Speaker Mike Johnson is embroiled in a new controversy on Capitol Hill after he delayed the swearing-in of Representative-elect Adalita Grahalva, a move that has led to a lawsuit and raised concerns about his intentions.
Opponents claim the delay is a political ploy to thwart a crucial vote that would compel the long-awaited Jeffrey Epstein files to be made public.
Grahalva’s election and qualifications are reportedly uhttps://usapostdaily.com/ncontested. Speaker Johnson, however, has declined to swear her in until after Congress reconvenes. According to his office, he is merely adhering to the precedent set by former Speaker Nancy Pelosi, who occasionally postponed the swearing-in of new members during recess. Johnson called the controversy “ridiculous” and told reporters, “I’m doing the exact same thing Pelosi did.”
Democrats and legal experts, however, contend that Johnson is abusing that precedent.
Only at the personal request of the elected official did Pelosi postpone one swearing-in. Grahalva has publicly begged to take her oath in this case, stating that she is “tired of waiting” and wants to serve her district. “It’s been 36 days since our election, and I’m still not sworn in,” she stated in an online video. I would like to work for Arizona and attend significant meetings.
The situation has become even more explosive due to the stakes involved. As his first act as a member of Congress, Grahalva was reportedly going to sign a discharge petition to bring the Epstein files to the House floor for a vote. There are currently 217 signatures on that petition, which is just one less than the 218 required to compel Johnson to act. Johnson’s delay, according to critics, is not an accident.
Johnson’s on-air assertion that Republicans favor “maximum transparency” with regard to the Epstein documents heightened tensions. He maintained that 43,000 pages, including ledgers, flight logs, and private documents, had already been made public by the House Oversight Committee.
However, fact-checkers soon noted that the Department of Justice still has hundreds of thousands of unreleased files, and that about 97 percent of those pages were already available to the public.
Johnson’s claims of transparency—what some referred to as “bad news live on air”—were severely damaged by that revelation. Johnson has the authority to call the matter to a vote as Speaker, but he hasn’t done so in spite of his claims.
Critics claim that Johnson’s inaction reveals the hypocrisy of his statements. One Democratic staffer stated, “He can force the Epstein files to be released immediately.” “He’s blocking the one person who could make it happen instead.”
The backlash has not been lessened despite Johnson’s assertion that the controversy is a diversion from the government shutdown. He claimed that Democrats were to blame for the shutdown and that regular business could not resume until Congress met again, calling the Epstein controversy a red herring.
According to Representative Dan Goldman, Johnson “can’t keep Grahalva out of the House forever.” He went on to say that after he swears her in, she will sign that petition. That’s what this is all about. Goldman also criticized Johnson for breaking the law when it was politically convenient, citing other examples in which he changed House procedures to avoid votes that would have embarrassed the GOP or former President Trump.
The public has taken notice of the irony. Johnson maintains that his party is dedicated to transparency and accountability. On the other hand, his actions are preventing access to important information and a legitimately elected member.
For the time being, the lawsuit against Johnson continues, and the demand for the complete disclosure of the Epstein files only intensifies. The way this controversy plays out in Washington over the next few weeks may depend on whether Johnson permits that vote or keeps blocking it.