Image 01 Image 02 Image 03

Kevin McCarthy Pushes Back on Reporter Questioning Decision to Remove Schiff and Swalwell From Intel Committee

Kevin McCarthy Pushes Back on Reporter Questioning Decision to Remove Schiff and Swalwell From Intel Committee

“What did Adam Schiff do as the Chairman of the Intel Committee? What Adam Schiff did, use his power as the Chairman and lie to the American public.”

When Kevin McCarthy ran for Speaker of the House, he promised to remove Rep. Adam Schiff and Rep. Eric Swalwell, Democrats from California, from the House Intelligence Committee.

He kept that promise, and some media members are questioning the decision. On Tuesday, McCarthy was questioned by PBS reporter Lisa Desjardins, who kept dragging the issue of NY Republican George Santos into the mix. McCarthy had none of it.

FOX News reports:

McCarthy gets heated with reporter: ‘You don’t get to determine whether I answer a question’

House Speaker Kevin McCarthy got heated with a reporter Tuesday evening as he faced questions over his decision to kick two Democrats off the House Intelligence committee while allowing embattled Rep. George Santos, R-N.Y., to take committee assignments.

During a press gaggle, McCarthy defended his decision to remove Reps. Adam Schiff, D-Calif., and Eric Swalwell, D-Calif., from the intelligence panel, telling reporters that Swalwell had been compromised by a Chinese spy and should not receive intelligence briefings, while Schiff, according to McCarthy, had abused his authority by repeatedly lying to the American people.

However, a reporter pressed McCarthy on his decision to let Santos have committee assignments after the New York Republican was caught in several lies about his background, including fabricating his work and education. The reporter asked why Santos’ many lies were “not a factor.”

In the video below, you can hear McCarthy, but the audio for the journalist is very low.

Kevin Tober of NewsBusters provided a transcript:

DESJARDINS: This is a man who should not be on committees something you do have power over—

MCCARTHY: He’s got elected by his district—

DESJARDINS: That’s not an answer to my question. Why does lying—

MCCARTHY: Okay, let me be very clear and respectful to you. You asked me a question. When I answer it, it’s the answer to your question. You don’t get to determine whether I answer your question or not, okay? In all respect. Thank you.

[…]

MCCARTHY: You just raised a question, I’m going to be very clear with you. The Intel Committee is different. You know why? Because what happens in the Intel Committee, you don’t know. what happens in the Intel Committee, the secrets that are going on in the world, other members of Congress don’t know. What did Adam Schiff do as the Chairman of the Intel Committee? What Adam Schiff did, use his power as the Chairman and lie to the American public. Even the Inspector General said it. When Devin Nunes put out a memo, he said it was false. When we had a laptop, he used it before an election to be politics and say it was false and said it was the Russians.

When he knew different! When he knew the intel. If you talk to John Ratcliffe, DNI. He came out ahead of time and says there’s no intel to prove that and he used his position as Chairman knowing he has information the rest of America does not and lied to the American public. When a whistle-blower came forward, he said he did not know the individual even though his staff met with him and set it up. So no, he does not have a right to sit on that. But I will not be like Democrats and play politics with these. Where they removed Republicans from committees and all committees. So yes, he can serve on a committee but he will not serve on Intel. Because it goes to the national security of America, and I will always put them first. Alright?

And if you want to talk about Swalwell, let’s talk about Swalwell. Because you have not had the briefing that I had. I had the briefing and Nancy Pelosi had the briefing from the FBI. The FBI never came before this Congress to tell the leadership of this Congress that Eric Swalwell had a problem with a Chinese spy until he served on intel. So it wasn’t just us who were concerned about it, the FBI was concerned about putting a member of Congress on the Intel Committee that has the rights to see things that others don’t because of his knowledge and relationship with a Chinese spy. They brought it to the works of the leaders.

I’ve got that briefing, so I do not believe he should sit on there, that committee, and I believe there’s 200 other Democrats that can serve on that committee. So this has nothing to do with Santos. Santos is not on the Intel Committee. But you know what? Those voters elected Schiff, even though he lied. Those voters elected Swalwell, even though he lied to the American public too. So you know what? I’ll respect his voters too and they’ll serve on committees, but they will not serve on a place that has national security, because integrity matters to me. That’s the answer to your question!

Here’s the video:

Stephen Kruiser of PJ Media called McCarthy’s performance as Speaker so far a pleasant surprise:

It’s nice to be pleasantly surprised. That kind of thing doesn’t happen often enough anymore. The bad surprises have been coming in waves since the beginning of 2020.

Kevin McCarthy’s brief tenure as Speaker of the House of Representatives has been a pleasant surprise so far. I feel like sending thank you notes to the 20 conservatives who held out to make him more … suggestible.

I knew that McCarthy would have to adapt and modify his behavior in response to the tussle for the gavel, so that’s not the surprise. What I’ve enjoyed to this point is that McCarthy seems to be enjoying himself. I had expected him to be a bit dourer and giving off a chastised-kid vibe. So far, he’s sinking his teeth into the modified speaker’s role.

Schiff and Swalwell are whining about this on Twitter:

Featured image via YouTube.

DONATE

Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.

Comments

Now do Omar.

    Milhouse in reply to MTED. | January 25, 2023 at 11:42 am

    Omar should be removed from all committees, not just the select ones. But McCarthy can’t do that alone, he needs a majority of the House to vote for it, so he needs almost all the Republicans to vote for it. I don’t know whether that’s possible. But he should at least try, and those who vote against it should be held accountable at the next primary.

      He’s already got at least one defector.

      ChrisPeters in reply to Milhouse. | January 25, 2023 at 4:33 pm

      Omar should be removed. Completely. From committees, From Congress. From the United States.

        Milhouse in reply to ChrisPeters. | January 25, 2023 at 6:16 pm

        Only her constituents can remove her from Congress, and they won’t get another say until 2024. Nobody can forcibly remove her from the USA.

          Gremlin1974 in reply to Milhouse. | January 25, 2023 at 7:58 pm

          Well, She could be Expelled from the House by a 2/3 vote, but that has only happened 5 times in the history of the house. Though that has been reserved for things like convictions for bribery and the like. Though the constitution says it can be done for “Disorderly Behavior”.

          I believe it also has the added effect of that person no longer being able to run for a house seat (not sure on this point).

          But this is only a thought exercise because Republicans will never get their crap together enough to actually have a 2/3 majority.

          Milhouse in reply to Milhouse. | January 26, 2023 at 3:35 am

          The constitution doesn’t say “disorderly behavior” or any other reason. If you just look at the constitutional text, it says 2/3 can expel a member for any reason at all, or none. But for well over a century Congress has taken the view that it can only expel a member for an offense committed during the current term. Anything that happened before the last election is out of bounds. And certainly that it couldn’t do it for no reason. The Supreme Court has officially recognized this as Congress’s long-standing opinion, while carefully not expressing its own opinion on the matter.

          And no, the expelled member can even run at the special election, and if reelected they must be seated.

          The only way to get the 2/3 is for it to be bipartisan.

          Gremlin1974 in reply to Milhouse. | January 26, 2023 at 6:58 pm

          Article 1, Section 5, Clause 2

          Each House may determine the Rules of its Proceedings, punish its Members for , and, with the Concurrence of two thirds, expel a Member.

          I agree on the only way to get 2/3rds is to be “bipartisan” so in the world today this means it is only really a threat to republicans. But, oh well.

          Gremlin1974 in reply to Milhouse. | January 26, 2023 at 7:00 pm

          Well crap I tried to underline Disorderly Behavior and just erased it.

          Article 1, Section 5, Clause 2

          Each House may determine the Rules of its Proceedings, punish its Members for disorderly Behaviour, and, with the Concurrence of two thirds, expel a Member.

          Disorderly Behavior is in the actual wording.

          Milhouse in reply to Milhouse. | January 27, 2023 at 12:41 am

          Not of the expulsion clause. The wording of the expulsion clause implies that 2/3 can expel a member just because they don’t like him. And the supreme court carefully didn’t say they couldn’t. But it pointed out and took official notice of the fact that Congress has for well over a century held otherwise.

          If 2/3 of the house were to vote to expel Omar, or George Santos, other than for an offense committed since Jan 3, they would undoubtedly sue the House to get their seat back, and they would cite Powell, thus forcing the courts, and ultimately the supreme court, to decide whether Congress was right all those years, and is therefore wrong now, or vice versa.

    diver64 in reply to MTED. | January 25, 2023 at 12:33 pm

    I know you dont mean that like it sounds.

. But I will not be like Democrats and play politics with these. Where they removed Republicans from committees and all committees. So yes, he can serve on a committee but he will not serve on Intel.

Wrong. The Democrats were wrong to throw Greene and Gosar off all committees, but the Republicans would be right to do the same to some of them, because they have to be taught that what’s sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. They set the rules; it would be perverse if we refused to play by them. That would just be handicapping ourselves for no reason. Give them their own medicine until they choke on it and cry “uncle”; then tell them that if they mean it, next term we can go back to the old rules, for both sides, regardless of who is in the majority.

    txvet2 in reply to Milhouse. | January 25, 2023 at 12:27 pm

    That might work if you could trust Jeffries to keep his word. I wouldn’t.

      Milhouse in reply to txvet2. | January 25, 2023 at 1:08 pm

      That’s why we only agree to go back the old rules next term. This term is too late; the Dems must lie in the bed they made. If they agree now that no matter who wins the next election, the old rules will come back, then the Reps should agree to that, and if they win they should act accordingly. But only if the Dems agree to it now, not if they wait until the term is almost over.

        BierceAmbrose in reply to Milhouse. | January 25, 2023 at 2:58 pm

        That’s the right idea in general — I’m not as deep into the details here.

        — Tit-for-tat: this Congress The Screaming D’s get stomped because that’s the game they made. Maybe they’ll learn.

        — Next Congress maybe back to the old Comity.

        — Have yr messaging ready when the D-Party Operatives with Bylines come at you. You may be right; you may be wrong, but you can at least be coherent. And if they’re gonna get you on air to slime you, you get to talk at least that one time.

        I suspect they poked McCarthy in the ego, and he’s having none of it any more.

          BierceAmbrose in reply to BierceAmbrose. | January 26, 2023 at 4:24 pm

          Thanks for the shout-out.

          That tit=for-tat strategy has seemed stable for some time. I’m curious whether state of the art-ish game theory has changed since I last checked.

        txvet2 in reply to Milhouse. | January 25, 2023 at 3:17 pm

        You’re still relying on Jeffries keeping his word if and when the Dems retake the House. Bad bet.

          henrybowman in reply to txvet2. | January 25, 2023 at 3:37 pm

          That’s one reason why you don’t stint the punishment NOW. Use the upper hand while you have it. Punishment and/or reformation — most correctional systems profess both, but end up settling for either because that’s the real world.

          Milhouse in reply to txvet2. | January 25, 2023 at 4:06 pm

          You have to take a chance. You can’t be in a snit forever. Punish them in proportion to their offense — one term for one term, and if they’ve learned their lesson and agree, long enough in advance that they don’t know what the 2024 result will be, then go back to the status quo ante and see how they behave.

          txvet2 in reply to txvet2. | January 25, 2023 at 5:37 pm

          You seem to think that they are going to learn from experience. I see no indication that they will, and every reason to think that they’ll just nurse their real or imagined grievances until they get a chance to retaliate.

          Milhouse in reply to txvet2. | January 25, 2023 at 6:18 pm

          That is why you demand their agreement up front.

    alaskabob in reply to Milhouse. | January 25, 2023 at 12:46 pm

    Historically, the Repubs “tits” have been less than the Dems “tats”. Time to “fortify” those “tits” …. Reading a book on how the Soviets took control of Eastern Europe after WWII. Much of what the Dems/Left have been doing comes straight from those lessons… why not? That’s who gave them the instruction since the 1920’s… and increasingly so since the 1960’s.

      BierceAmbrose in reply to alaskabob. | January 25, 2023 at 3:00 pm

      Remarkable continuity in strategy, operations, and tactics across long time.

      I can’t tell whether it’s orchestration, following their heroes, or just converging on solutions that work. Doesn’t matter. This is what they’re gonna do and how — at least the ones you that might get somewhere.

About a month ago, “BierceAmbrose” posted the following comment here on LI. It bears repeating:

In an iterated cooperative game with an unreliable partner, game theory says the best strategy is “Tit for Tat.”

The Screaming D’s are certainly an unreliable partner. They reneg on every deal they make for mutual advantage — hey, Manchin, how you feelin? — while actively screwing their partners all the rest of the time. And the game goes on.

So, first time, you trust them and cooperate. Thereafter, you do what they did the last time. Following the rules and conventions, the Screaming D’s got a shot. And tossed the conventions — not the deal. So, screw them. Screw them hard. Make sure they know you’re dong it on purpose. And make sure they know it’s because of what they did.

Next iteration, they get to play nice then so will we.

It’s dead simple Kevin, Tell the ‘journalist’ they are about 4 years too late to start whining about committee assignment decisions. If they didn’t have a problem with them then, they don’t get to have a problem with them now.

Then learn to say “asked and answered” and move on.

Every case of somebody owning somebody else is a nothing-burger.

I’m keeping them off the committee because they’re jerks and the committee sees stuff that shouldn’t be blabbed about in any manner. If you want to own the reporter add “like journalists, for whom everything is about the paycheck.”

You can’t invoke lying to the American people.

    Not just jerks. McCarthy had it exactly right. The Intel committee is the most *critical* section of the House that deals with classified material on a daily basis. To occupy those chairs, the Dems put forward a guy who slept with a Chinese spy and an obvious continuous liar of longstanding. This is unacceptable and they should have been bounced *even* if the Dems had not pulled the stunt they did a few years back. To make matters worse (for the Dems), they *knew* these two security risks were going to get rejected and they shoved them forward anyway, thinking they could lie their way out of it again. McCarthy proved them wrong, solidly, directly, and in the exact words needed.

“In an iterated cooperative game with an unreliable partner, game theory says the best strategy is “Tit for Tat.””

Not true. The best strategy is man-splaining. Which means no feelings, just the workings necessary for stable systems.

Yep, that memo is from a congressman–doesn’t know the difference between criteria and criterion.

It’s almost like all of those failed speaker votes caused McCarthy to grow something of a spine. Not quite that and I don’t trust him any further than I could throw him but it’s sort of like that.

“McCarthy gets heated with reporter: ‘You don’t get to determine whether I answer a question’”

And certainly not you newswhores who routinely accept every piece of non-sequitur twaddle that comes out of Brillo Girl’s mouth as an “answer.”

There are a thousand OnlyFans THOTs who could do your job better, especially if you told them there was $30 in it for them for every actual answer they got out of Karinge.

This is what is called “normal” and “expected” Mr. McCarthy.

Don’t fold, because you’re on a one-strike probation.

Great choice of battles for the new Speaker. This issue unifies (almost) all R’s . . . and probably many I’s quietly agreeing.

Schiff is a promoter of lies; Swallow-well literally sleeps with Chinese spies; and Omar is a Somalian immigrant who married her brother, hates America and wants to destroy Israel.