this post was submitted on 06 Oct 2023
1 points (100.0% liked)

politics

19104 readers
2931 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
  4. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

Suffice it to say, if Liz Cheney had survived the wrath of Donald Trump and retained her congressional seat, she would be organizing congressional Republicans to oppose Jim Jordan’s bid to become Speaker of the House.

But Cheney, the bluntest Republican critic of Trump’s assault on democracy, was crushed in the 2022 primary campaign for her Wyoming seat, thus foreclosing any chance that she would ever achieve the speakership that she so obviously coveted. But Cheney is still battling Trump and still, in her way, battling for the speakership.

Even before Trump endorsed Jordan’s candidacy to replace deposed Speaker Kevin McCarthy early on Friday morning, Cheney was raising a red alert regarding the House Judiciary Committee chair’s bid to become the most powerful Republican in Washington.

Were House Republicans to opt for Jordan in the race he is now running against House Majority Leader Steve Scalise, R-Louisiana, Cheney argued in an October 4 speech at the University of Minnesota, it would be an ominous development for her party and her country. “If they were to decide that Jim Jordan should be the Speaker of the House,” she warned, “there would no longer be any possible way to argue that a group of elected Republicans could be counted on to defend the Constitution.”

In reality, the notion that elected Republicans are inclined as a group to defend the Constitution went out the window long ago. Cheney was a part of the problem when she chaired the House Republican Conference and served as one of the most hawkish members of a chamber that regularly rejected its constitutional duty to check and balance presidential war-making and abuses of civil liberties. Cheney actually voted with Trump on a slightly more frequent basis than Jordan—though, it should be noted, on a slightly less frequent basis than Scalise, an insider whose social conservative streak comes with a pro-corporate edge.

Cheney’s concerns about Jordan are rooted in the bitter experiences of her final term in the House, when she and a handful of other Republicans tried to hold the former president to account for his efforts to overturn the results of the 2020 election he lost to Democrat Joe Biden. Both Jordan and Scalise were on the wrong side of that fight, but Cheney, the former co-chair of the House Select Committee to Investigate the January 6th Attack on the United States Capitol, argues, “Jim Jordan knew more about what Donald Trump had planned for January 6th than any other member of the House of Representatives. Jim Jordan was involved, was part of the conspiracy in which Donald Trump was engaged as he attempted to overturn the election.”

Jordan was so involved that he reportedly discussed the prospect of Trump issuing preemptory pardons to the former president’s congressional allies. And Jordan was among Trump’s most ardent defenders during his second impeachment in 2021.

That gives Cheney plenty of reasons to oppose Jordan—and Trump just as many reasons to support him. So it comes as no surprise that, within hours of Cheney’s warning, Trump rejected overtures from House allies who wanted him to seek the speakership and endorsed Jordan’s bid.

“He will be a GREAT Speaker of the House,” argued Trump, who added that, “He is STRONG on Crime, Borders, our Military/Vets, & 2nd Amendment.”

The choice between Scalise and Jordan is not an ideological one, and there’s an argument to be made that Scalise would be more effective at pulling the caucus together and advancing the conservative agenda. But Trump’s not interested. In the former president’s eyes, Jordan’s biggest selling point is that he is stronger on Trump than any top Republican in the House. Jordan proved that when he abused his authority as Judiciary Committee chair so egregiously that attorneys for Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg alleged that he had engaged in “a campaign of intimidation, retaliation and obstruction” in order to undermine efforts to prosecute Trump—who currently faces 91 criminal indictments in a number of jurisdictions.

And, of course, Jordan has been leading the effort to impeach Trump’s likely opponent in the 2024 presidential race, President Biden, on charges so spurious that constitutional law professor Jonathan Turley, a frequent GOP witness on issues related to presidential accountability, told the House Oversight Committee he did “not believe that the current evidence would support articles of impeachment.”

If Jordan becomes speaker, it’s a safe bet that the impeachment inquiry will proceed more aggressively than it did under McCarthy— who faced criticism from conservatives for his hesitancy regarding the initiative. Even if Jordan could get the House to vote to impeach Biden—which is not guaranteed—the prospects for a conviction in the Democratic Senate would be slim.

But it is surely worth noting that, as Speaker of the House, Jordan would not merely be the most powerful Republican in the Capitol. He would be second in the line of presidential succession after Vice President Kamala Harris.

A daunting thought for those who recall that former House Speaker John Boehner, who once dismissed his fellow Ohio Republican as a “political terrorist,” has said of Jordan, “I just never saw a guy who spent more time tearing things apart—never building anything, never putting anything together.”

no comments (yet)
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
there doesn't seem to be anything here