It must be political vengeance for their involvement in the Trump impeachments. No, it was a deal he made with the Freedom Caucus to buy their votes for speaker. Then again, maybe it’s just good, old-fashioned partisanship. Democrats can’t seem to settle on a reason for Speaker of the House Kevin McCarthy (R-CA) denying Reps. Eric Swalwell (D-CA) and Adam Schiff (D-CA) seats on the House Intelligence Committee. They agree on two things, though: First, both men are qualified for and should be seated – never mind the lies and the spies. Second, this rejection sets a dangerous precedent for the House – even if the Democrats did it first. Evidently, it’s different when they do it.
Committee Rejections – Political Revenge?
Speaker McCarthy officially denied a request from Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-NY) to keep Reps. Schiff and Swalwell on the committee in a letter Tuesday, Jan. 24. Afterward, the pair – joined by Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-MN), who McCarthy said shouldn’t be on the Foreign Affairs Committee after making antisemitic remarks about Israel – claimed the Republican “struck a corrupt bargain in his desperate, and nearly failed, attempt to win the Speakership, a bargain that required political vengeance against the three of us.”
While the GOP members who initially resisted McCarthy’s bid for House leadership probably do appreciate the move, there’s a problem with the assumption that the new speaker sold the three Democrats out for his position. He has promised for more than a year to do so – longer than he knew he would face such a battle once the GOP retook the chamber. In December of 2021, McCarthy told Breitbart’s Matthew Boyle that “if Eric Swalwell cannot get a security clearance in the private sector, there is no reason why he should be given one to be on Intel or Homeland Security.” He added that “Ilhan Omar should not be serving on Foreign Affairs,” and that Schiff “should not be serving on Intel when he has openly, knowingly now used a fake dossier, lied to the American public in the process and doesn’t have any ill will [and] says he wants to continue doing it.”
Well, could it have been political vengeance for their part in impeaching Donald Trump – twice? It would be difficult to prove either way, but the ability to say Swalwell was compromised by a Chinese spy and that Schiff got caught using his position as chair of the Intelligence Committee to influence Congress’ investigation of the alleged collusion between Trump and Russia through deceit certainly make good “excuses,” even if it is just revenge.
A Dangerous Precedent – of Democrats Setting Dangerous Precedents
(Tom Williams/CQ-Roll Call, Inc via Getty Images)
Democrats and friendly media personalities like to accuse Republicans of setting dangerous precedents quite a lot. “I think this is going to be something in the future that is set as a precedent,” ABC News political director Rick Klein said of McCarthy’s rejection of the Democrat committee picks. “And if Republicans are in control, they’re going to deny some Democrat seats. And if Democrats are in control, they’re going to deny Republicans some seats.”
Well, it’s hard to argue with Mr. Klein’s assessment that tit-for-tat politics is likely. But, as usual, the warning comes a little late. It was then-Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) who started the trend of denying minority party committee assignments. When McCarthy chose Reps. Jim Jordan (R-OH) and Jim Banks (R-IN) to join the Jan. 6 committee, Pelosi refused to allow it. Their “loyalty to Trump” would weaken the “integrity of the investigation,” she claimed. The speaker does have the authority to deny appointments to select committees – but this was the first time in House history one actually used that power, according to Donald Wolfensberger, a former staff director of the House Rules Committee and congressional scholar at the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars.
Both major parties have previously removed some of their own members from committee assignments, usually after criminal allegations. However, Both Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-GA) and Paul Gosar (R-AZ) lost their committee seats over controversial statements when Pelosi brought a resolution to a floor vote the two Republicans had no chance of winning thanks to Democrat control of the chamber at the time. Another first, courtesy of the politicians of the Democratic Party.
The filibuster fight played out much the same way. Each time a 60-vote requirement in the Senate was removed from some type of vote, the party in power blamed the other side for doing it first. But it was, in fact, the Democrats who started it in 2013 when then-Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid changed the filibuster rules so that they wouldn’t apply to federal judgeships below the Supreme Court level. The Democrats, it seems, have a dangerous precedent of setting dangerous precedents.
