Pelosi's right to reject Jordan and Banks, but she needs to say WHY

[Bucky]

https://www.speaker.gov/newsroom/72121-2

When you read her statement, she doesn't really point out that Banks and Jordan seem to have anticipated and possibly colluded with people connected to the rioters who attacked the Capitol with the expressed intent of disrupting the Electoral Vote counting and killing the two presiding officers (Pence and Pelosi).

Pelosi needs to say this outright. The connections of Banks and Jordan to the insurrection needs to be at the center of the discussion.

Pelosi Statement on Republican Recommendations to Serve on the Select Committee to Investigate the January 6th Attack on the U.S. Capitol
JULY 21, 2021 PRESS RELEASE

“The violent domestic attack on Congress on January 6th was the worst assault on the Capitol since the War of 1812 and the worst domestic assault on American Democracy since the Civil War. We are facing a radically new threat in the kinds of forces that combined to attack our government on January 6th. The future of our democracy is on the line. This assault was an attempt to overthrow the government.

“We need a comprehensive investigation as to who organized this attack, who paid for it, how they nearly succeeded in overthrowing a presidential election, why they did it and how we must organize ourselves to prevent anything like it from ever happening again.

“It had been our hope to establish a bipartisan, independent National Commission, but there is no prospect for that Commission at this time because of insufficient support from Republican Senators. Therefore, the House established the Select Committee to Investigate the January 6th Attack on the U.S. Capitol. The Select Committee on the January 6th Insurrection will investigate and report upon the facts and causes of the terrorist mob attack on the United States Capitol on January 6, 2021. It will also be charged with reporting its findings, conclusions and recommendations for preventing future attacks.

“Monday evening, the Minority Leader recommended 5 Members to serve on the Select Committee. I have spoken with him this morning about the objections raised about Representatives Jim Banks and Jim Jordan and the impact their appointments may have on the integrity of the investigation. I also informed him that I was prepared to appoint Representatives Rodney Davis, Kelly Armstrong and Troy Nehls, and requested that he recommend two other Members.

“With respect for the integrity of the investigation, with an insistence on the truth and with concern about statements made and actions taken by these Members, I must reject the recommendations of Representatives Banks and Jordan to the Select Committee.

“The unprecedented nature of January 6th demands this unprecedented decision.”

[rickyhall]

1. Both Jims are really Dicks.

[Bucky]

2. That's not the reason to reject them.

The problem is, as she stated later, the integrity of the investigation. You don't Al Capone appoint a couple of observers to Elliot Ness's team. This is an investigation about criminal behavior. Both Republicans have known ties to the insurrectionists and potentially had foreknowledge of the riot. There's a clear conflict of interest here and Pelosi needs to name it.

[Bev54]

15. She is very clear that it is because of the statements made by each

of these dickheads about the committee etc is her reasoning. Nuff said!

[Bucky]

16. Nuff said for you and me. But there's a propaganda war going on. You don't hold back your shots.

She needs to shape the conversation around their disqualifiers. Because she's not specified that enough, not focused on that enough, I fear the conversation will circle around how unprecedented this decision is.

That's not the smart move. We need to have reporters asking the Republicans why they're affiliating with organizations that supported the rioters attacking our government. She needed to shut that door. She left it open for the GOP to dominate this news cycle.

[msfiddlestix]

21. I'll defend Pelosi for this move. I think it's both wise and appropriate,

largely because I expect that the very reasons specifically stated will be revealed in the hearings. The conflict of interest will be made so blatantly clear as to be impossible to be brushed under or glossed over.

He's been able to get away with so much bs, this matter might just bury him at long last. Politically wise move as well.

[Bev54]

23. Yes she is much wiser than any of us and very politically astute.

[yellowdogintexas]

24. Madame Speaker is a master of the Long Con, just not in a negative

way.

Seems to me she is using the "Give them enough rope" plan.

I am confident there is more to come.

[DURHAM D]

3. She should of said that Jordan is off because he violates the dress code. nt

[leftstreet]

4. +1

You're right. I only read snips from her statement, but I assumed she addressed the 'why'

yikes

[Bucky]

8. Alas, she didn't. It's a serious matter to accuse a representative of affiliation with criminals.

So I can understand her choice to keep it vague and play it off as "members of my caucus express a concern about the integrity of the investigation." But for this serious a matter, she needs to lay it out plainly. They can't be trusted.

[leftstreet]

11. True

maybe a vague statement that no one can be on the committee who might have a conflict of interest until they've been investigated themselves

[Caliman73]

10. She did address the why.

She cannot come out and say that they "possibly colluded" with the insurrectionists because there is no established evidence, and to accuse them even in "possibility" could be defamatory.

She said pretty clearly that based on a concern for the integrity of the investigation and desire for truth, and the actions and statements made by the two, she could not accept the recommendation that they be on the committee.

That is about as strong a statement as could be made in an official document, about information that has not been run through due process.

[leftstreet]

12. Could she have referenced their statements and actions?

She's throwing it out there, so could she have used some examples?

I mean, I don't know

[Bucky]

17. Left Street, yes. She needed to go on the offensive. She needed to show outrage about these apptmts

It's not enough to take the corrective step administratively. She has to demonstrate that McCarthy is trying to put the foxes inside the henhouse.

[Caliman73]

19. They will likely come out in the course of the investigation.

The right will always try to scrutinize every point.

Pelosi's statement was written up by her, and her professional staff. I don't think there is anything here.

People on the right already think that Pelosi is a tyrant who does everything wrong.

Those of us on the Democratic side, know exactly why Jordan and Banks were not selected.

Everyone else didn't watch and don't care. The Bachelorette and America Ninja are coming up. No time for stupid politics.

[Hotler]

5. The reason, because she said so, just like mom.

Thank you Madam Speaker.

[ZonkerHarris]

6. Speaker Pelosi said it correctly and without hyperbole.

[11 Bravo]

7. Because they are ignorant, unserious, partisan assholes?

[Bucky]

14. That's hardly a legit disqualifier

You're describing the majority of their caucus. With Jordan and Banks, there's valid legal reasons for a removal.

[Caliman73]

9. She can't really make that claim.

Those links have not been investigated. To say they were possibly involved at this point, would be defamatory.

Her statement: “With respect for the integrity of the investigation, with an insistence on the truth and with concern about statements made and actions taken by these Members, I must reject the recommendations of Representatives Banks and Jordan to the Select Committee."

That is sufficient for her not to accept them. If more information about their involvement comes to light, then I am sure there will be a different, stronger statement about their involvement.

[Bucky]

18. I know it's risky.

But she's allowing the Republican Caucus to dominate the news cycle. She can explain the impropriety of the appointments without making positive statements of accusation. There needs to be reporters asking McCarthy why he appointed men accused of helping the attack on Congress to investigate that attack. He needs to be in the hot seat.

She also needs to put the spotlight on the corporations that are, once again, donating to the pro-insurrection members of Congress -- after saying they wouldn't back in January. The status quo that allowed the insurrection to thrive is reasserting itself.

[LakeArenal]

20. It's all political theater.

We know why she rejected them.
They know why she rejected them.
Independents know why she rejected them.
McCarthy picked them knowing she would reject them.

What Fux says about it to the koolaid drinkers is what they will believe.

[Politicub]

22. She damned the entire GOP. Pelosi is thinking bigger than narrow

potshots.

The American people want bipartisanship, and her message doesn’t allow an opening for some kind of public media dialogue with Jordan. When it is quoted in the media, it doesn’t sound petty. What you proposed jumps to a conclusion, and doesn’t make a lot of sense to me.

The Speaker’s instincts are impeccable. I have every confidence in her strategies and tactics.