s final report published on Monday, investigators on the panel urged the House Ethics Committee to act. 

“If left unpunished, such behavior undermines Congress’s longstanding power to investigate in support of its lawmaking authority and suggests that members of Congress may disregard legal obligations that apply to ordinary citizens,” the summary states. 

McCarthy was of interest to the probe because of his direct engagement with Trump on Jan. 6.

He spoke to Trump by phone during the siege, as well as Trump White House insiders like Ivanka Trump and Jared Kushner.

Rep. Jaime Herrera Beutler, a Washington Republican, told the committee McCarthy relayed his conversation with Trump to her directly. 

She said:

“And he said [to President Trump], “You have got to get on TV. You’ve got to get on Twitter. You’ve got to call these people off.” You know what the President said to him? This is as it’s happening. He said, “Well Kevin, these aren’t my people. You know, these are Antifa. And Kevin responded and said, “No, they’re your people. They literally just came through my office windows and my staff are running for cover. I mean they’re running for their lives. You need to call them off.” And the President’s response to Kevin to me was chilling. He said, “Well Kevin, I guess they’re just more upset about the election theft than you are.”

McCarthy’s remarks were corroborated by Mick Mulvaney, Trump’s former acting White House chief of staff. 

The House minority leader told reporters at CBS and Fox on Jan. 6 that he spoke to Trump and urged the outgoing president to issue a statement calling for peace. In talks with Republican leadership in the immediate aftermath of Jan. 6, McCarthy discussed Trump’s resignation and invoking the 25th Amendment to remove him from office for being unfit. When Trump was impeached by the House for incitement of insurrection, McCarthy voted against impeachment but said “the president bears responsibility” for the attack. 

“He should have immediately denounced the mob when he saw what was unfolding,” McCarthy said in January 2021. 

According to the committee, McCarthy told Republican members he believed Trump was responsible for the attack, and when he spoke to Trump, Trump agreed he was culpable—at least in part. 

“I asked him personally today, does he hold responsibility for what happened? Does he feel bad about what happened? He told me he does have some responsibility for what happened. And he need[s] to acknowledge that,” McCarthy said.

As for Rep. Jordan, the committee noted in its executive summary on Monday: “Representative Jordan was a significant player in President Trump’s efforts. He participated in numerous post-election meetings in which senior White House officials, Rudolph Giuliani, and others, discussed strategies for challenging the election, chief among them claims that the election had been tainted by fraud.” 

Jordan was a participant on a conference call with Trump on Jan. 2 in which delay strategies were discussed. That same day, Jordan and Trump spoke by phone for an hour. 

A day before the insurrection, Jordan was in contact with Mark Meadows, Trump’s chief of staff. Jordan offered advice to Meadows about how then-Vice President Mike Pence could intervene in the joint session on Jan. 6. Pence did not have that authority and Jordan showed himself to be a less-than-capable reader of the Constitution. 

Jordan also spoke to Trump on Jan. 6 at least twice. His public accounting of that day has been littered with inconsistencies. 

RELATED: Jim ‘Nothing to Hide’ Jordan responds to Jan. 6 committee with a list of demands and specious claims

Evidence collected by the committee indicates Trump’s lawyer, Rudy Giuliani, called Jordan at least five times on the evening of the 6th. Jordan picked up at least two of those calls. Giuliani told the committee he reached out to Jordan because he was one of several lawmakers he called, pleading with them to keep up the spirit and object to the electoral slates once the joint session finally resumed.

Former White House aide Cassidy Hutchinson also testified that Jordan was among those members of Congress who discussed presidential pardons after the attack. But, she added, he never asked for one directly. 

Rep. Scott Perry, who has been on the Justice Department’s Jan. 6 radar for quite some time, was a key proponent of Trump’s Big Lie after the 2020 election. Both he and Jordan were involved in conversations about the objection strategy but it was Perry who arguably had the more influential role. Perry introduced Trump’s chief of staff Mark Meadows to Jeffrey Clark, a mid-level Justice Department lawyer at the time who believed that the election had been “stolen.”

Perry pushed for Trump to speak at the Capitol on Jan. 6, the committee says, and he was among those lawmakers who asked for a pardon once the attack was over. 

The lawmakers’ refusal to cooperate with the investigation was “flagrant,” the committee wrote it in the executive summary of its final report. 

“The Rules of the House of Representatives make clear that their willful noncompliance violates multiple standards of conduct and subjects them to discipline. Willful noncompliance with compulsory congressional committee subpoenas by House Members violates the spirit and letter of House Rule XXIII, Clause 1, which requires House Members to conduct themselves “at all times in a manner that shall reflect creditably on the House,” the report states. 

House Ethics Committee rules dictate that its members can go on a fact-gathering mission when assessing whether a lawmaker violated ethics rules and the body can use subpoenas to compel documents. While this avenue wasn’t particularly successful with McCarthy, Jordan, or Biggs, one particular notable difference here is that members cannot claim privileges like the Speech and Debate clause to avoid scrutiny. 

But the ethics committee would also require a vote to start a probe. If just one Republican currently sitting on the panel breaks ranks, the next step would be the formation of an investigative subcommittee. From that point, a full investigation would be conducted and House Ethics would issue what is known as a “statement of alleged violation.” 

If there's enough clear and convincing evidence and its proven that a member violated ethics rules or the law, liability could be established. Then its about due process. So, let's say a violation IS established. In that case, accountability could translate in a few ways...

— Brandi Buchman (@Brandi_Buchman) December 19, 2022

With enough information, liability could potentially be established and from there, accountability would come by way of a “letter of reproval” of that member or a formal reprimand. A letter of reproval does not require a full House vote, but a reprimand does. 

Only 11 members of Congress have been reprimanded since the process first began in the 1960s. 

Jan. 6 probe makes ethics complaint against four lawmakers including GOP Leader Kevin McCarthy

For their failure to cooperate with the investigation of the attack on the U.S. Capitol, the Jan. 6 committee on Monday officially requested that the House Ethics Committee assess whether four Republican lawmakers violated congressional ethics rules. 

Those referred to the House Ethics Committee are House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy of California and Reps. Jim Jordan of Ohio, Andy Biggs of Arizona, and Scott Perry of Pennsylvania. 

The decision is unlikely to gain serious traction given the current dynamics in Congress: The House will be Republican-controlled next year and the House Ethics Committee itself is evenly split between Democrats and Republicans. Additionally, Investigations by the ethics committee into members of Congress are rare and often move slowly, given the required steps to conduct such a probe. Daily Kos interviewed David Laufman, former investigative counsel to the House Ethics Committee, last October to unpack the process. 

All five lawmakers were subpoenaed earlier this year and refused cooperation while simultaneously criticizing the probe publicly as a political witch hunt. Both Biggs and Jordan echoed those sentiments on Monday after the committee announced its referrals.

RELATED: Jan. 6 panel subpoenas five GOP members of Congress including Kevin McCarthy

Biggs, who is running for speaker of the House against McCarthy, called the decision by the Jan. 6 probe its “final political stunt” on Twitter Monday and said it was “inappropriate” to utilize the House Ethics Committee to reach a “pre-determined” conclusion.

Biggs’ commentary on what is or is not appropriate may seem odd given his most recent tirade relying on conspiracy theory over fact.

Biggs was an early advocate of Trump’s Big Lie and messaged then-White House chief of staff Mark Meadows on Nov. 6, calling on Meadows to appoint alternate electors for Trump. Trump, Biggs urged, should not concede his defeat. 

In the executive summary of the select committee’s final report published on Monday, investigators on the panel urged the House Ethics Committee to act. 

“If left unpunished, such behavior undermines Congress’s longstanding power to investigate in support of its lawmaking authority and suggests that members of Congress may disregard legal obligations that apply to ordinary citizens,” the summary states. 

McCarthy was of interest to the probe because of his direct engagement with Trump on Jan. 6.

He spoke to Trump by phone during the siege, as well as Trump White House insiders like Ivanka Trump and Jared Kushner.

Rep. Jaime Herrera Beutler, a Washington Republican, told the committee McCarthy relayed his conversation with Trump to her directly. 

She said:

“And he said [to President Trump], “You have got to get on TV. You’ve got to get on Twitter. You’ve got to call these people off.” You know what the President said to him? This is as it’s happening. He said, “Well Kevin, these aren’t my people. You know, these are Antifa. And Kevin responded and said, “No, they’re your people. They literally just came through my office windows and my staff are running for cover. I mean they’re running for their lives. You need to call them off.” And the President’s response to Kevin to me was chilling. He said, “Well Kevin, I guess they’re just more upset about the election theft than you are.”

McCarthy’s remarks were corroborated by Mick Mulvaney, Trump’s former acting White House chief of staff. 

The House minority leader told reporters at CBS and Fox on Jan. 6 that he spoke to Trump and urged the outgoing president to issue a statement calling for peace. In talks with Republican leadership in the immediate aftermath of Jan. 6, McCarthy discussed Trump’s resignation and invoking the 25th Amendment to remove him from office for being unfit. When Trump was impeached by the House for incitement of insurrection, McCarthy voted against impeachment but said “the president bears responsibility” for the attack. 

“He should have immediately denounced the mob when he saw what was unfolding,” McCarthy said in January 2021. 

According to the committee, McCarthy told Republican members he believed Trump was responsible for the attack, and when he spoke to Trump, Trump agreed he was culpable—at least in part. 

“I asked him personally today, does he hold responsibility for what happened? Does he feel bad about what happened? He told me he does have some responsibility for what happened. And he need[s] to acknowledge that,” McCarthy said.

As for Rep. Jordan, the committee noted in its executive summary on Monday: “Representative Jordan was a significant player in President Trump’s efforts. He participated in numerous post-election meetings in which senior White House officials, Rudolph Giuliani, and others, discussed strategies for challenging the election, chief among them claims that the election had been tainted by fraud.” 

Jordan was a participant on a conference call with Trump on Jan. 2 in which delay strategies were discussed. That same day, Jordan and Trump spoke by phone for an hour. 

A day before the insurrection, Jordan was in contact with Mark Meadows, Trump’s chief of staff. Jordan offered advice to Meadows about how then-Vice President Mike Pence could intervene in the joint session on Jan. 6. Pence did not have that authority and Jordan showed himself to be a less-than-capable reader of the Constitution. 

Jordan also spoke to Trump on Jan. 6 at least twice. His public accounting of that day has been littered with inconsistencies. 

RELATED: Jim ‘Nothing to Hide’ Jordan responds to Jan. 6 committee with a list of demands and specious claims

Evidence collected by the committee indicates Trump’s lawyer, Rudy Giuliani, called Jordan at least five times on the evening of the 6th. Jordan picked up at least two of those calls. Giuliani told the committee he reached out to Jordan because he was one of several lawmakers he called, pleading with them to keep up the spirit and object to the electoral slates once the joint session finally resumed.

Former White House aide Cassidy Hutchinson also testified that Jordan was among those members of Congress who discussed presidential pardons after the attack. But, she added, he never asked for one directly. 

Rep. Scott Perry, who has been on the Justice Department’s Jan. 6 radar for quite some time, was a key proponent of Trump’s Big Lie after the 2020 election. Both he and Jordan were involved in conversations about the objection strategy but it was Perry who arguably had the more influential role. Perry introduced Trump’s chief of staff Mark Meadows to Jeffrey Clark, a mid-level Justice Department lawyer at the time who believed that the election had been “stolen.”

Perry pushed for Trump to speak at the Capitol on Jan. 6, the committee says, and he was among those lawmakers who asked for a pardon once the attack was over. 

The lawmakers’ refusal to cooperate with the investigation was “flagrant,” the committee wrote it in the executive summary of its final report. 

“The Rules of the House of Representatives make clear that their willful noncompliance violates multiple standards of conduct and subjects them to discipline. Willful noncompliance with compulsory congressional committee subpoenas by House Members violates the spirit and letter of House Rule XXIII, Clause 1, which requires House Members to conduct themselves “at all times in a manner that shall reflect creditably on the House,” the report states. 

House Ethics Committee rules dictate that its members can go on a fact-gathering mission when assessing whether a lawmaker violated ethics rules and the body can use subpoenas to compel documents. While this avenue wasn’t particularly successful with McCarthy, Jordan, or Biggs, one particular notable difference here is that members cannot claim privileges like the Speech and Debate clause to avoid scrutiny. 

But the ethics committee would also require a vote to start a probe. If just one Republican currently sitting on the panel breaks ranks, the next step would be the formation of an investigative subcommittee. From that point, a full investigation would be conducted and House Ethics would issue what is known as a “statement of alleged violation.” 

If there's enough clear and convincing evidence and its proven that a member violated ethics rules or the law, liability could be established. Then its about due process. So, let's say a violation IS established. In that case, accountability could translate in a few ways...

— Brandi Buchman (@Brandi_Buchman) December 19, 2022

With enough information, liability could potentially be established and from there, accountability would come by way of a “letter of reproval” of that member or a formal reprimand. A letter of reproval does not require a full House vote, but a reprimand does. 

Only 11 members of Congress have been reprimanded since the process first began in the 1960s.