Speaker of the House Kevin McCarthy (R-CA) is on track for a clash with Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-NY) over who gets to sit on committees. In a very public letter – perhaps written more for press consumption than as a serious effort at gaining a political reaction – the New York Democrat complained that two of his colleagues would not be able to continue serving on the House Intelligence Committee. The men in question are Golden Staters Eric Swalwell and Adam Schiff.
In the aforementioned letter to officially nominate the controversial anti-Trump politicians, Jeffries wrote:
“It is my understanding that you intend to break with the longstanding House tradition of deference to the minority party Intelligence Committee recommendations and deny seats to Ranking Member Schiff and Representative Swalwell.”
“The denial of seats to duly elected Members of the House Democratic Caucus runs counter to the serious and sober mission of the Intelligence Committee,” he continued.
Longstanding, You Say?
The Intelligence Committee is a “select committee.” This means that McCarthy picks the chair and the GOP members; Jeffries can propose Democrat members, but the ultimate authority of who is finally seated rests with the Republican top dog. The keen observer may recall a similar refusal of Republican members by then-Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi when she turned down Reps. Jim Jordan (OH) and Jim Banks (IN) in 2021 for the Jan. 6 committee.
Pelosi acknowledged the “unprecedented” nature of her refusal to admit the official nominees, saying, “With respect for the integrity of the [Jan. 6] investigation, with an insistence on the truth and with concern about statements made and actions taken by these Members, I must reject the recommendations … ”
Trusted Allies?
Kevin McCarthy (Photo by Alex Wong/Getty Images)
McCarthy made noises about such a move for several months during media appearances. As part of an interview with Punchbowl News published in early January, the freshly elected Speaker explained why the two long-serving members would be removed from position. He said, “Swalwell can’t get a security clearance in the private sector. I’m not going to give him a government security clearance … Schiff has lied too many times to the American public. He should not be on Intel.”
Swalwell was found to have had a relationship with Christine Fang, who was suspected of being a Chinese spy. She fled the country in 2015 when the FBI began closing in. The California representative has denied any wrongdoing and claims that he was shocked when he found out about her. Fang worked as a bundler for his campaign (and that of other Democrats) and had a personal relationship to the extent that Swalwell’s father also knew her.
On his Twitter feed, Swalwell accused McCarthy of having “no credibility.” He posted his dismay: “McCarthy’s threat to remove me, out of political vengeance, destroys the committee’s independence. Worst, his justification is based on lies.”
Adam Schiff — who became a “permanent” member of the committee in 2009 – appears to have a unique relationship with the truth. Whether it is making up “direct quotes” that do not actually exist, misrepresenting evidence, or declaring to the American people that he had personally seen “more than circumstantial evidence” of Donald Trump’s guilt, the Californian politico has been at the forefront of a number of scandals related to his statements and assertions.
Adam Schiff (Photo by Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images)
In response to the news that McCarthy was seeking to drop him as the ranking member, Schiff tweeted, “McCarthy’s threat to remove me — to placate his right-wing — will damage the committee’s independence… Along with his committee on conspiracy theories, he is doing grave damage to national security.”
Turnabout Rules
If Pelosi had not engaged in the same behavior in 2021, the Biden-friendly Fourth Estate would probably be declaring McCarthy an enemy of the people for his decision to bounce two existing members from the Intelligence Committee. But in the political world, turnabout is always fair play, and the chattering class is left with attempts to make clever but subtle distinctions between the two scenarios.
As William Howard Taft, the 27th president, warned, “If they will play fair I will play fair, but if they won’t, then I reserve all my rights to do anything I find myself able to do.” Words that McCarthy appears to have taken to heart.
Do you have an opinion about this article? We’d love to hear it! If you send your comments to [email protected], we might even publish your edited remarks in our new feature, LN Readers Speak Out. Remember to include the URL of the article along with your name, city, and state.
Please respect our republishing guidelines. Republication permission does not equal site endorsement. Click here.