What was said “He has been arrested for changing information, including the text messages of our senior member Jim Jordan.” – Rep. Kevin McCarthy, California Republican, at a news conference on Thursday This is too much. This was a reference to a written message presented at a meeting of the select committee investigating the January 6 uprising. The whole text was not presented, but no words were changed. During the meeting, Adam B. Schiff, a Democrat from California, read and presented a text that an anonymous lawmaker had sent to Mr. Meadows: “On January 6, 2021, Vice President Mike Pence, as Speaker of the Senate, should call for the elimination of all electoral votes that he believes are unconstitutional as there are no electoral votes at all “. Mr Siff went on to say that the text message reflected why it was “so crucial” that we continue to question Mr Meadows. A few days later, the conservative publication The Federalist reported that the text had come from spokesman Jim Jordan, an Ohio Republican, who had passed it on to Mr. Meadows. The message originally came from a lawyer who argued that the vice president had the legal authority to ratify the votes. The full text read: “On January 6, 2021, Vice President Mike Pence, as President of the Senate, will have to invoke all the electoral votes he deems unconstitutional, as there are no electoral votes at all – according to the founder’s instructions. Alexander Hamilton and judicial priority. “No legislative act,” Alexander Hamilton wrote in Federalist No. 78, “contrary to the Constitution, can be valid.” The court in the case of Hubbard v. Lowe reinforced this truth: “The fact that an unconstitutional statute is not a law at all is a proposal that is no longer open for discussion.” 226 F. 135, 137 (SDNY 1915), appeal rejected, 242 US 654 (1916). “According to this reasoning, an unconstitutionally appointed elector, like an unconstitutionally enshrined statute, is not an elector at all.” A representative of the committee acknowledged the cut in the text and apologized for it. What was said “He rejected the minority choices to be on the committee. This contrasts with 232 years of tradition in this House. You reject the minority in order to have a say in the committee “. – Mr. McCarthy False. Seven Democrats and two Republicans are on the selection committee, contrary to Mr. McCarthy’s claim that it is entirely partisan. In addition, Mr. McCarthy omits the fact that he is partly responsible for the small number of Republicans involved. His reference to a two-century tradition of minority contribution is also wrong. Parliament passed a resolution on the creation of the selection committee in June 2021, giving Ms. Pelosi the power to appoint eight members and Mr. McCarthy five. A few weeks later, McCarthy appointed Indiana Representative Jim Banks as a member of the rankings, as well as Jordan, Rodney Davis of Illinois, Kelly Armstrong of North Dakota, and Troy Nehls of Texas. Ms Pelosi rejected Banks and Jordan, arguing that Trump’s two vocal supporters could affect “the integrity of the investigation”, but agreed to the involvement of the other three Republicans. In response, Mr. McCarthy said Republicans would not participate at all unless Mr. Jordan and Mr. Banks were allowed to join the committee. Ms. Pelosi later nominated two Republicans critical of Mr. Trump, including Liz Cheney of Wyoming and Adam Kinzinger of Illinois. In addition, Mr. McCarthy was wrong to say that Ms. Pelosi broke a two-century tradition by rejecting two of his choices. In fact, the speaker appointed members and committee chairmen until 1911, and the speaker “retained the power” to appoint members to elect committees, according to a guide in Parliament. In other words, the minority party had no role in the nomination process for much of American history, said Joshua C. Huder, a senior fellow in congressional affairs and history at Georgetown University. After 1911, it was unusual for the majority party to reject the minority party’s choices, but Hunter said, “I know for a fact that they used informal political weight to limit who the minority chooses.” What was said “Did President Pelosi participate in the decision to delay the assistance of the National Guard on January 6? These are serious and true questions that this committee even refuses to ask. “Speaker Pelosi does not want to answer these questions because she knows that the answers to these questions leave a trace of bread crumbs right behind her desk, emphasizing her negligence, her lack of leadership as Speaker of Parliament.” – Mr Banks, in the same press conference This is misleading. For more than a year, Republicans and conservative commentators have repeatedly and misleadingly accused Ms. Pelosi of delaying the development of the National Guard at the Capitol on January 6th. There is no evidence that Ms. Pelosi’s office rejected a request for the deployment of the National Guard or even that it played a role in any delays in approval. The decision belongs to the Capitol Police Council, which includes the sergeants of the Parliament and the Senate and the architect of the Capitol. A report by two bipartisan Senate committees investigating the January 6 attack delayed the National Guard’s request for “opaque procedures.” He noted that members of the Capitol Police Council were unfamiliar with the approval process and gave conflicting accounts of when help was first sought.
