No wonder Nancy Pelosi didn’t want Ohio Rep. Jim Jordan on the January 6 committee. We see that he has been one of its intended targets. It has to do with seeking presidential pardons.
Recall that the committee subpoenaed him but that he refused to testify under oath, saying (correctly) that it had been set up in violation of the legislation that had made such a committee possible. But on Thursday, testimony from others pointed to him and other members of Congress who allegedly asked questions about presidential pardons in the wake of the Capitol breach. The committee is trying to make the point that they wouldn’t have been asking about pardons if they didn’t think they were involved in something illegal.
Democrats are trying to tie some in Trump’s circle to a scheme to pick alternate slates of “fake electors” for the Electoral College. But choosing alternate electors to have in reserve is nothing new. If a recount is underway or an election is being contested, it makes sense to have Plan B ready. Besides, we all know Democrats have challenged electors themselves and even pressured them to change their votes in 2016, to stop Trump from being elected President. And the POST MILLENNIAL recalls how Hawaii ended up with two slates of electors from Hawaii in 1960.
Cassidy Hutchinson, an aide to former White House Chief of Staff Mark Meadows, said on Thursday that Jordan did not mention a pardon for himself but did ask for “an update on whether the White House was going to pardon members of Congress.”
Here’s what happened…
But late Thursday night, in an interview with FOX News’ Shannon Bream, Jordan said, “I didn’t request a pardon; I didn’t do anything wrong.” He pointed out that this isn’t the first lie being told about him; California Rep. Adam Schiff, several months ago, presented a text of Jordan’s, but only after eliminating the context and changing the punctuation in a way that altered the meaning. That dishonesty was so egregious that the committee actually released a statement saying, “We regret the error.” (Error? It was a deliberate deception. Still, Jordan got a semi-apology.)
But Jordan explained to Bream that they did the same sort of thing to him again in Thursday’s hearing, playing an edited clip of him, obviously intended to mislead. NOTE: if these were real hearings instead of a partisan kangaroo court, the other side could object to this and correct the record.
“That’s what you do [mislead],” he said, “when you have a partisan committee that doesn’t allow Republicans on it --- for the first time in American history --- and you can’t do the cross-examination that every other committee in the history of the Congress has had except this one.”
As for Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy trying harder to get some real Republicans on the committee (Cheney and Kinzinger don’t count), Jordan said, “I don’t think that Nancy Pelosi was EVER going to allow any Republicans who were going to do the kind of cross-examination that needs to be done...She’d have found a reason to always object to someone, ‘cause this is the outcome she wants.”
It’s “completely partisan, one-sided, just a presentation,” with “no due process, frankly, at all in this entire committee,” he said, adding that she might have accepted more Republicans who voted to impeach Trump, but that would have been it.
He said that, yes, of course, he’d love to be in that room, cross-examining the witnesses, pointing out the cherry-picking and the hearsay being presented “in this packaged form, where they read it off a teleprompter, for goodness sake.”
Kinzinger actually said, “I know the only reason to ask for a pardon is because you have committed a crime.” Now, I don’t know who sought a presidential pardon from Trump and who didn’t, but I do have a problem with the Democrats’ assumption that pardon-seeking shows consciousness of guilt. Every Republican involved in this story was well aware of what had been done to destroy the life of Michael Flynn, for example, an innocent man who needed a pardon from Trump to end his legal nightmare because the judge in his case would not LET IT GO. And in the days since January 6, we’ve seen how easy it would be for an innocent person to find himself held without bail in terrible conditions for over a year and denied due process. Seems to me it would’ve been a good idea for all these Republicans to have an idea of where they’d stand legally in case they were prosecuted –- and persecuted –- by a weaponized ‘Justice’ Department. That in itself wouldn’t mean they were guilty of anything.
Speaking of weaponizing the ‘Justice’ Department, on Thursday, the very day that Adam Kinzinger led the questioning of three Trump-era DOJ officials about the allegiances of another Trump DOJ official, Jeffrey Clark, Mr. Clark was subjected to one of those early-morning FBI raids. Gosh, what are the odds?
At 7AM, twelve FBI agents and two Fairfax County, Virginia, officers were at Clark’s door, banging loudly and demanding that he come outside. He asked if he could put on some pants first. They said no. They raided his home, confiscating all the electronics. They even had an electronics-sniffing dog, to make sure they didn’t miss anything.
Here are the details.
During Thursday’s afternoon hearing, former Acting Attorney General Jeffrey Rosen testified that Clark, head of the DOJ’s environmental division under Trump, had gone against a careful DOJ policy by meeting directly with Trump and discussing election theft theories. So I guess that’s what this is all about.
“I just think we’re living in an era that I don’t recognize, Clark said. “And increasingly I don’t recognize the country any more with these kinds of Stasi-like things happening.”
I think that in juxtaposing this hearing with yet more tactics reminiscent of the East German secret police, the Democrats have just undercut their own argument. Even if you’ve done absolutely nothing wrong, why NOT check into the possibility of a pardon when you know what this ‘Justice’ Department is capable of?