General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsMike Johnson refuses to swear in a Democrat who won her election in a landslide just so he can block a vote on the
Epstein files:
Mike Johnson refuses to swear in a Democrat who won her election in a landslide just so he can block a vote on the Epstein files. bsky.app/profile/acyn...
— Ron Filipkowski (@ronfilipkowski.bsky.social) 2025-09-26T23:53:34.818Z

oasis
(52,946 posts)misdeeds of his dear leader. Twisted little dweeb.
ReRe
(12,029 posts)current and former members of the Republican Party.
The House/The Senate. The Administration. The Judicial.
Dulcinea
(9,192 posts)...is from Louisiana & she's so embarrassed that this dork is from her home state.
flvegan
(65,300 posts)Just asking questions, though. Why would he protect pedophiles otherwise?
usonian
(20,841 posts)Some people are in there that I suspect are "supremely" important. Or just the orange Oompa Loompa.
He is a vile disgrace, covering for child molesters and their enablers, one of which he has become.
Their desperation says a damn lot.
ReRe
(12,029 posts)Maraya1969
(23,352 posts)of a pastor. So when you use the word "Sanctimonious" I think that is a symptom
ShazzieB
(21,662 posts)Synonyms include holier-than-thou and self-righteous. All of these words certainly apply to Johnson. I have zero respect for him, because he's a hypocrite and a spineless today. I'm not, however, aware of any evidence that he's a pedophile.
Leaving all the above aside, he is, very definitely, a Trump sycophant. He has repeatedly demonstrated his willingness to bend over backwards to do the Orange Hellbeast's bidding, and this situation is no different. Trump obviously doesn't want the Epstein files released, and I'm sure Mikey will have hell to pay if he fails to prevent it from happening. I'm sure he would be willing to go to great links to avoid that. He doesn't need any motivation other than that.
I am both bemused and amused at how quick so many people here are to assume he's a pedophile, that he's trying to "protect pedophiles," or even that he's been directly involved in Epstein's pedo/sex trafficking activities, AS IF his obvious desire to keep Trump happy isn't more than sufficient motivation for his actions.
Johnson is sanctimonious, but there are many ways to be sanctimonious, not all of which include pedophilia.
Kali
(56,476 posts)Didn't he "adopt" a young black man. Before he married his wife? Or is thar some other repuke hypocrite?
Bettie
(18,901 posts)and I'm certain that Epstein provided boys for some of his "friends".
I don't know whether Mikey was high enough on the food chain to partake in Epstein's offerings, but I do believe that he's a predator like most of them.
The more they prattle about god and their "personal relationship" and how much more moral they are than other people, the more likely they are to be doing shady things of all kinds. People who use religion as a bludgeon are not believers in anything but their self-perceived superiority.
Maraya1969
(23,352 posts)you are a man.
Retrograde
(11,288 posts)people he knows, or works with, or who fund GOP candidates - that's another story
ShazzieB
(21,662 posts)Among other things, the timeline doesn't fit. Mikey was born on January 30, 1972. If his Wikipedia article is accurate, he seems to have spent his entire life in Louisiana prior to being seated in Congress in January 2016. It's hard to see how he would have ever crossed paths with Epstein, who was arrested for the last time on July 6, 2019.
I get wanting to suspect the worst of that sanctimonious stuffed shirt, but the idea of his ever having been associated with Epsteins pedo/sex trafficking activities is extremely farfetched, imo.
ShazzieB
(21,662 posts)But I'm quite sure he wants to protect Trump. That is all the motivation he needs.
Also see my other reply in this thread, as to why it makes no sense to suspect him of being associated with Epstein's activities: https://www.democraticunderground.com/100220678539#post50
NJCher
(41,538 posts)Snip
A writ of mandamus is a court order compelling a public official or lower court to perform a required ministerial duty when they have failed to do so, or to correct a clear error. This "extraordinary writ" is not used for discretionary acts but only when a party has a clear legal right to the action, there is no other adequate legal remedy, and the duty is mandatory under law. Filing a petition for mandamus, often to expedite an agency's decision-making or correct an erroneous judicial ruling, leads to a court review to determine if the writ should be granted.
AI overview
Snip
AI overview
I tried it once and it went through.
Norbert
(7,387 posts)The voters spoke with an overwearing victory so he will not swear her in, silencing these voices. So sick of the GTP (Grand trump Party) and their impunity.
B.See
(6,769 posts)who should've been locked the fk up with the rest of them. So, no surprise there.
BurnDoubt
(1,054 posts)"We do as we please.
Others must do as they're allowed."
(Paraphrased here From "Ripper Street"
usonian
(20,841 posts)Conservatism consists of exactly one proposition, to wit: There must be in-groups whom the law protects but does not bind, alongside out-groups whom the law binds but does not protect.
That linewritten by Frank Wilhoithas become a popular aphorism to sum up the hypocrisy and moral bankruptcy of the modern Republican Party.
https://pylimitics.net/wilhoits-law/
BurnDoubt
(1,054 posts)Maraya1969
(23,352 posts)usonian
(20,841 posts)He wouldn't even (you know what with you know whom) unless Jesus gave him a written permission slip.
IN TRIPLICATE.
He's covering. He's an enabler.
I dont think hes a real Christian, he just plays one for the cameras and for money/power.
RandySF
(77,581 posts)Hekate
(99,588 posts)AZJonnie
(1,636 posts)Well then this is amazing news, because sooner or later he'll have to swear her in.
Then she just 'votes', and bam, they're out!?!
Sweet!
Champp
(2,141 posts)Not very Christian, if you ask Christ
Bernardo de La Paz
(58,806 posts)shanti
(21,760 posts)This is the same kind of dirty shite.
D_Master81
(2,215 posts)Im sorry but if you win an election you should be immediately able to vote on bills and motions. I mean whats to say if the Dems win back the house they will even allow them to be seated?
Paladin
(31,666 posts)And it ain't Jesus Christ.
Vinca
(52,738 posts)DFW
(58,999 posts)This is the Republicans' was of admitting that Democrats are the people's choice, but they will do everything they can to prevent that choice from determining who governs us. Republicans despise Thomas Jefferson, channeling John Locke in the Declaration of Independence, asserting that governments derive "their just powers from the consent of the governed."
If the "consent of the governed" can be extrapolated to mean majority rule, the Republicans lose power. They obviously don't want that. Ergo:whatever method, legal, illegal, or in-between, can be employed to prevent the will of the governed from being carried out--those methods are, in Republican minds, legitimate. It is Jefferson who is, in Republican minds, illegitimate. After all, what did Jefferson know? All he did is write that Declaration of Independence that they all pretend to cherish so much, they all carry a copy of it around with them. The Republicans are with us inasmuch as they consider the pursuit of happiness a legitimate goal. When it comes to life and liberty, that's where they differ from us. That's where it turns into "not interested" for them.
erronis
(21,392 posts)and if stumble across some mention in the supermarket tabloid front pages will be told it's for the good of the country, flag, patriotism, nazionalism, and dear fuhrer.
Arazi
(8,391 posts)Hope Im wrong and Johnson allows an orderly transition but I fear this is only the beginning of blocking Dems from being sworn into their rightful positions.
newdeal2
(4,207 posts)It would only take a few on their side to topple his speakership.
Johonny
(24,772 posts)We just have to accept that fact.
Gimpyknee
(699 posts)surfered
(9,412 posts)Raven123
(7,075 posts)Not saying Mikey wouldnt have thought of it on his own, but why make it easy for them?
Rebl2
(17,010 posts)he just going to refuse to swear in all democrats that win in the future? She or the party should sue him if thats even possible. Thats part of his job and its dereliction of duty not to swear her into office.
no_hypocrisy
(53,178 posts)should resolve this.
A writ of mandamus is a court order compelling a public official or lower court to perform a required ministerial duty when they have failed to do so, or to correct a clear error. This "extraordinary writ" is not used for discretionary acts but only when a party has a clear legal right to the action, there is no other adequate legal remedy, and the duty is mandatory under law. Filing a petition for mandamus, often to expedite an agency's decision-making or correct an erroneous judicial ruling, leads to a court review to determine if the writ should be granted.
But we're playing Stud Poker.
Midnight Writer
(24,771 posts)Dark n Stormy Knight
(10,462 posts)they're "raptured" down, not up.
Midnight Writer
(24,771 posts)MLWR
(565 posts)he should be replaced as Speaker. What he is doing is preventing the people who live in that AZ district from having legal representation. Maybe THEY need to sue him. They certainly have "standing."
Six117
(284 posts)There's nothing to wonder about. Rules, "norms", laws
- none of that mean anything to them. For us, when the opportunity comes around -match that energy.
Take back our country.
Pepsidog
(6,344 posts)dingosatemyusername
(100 posts)cocaine fuel orgies
Beartracks
(14,117 posts)... somebody blocks the scoreboard from being updated.
=============
Montauk6
(9,248 posts)Initech
(106,407 posts)It's all about keeping their asshole in power. This is more reason for him and his ass kissing goons to be removed!
Katinfl
(516 posts)You know he is taking orders from trump. When will people wake up and see the light?????
Evolve Dammit
(21,246 posts)spanone
(140,266 posts)These fuckers ignore all rules with no consequence.
SamuelTheThird
(288 posts)Emile
(37,793 posts)in the Epstein files?
Buddyzbuddy
(1,554 posts)Hey smurf, do you think this is better or worse. If he were innocent, you have every opportunity to prove it. If he were just a traveling companion you can prove it.
He is the President in his final term. You must know or truly believe that your chosen one is a pedophile because otherwise, why would you run interference for him. In addition, you know your billionaire supporters are guilty of pedophelia. Aren't you concerned that a protector of those creeps might be suspected of similar behavior?
CousinIT
(11,878 posts)Mike Johnson refuses to swear in a Democrat who won her election in a landslide just so he can block a vote on the Epstein files. bsky.app/profile/acyn...
— Ron Filipkowski (@ronfilipkowski.bsky.social) 2025-09-26T23:53:34.818Z
pansypoo53219
(22,606 posts)debsy
(652 posts)We voted for Adelita Grijalva. We pay our federal taxes. Mike Johnson, swear in our representative so we can have our damn representation, you coward!
The only way republicans can win is by cheating.
bluestarone
(20,369 posts)Would that stop the vote until she is seated? (quorum call)
Jose Garcia
(3,304 posts)bluestarone
(20,369 posts)GAJMac
(248 posts)Enough said
soldierant
(8,961 posts)Of course he did. She would be the deciding vote on the discharge petition.