The Speaker was on the morning talkies and he sure don’t want to seat the newly elected Representative from Arizona. Was quite funny to watch him squirm. The article is here, as always Takeaways and a Summart..PLUS A HUGE BONUS AT END.
Summary
- The article reports on a tense exchange between NBC host Kristen Welker and House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-LA).
- Welker challenged Johnson, pointing out that the House was not in session—and this was preventing the newly elected Democratic Congresswoman from Arizona (a swing vote) from being sworn in, which in turn could delay the release of Jeffrey Epstein-related files.
- Johnson pushed back, calling that line of questioning a “red herring” and denying any causal link. He blamed Senate Democrats (particularly Chuck Schumer) for keeping the government shut down, saying they were doing so for political cover.
- The article criticizes Johnson for failing to explain why he couldn’t bring the House into session independently (i.e. while the Senate debates the shutdown).
- It frames the exchange as an example of Johnson “scrambling” under pressure and obfuscating rather than directly addressing the allegation.
Key Takeaways & Analysis
- Tension over control of congressional schedules
- The core of Welker’s line of questioning is about procedural control: who has the power/obligation to convene the House and whether Johnson is using schedule controls to block contentious revelations (e.g. Epstein files).
- Johnson’s response sidesteps that procedural question and shifts blame to Senate Democrats.
- Use of “red herring” rhetoric
- Johnson labels the allegation a “red herring,” suggesting it’s a diversion from more substantive issues. That technique is often used to deflect.
- But calling it a diversion doesn’t answer the underlying procedural and transparency questions.
- Political framing and blame-shifting
- Johnson accuses Senate Democrats (and Schumer in particular) of orchestrating the shutdown for political advantage.
- He also references intra-Democratic disputes (a “Marxist in New York”) to drive a narrative of chaos on the other side.
- Transparency and accountability implications
- The article implies that withholding the ability to swear in a crucial vote is a tactic to block disclosure (like Epstein documents).
- It suggests Johnson is avoiding accountability by either suppressing documents or manipulating congressional timing.
- Journalistic pressure & spotlighting conflicts
- Welker’s role highlights how journalism can force political figures to confront difficult questions on air.
- The article uses this moment to underscore what it views as Johnson’s evasiveness.
Here’s a fact-check / contextual cross-check of the claims and framing in that Crooks & Liars piece, plus notes on what is accurate, what is ambiguous, and what is disputed:
What checks out / is supported by independent reporting
- Johnson has refrained from calling the House into session during the shutdown
- Reporting indicates that Johnson and GOP leadership have canceled votes and kept the House out of session during this shutdown period. The New Republic+2Politico Pro+2
- One article notes that Republican leaders canceled work days on Monday and Tuesday just before the shutdown deadline, which postponed the swearing-in of Representative-elect Adelita Grijalva, who is seen by some as pivotal for a petition to force a vote on releasing Epstein documents. The New Republic+1
- Politico reports that Johnson told House Republicans in a private call that he will give 48 hours’ notice if they are needed for a vote. Politico Pro
- Thus, the assertion that Johnson “did not explain” (or has not publicly justified) why he isn’t bringing the House into session is broadly consistent with media coverage.
- The “swing vote” issue / effect on Epstein files
- Multiple sources reference that Grijalva’s swearing in is relevant to the push for forcing a vote on releasing Epstein-related files. The New Republic
- The Crooks & Liars claim that Welker raised a version of this idea (“the House is not in session because you don’t want to swear in this newly elected member … who would be a critical vote to releasing the Epstein files”) matches what is reported in other outlets. crooksandliars.com+2The New Republic+2
- Johnson’s accusations of Senate Democrats’ role in the shutdown
- The article states Johnson blames Senate Democrats (notably Schumer) for the shutdown, claiming they repeatedly vote to keep the government closed. That aligns with Johnson’s own messaging about blame-shifting to Democrats. Dallas News+3crooksandliars.com+3The New Republic+3
- However, independent fact-checkers show that both sides are using blame narratives, and the structural reality is that Republicans control both chambers and the White House during this period. (Hence, arguments that Senate Democrats alone are responsible are contested.) Dallas News+1
- Historical precedent for swearing in during shutdowns / procedural possibility
- The article states (implicitly) that there is precedent for swearing in a member during a shutdown. That is supported by reporting asserting that members have been sworn in during prior shutdowns (e.g. 2019) and that doing so is not inherently blocked by shutdown status. The New Republic
- Thus, the premise that Johnson’s decision not to do so is a choice, not necessarily a legal constraint, is plausible.
What is contested, ambiguous, or likely exaggeration / framing
- Causality: “because” he doesn’t want to swear in the new member to block Epstein file release
- The article frames Johnson’s decision to keep the House out of session as intentionally aimed at blocking the swearing-in of a vote relevant to Epstein files. That is a political interpretation more than a clearly established fact.
- While others (journalists, Democratic lawmakers) also raise that possibility, there is no definitive public evidence proving that the primary motive is to obstruct the Epstein document process, rather than a broader political/negotiating strategy.
- Johnson’s denial (“This has nothing to do with that. It’s another red herring,” per Crooks & Liars) cannot be accepted at face value; but the article’s inference is more speculative than empirically proven.
- Johnson calling the line of questioning a “red herring”
- This is accurately reported in the original article and consistent with transcripts of his remarks. crooksandliars.com+1
- Whether that is a valid dismissal is a matter of interpretation. The article frames it as rhetorical deflection; that’s plausible, but not proven as such.
- Johnson’s broader claims about Democrats causing the shutdown
- Johnson’s assertion that Senate Democrats are keeping the government closed for political cover is part of standard political blame-shifting. Independent fact-checking (e.g. PolitiFact) notes Republicans also have leverage and control in negotiations, so his portrayal is one side of the narrative. Dallas News+1
- The Dallas News / PolitiFact fact-check of shutdown talking points suggests many assertions from both parties involve omissions or exaggerations. Dallas News
- Omission: lack of public justification / explanation
- The article criticizes Johnson for not explaining why he can’t call the House into session. That is a stronger claim about what he hasn’t done rather than what he has. It is harder to prove a negative, but the public record suggests he has not offered a detailed procedural defense.
- It may be that behind closed doors or in internal memos there is a justification, but publicly, the justifications have mostly been blame-oriented rather than detailed on procedural constraints.
Overall assessment
- Strengths of the article’s claims: The piece draws on accurate, publicly documented moves by Johnson and GOP leadership (cancellation of sessions, refusal to convene, delaying swearing-in). Its framing that the procedural maneuvering has political consequences (especially vis-à-vis the Epstein file issue) is consistent with how political observers are reporting it.
- Weaknesses or speculative leaps: The direct claim that Johnson is deliberately manipulating the schedule solely to block a vote on Epstein-related files is interpretive rather than proven. Also, while the article labels Johnson’s statements as evasive or “scrambling,” that interpretation is rhetorical and not always fully substantiated by transparent evidence.