Tag: matt gaetz
Mike Johnson

Johnson Barely Wins Speaker Election (And House Applauds Gaetz Absence)

Mike Johnson finally secured the speakership on the first ballot after three GOP lawmakers initially voted against his candidacy during a tumultuous start for the 119th Congress on Friday.

Johnson could afford to lose just one vote and win the gavel. But Reps. Thomas Massie of Kentucky, Ralph Norman of South Carolina, and Keith Self of Texas initially voted against Johnson, which would have blocked the Louisiana Republican from winning a majority of the ballots—and handed him an embarrassing defeat.

Initially, Massie voted for House Majority Whip Tom Emmer, Norman voted for Ohio GOP Rep. Jim Jordan, and Self voted for Florida GOP Rep. Byron Donalds. However, none of these Republicans were officially running for the position.

However, after some politicking on the House floor and negotiation by Johnson, Norman and Self changed their votes to support Johnson, giving him the speaker’s gavel.

The move was critical because Congress needs a House speaker by January 6 to certify Donald Trump’s presidential victory, which is expected to happen on Monday.

Johnson’s rocky vote is a bad sign for Republicans’ ability to govern since keeping a conference unified to pick a leader should be the easiest vote of a Congress. And the GOP has no room to spare to pass Trump’s destructive agenda, as Republicans have the narrowest majority in nearly 100 years.

The 220 seats Republicans won in November is set to shrivel to 217 in the coming weeks because Trump nominated two GOP House members—Elise Stefanik of New York and Mike Waltz of Florida—to his administration. Florida Republican Matt Gaetz also declined to take the seat he won in November after his nomination to serve as Trump's attorney general crashed and burned. (When it was announced on the House floor Friday morning that Gaetz would not be taking his seat, multiple members of the House clapped.)

With just 217 seats—at least until the spring when special elections can be held to fill the vacancies—the eventual GOP speaker won’t be able to afford losing a single vote if every lawmaker is present. That will give Johnson no room to spare when trying to pass Trump's agenda of tax cuts for the rich and border security.

Among the pieces of legislation Republicans are promising to pass include a bill to require doctors to provide care to infants that survive abortions and a bill to require proof of citizenship to vote in federal elections, among others.

Harder still, Republicans will have to put up legislation in the spring to fund the government as well as raise the debt ceiling so that the United States doesn't default and plunge the country—and likely, the world—into economic crisis.

Given that both of those tasks will require compromise with Democrats in the Senate—where the filibuster currently remains in place, requiring 60 votes for legislation to earn an up-or-down vote—Speaker Johnson could face another revolt from hard-liners in his conference.

Indeed, far-right Rep. Chip Roy of Texas signaled that Johnson’s future as House speaker may be anything but certain.

What Johnson does have going for him, however, is that Republicans are set to change the rules to make it harder to oust him from the speakership.

In the previous Congress, one lawmaker from either party could force a vote to oust a speaker. But the proposed rules for the new Congress, only GOP lawmakers can force a vote and only if they get eight other GOP lawmakers to co-sponsor their motion.

Democrats mocked Republicans for the chaos they created so quickly into the new session of Congress.

“Well folks… Johnson doesn’t have the votes… At least on this first round…” Rep. Jasmine Crockett of Texas wrote in a post on X. “THE PARTY of CHAOS is at it again! Welcome to the 119th Congress!”

Editor’s note: This story has been updated to reflect the changing nature of the House speakership vote.

Reprinted with permission from Daily Kos.

Chip Roy

House Republicans Suddenly Want To Make Ousting Speaker More Difficult

House Republicans released a proposal Wednesday for the rules governing the lower chamber of Congress to make it more difficult to oust a speaker—an effort to protect Mike Johnson, or whoever ultimately wins the gavel.

In the current Congress, any House member from either party could introduce a motion to vacate the chair, which would require the House to vote on a new speaker.

Former Speaker Kevin McCarthy (R-CA) made this rule in 2023 as a concession to House Republicans in exchange for their votes for speaker after an embarrassing 15 rounds of voting.

Former Rep. Matt Gaetz, Republican of Florida, used this rule to oust McCarthy in October 2023. And Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene, Republican of Georgia, tried to use it again in May 2024 to push out Johnson, but Democrats voted to keep him to avoid throwing the House into chaos for the second time in less than a year.

But Republicans’ new proposed rule, which the House will vote on when the 119th Congress is sworn in on Friday, would only allow members of the majority party to introduce motions to vacate the chair.

As the proposal states, “A resolution causing a vacancy in the Office of Speaker shall not be privileged except if it is offered by a member of the majority party and has accumulated eight cosponsors from the majority party at the time it is offered.’’

If adopted, this rule could insulate Johnson from being ousted if his own members revolt against him. Though, of course, Johnson has to be elected speaker first, which is not a sure thing.

Johnson can afford to lose just one Republican vote with his narrow majority and still become speaker. Already, Rep. Thomas Massie, Republican of Kentucky, said he is not voting for Johnson, and Rep. Chip Roy, Republican of Texas, suggested that he isn’t either, putting Johnson’s speakership in potential danger.

It’s unclear whether anyone will challenge Johnson for the gavel, so the Massie-Roy effort would merely stop the House from having a speaker and paralyze the chamber until they relent. If no speaker is in place by Jan. 6, then Congress will not be able to certify Donald Trump’s victory.

Democrats, meanwhile, are irate about Republicans' proposed rule change.

Rep. Jim McGovern, Democrat of Massachusetts, accused Republicans of "injecting partisan extremism into the rules."

"Their proposed changes would, for the first time in history, shield the Speaker from accountability to the entire chamber by making it so that only Republicans can move to vacate the chair," he wrote on X. "This makes it clear that they have no intention of working together to find common ground. Instead of electing a Speaker of the House, they decided to elect a Speaker of the Republican Conference—held hostage by their most extreme members."

Other Democrats said the rule proposal is an indication of Johnson’s weakness.

"I suppose this travesty is necessary in the Speaker's mind because his leadership is so tenuous,” Rep. Joe Morelle, Democrat of New York, told Axios. “There's no way for him to 'win’ the game unless the 'fix' is in. But this is deeply troubling."

The 119th Congress is already a mess, and it hasn't even started yet.

Reprinted with permission from Daily Kos.

Hey Suckers! Stop Taking Trump's Boob Bait On Greenland And Panama

Hey Suckers! Stop Taking Trump's Boob Bait On Greenland And Panama

Donald Trump had a rough couple of weeks. Members of his own party sunk his attempt to escape a vote on the debt limit for two years. Some of Trump's picks for top jobs weren't received with universal applause. A revolt by Republican senators against his choice of Matt Gaetz as attorney general forced the Florida Republican to withdraw from consideration. Then there was, yuck, the Gaetz report.

If you were Trump confronted with this unwanted evidence of limited political potency, what would you do? You would throw out some dazzling nonsense to distract the public's attention from your difficulties. You would make outlandish comments on such matters as buying Greenland and taking back the Panama Canal. You'd suggest that Canada become the 51st state.

And what has much of respectable media done with this fusillade of goofy chatter? Unfortunately, they jumped at the bait with unseemly speed and moved their focus to Trump's muttering about plans to stomp on the sovereignty of friendly countries. They led news reports with serious discussions of the international ramifications.

"The US is unlikely to take control of any of these regions," the BBC wrote with a straight face, "but these statements could indicate that Trump's 'America First' vision includes flexing the superpower's muscle beyond its borders for US trade and national security interests."

We've been here before.

In August 2019, then-President Trump told reporters of the "strategically interesting" idea of buying Greenland, which is a territory of Denmark. The Danish prime minister called the proposal "absurd." Trump then canceled a planned state visit to Denmark, citing such remarks as the reason.

But to show what a ha-ha headbang that attention-grabbing stunt really was, Trump tweeted a photograph of a skyscraper in the middle of an Arctic setting with the Trump logo at the top.

He wrote: "I promise not to do this to Greenland!"

He just dusted off the ridiculous idea again, writing on a social media post that the U.S. "feels that the ownership and control of Greenland is an absolute necessity" for reasons of national security and global freedom.

Media again snapped at the floating lures.

The Wall Street Journal offered the headline, "Trump Threatens to Take Control of Panama Canal, Greenland." The New York Times headline was "Trump's Wish to Control Greenland and Panama Canal: Not a Joke This Time." The article asserted: "Over the past two days, President-elect Donald J. Trump has made clear that he has designs for American territorial expansion."

Not a joke? Trump's son Eric posted an image on X showing Greenland, the Panama Canal, and Canada in an Amazon online shopping cart.

The Danish prime minister's office simply brushed off the latest provocation. It blandly remarked that the government was "looking forward to working with the new administration" and left it at that.

As for the Panama Canal, one serious news source noted that Trump would be able to use "the world's largest military" to back up his demands. The irony of discussing such rash international adventures without noting that Trump routinely accused his political opponents of being war-mongers was lost.

Greenland is still not for sale, but if it were on the market, it would be a big-ticket item, to say the least. Some analysts put the value of its natural resources alone in the hundreds of billions of dollars. Taking it by force would be a costly military operation.

How would starting the United States on a round of territorial expansion fit in with vows to chop $2 trillion out of the budget? Not well and another reason to dismiss the clown show.

At the very least, Trump should have to come up with new material.

Reprinted with permission from Creators.

Matt Gaetz

The 'Catastrophic' Legacy Of Matt Gaetz

What a Christmas present! In its report released last Monday, the bipartisan House Ethics Committee cited "substantial evidence" that from 2017 to 2020, former Rep. and would-be Attorney General Matt Gaetz "regularly paid women for engaging in sexual activity with him," including an underage 17-year-old, and from 2017 to 2019, had in his possession illegal drugs including cocaine and ecstasy, on "multiple different occasions." Investigating a 2018 trip Gaetz made to the Bahamas, the committee found that he violated House rules by accepting transportation and lodging, which is not allowed. Summing up its conclusions, the committee found that Gaetz "violated House Rules, state and federal laws, and other standards of conduct prohibiting prostitution, statutory rape, illicit drug use, acceptance of impermissible gifts, the provision of special favors and privileges, and obstruction of Congress."

The House panel reported that Gaetz was "uncooperative" throughout its investigation and "knowingly and willfully sought to impede and obstruct the Committee's investigation of his conduct." They also found that he used his former chief of staff to "assist a woman with whom he engaged in sexual activity in obtaining a passport, falsely indicating to the U.S. Department of State that she was a constituent."

And he almost got away with all of it.

How? Why?

Those questions deserve answers.

This is the man who brought down Speaker Kevin McCarthy, twisting the House into knots and bringing about a dangerous stalemate in Congress.

This is the man who was Donald Trump's first choice to be attorney general of the United States.

The report was the product of a multiyear investigation of Gaetz that took place while he was taking a leading — and sometimes decisive — role in House deliberations and actively campaigning for the president-elect. Had Gaetz had his way, and some of his Republican colleagues had theirs, we would still not know the truth about him. Gaetz brought suit to attempt to block the committee's release of the report, in a complaint that reportedly requested a restraining order and injunction, claiming that the committee's action violated the Constitution in its effort to "exercise jurisdiction over a private citizen through the threatened release of an investigative report containing potentially defamatory allegations."

Gaetz resigned from Congress two days before the report was due to be issued, in an obvious attempt to block the report's release. It was the same day he was nominated for attorney general. Rep. Michael Guest, who chairs the Ethics Committee, opposed its actual release. While writing that he and other Republican members "do not challenge the Committee's findings," he argued that releasing a report about someone who is no longer a member of Congress, "an action the Committee has not taken since 2006," is "a dangerous departure with potentially catastrophic consequences."

The "catastrophic consequences" are that this criminal served in a leading capacity in the House of Representatives and almost became the attorney general of the United States. The "catastrophic consequences" are that he was nominated for that position by a president-elect who was — we have to presume — utterly ignorant of the fact that this man's peers had concluded that he was a serial felon who got away with it.

Why is a member of Congress free to not cooperate with a committee charged with ensuring that members of Congress act ethically? Why did they wait years while he actively obstructed their investigation before making that clear? Just a few weeks ago, he was talking about running for Marco Rubio's Senate seat in Florida. Didn't the citizens of Florida have a right to know what the House committee had concluded? How could the chair of the House Ethics Committee say no to that? Talk about dangerous precedents.

The Matt Gaetz debacle is proof positive that Americans have every reason to distrust Congress, which is a sad state of affairs in a democracy. Gaetz's legacy, if you can call it that, is that a president should not nominate anyone to high office without careful vetting, and that the public has a right to know about the integrity of the men and women we elect to serve us. The Ethics Committees of Congress should do more, do it publicly and be transparent about their work. Non-cooperation, active efforts to obstruct justice, should not be tolerated, and should be disclosed. Matt Gaetz had no business even being considered for attorney general when his only qualification was his loyalty to Donald Trump. The members of the committee knew that. Why didn't anyone tell Donald Trump? Or us? This is a story that should not go away.

Reprinted with permission from Creators.

Shop our Store

Headlines

Editor's Blog

Corona Virus

Trending

World