Very interesting that they’d try to start this before the new Dems even take office. Rats and sinking ships indeed.
Or is this a roundabout way to protect Kegsbreath, by first starting an intentionally flawed impeachment proceeding in order to poison any later attempt?
And even if the CIA was involved, that doesn’t automatically justify a violent response.
Even if the CIA was involved with the protest, that doesn’t justify the massacre of peaceful, unarmed protesters.
“You see, comrade? As long as we call it ‘Nazi uprising’, we can crush anyone with tank and say is good thing.”
I’ve caught temp bans for way less…
They’ll do that regardless.
But, fun fact, it doesn’t matter if the new batch of congresscritters is sworn in or not – the ones who were voted out stop being congressmen on January 3rd, whether they have a replacement sworn in or not. No matter if their replacements get sworn in or not, they have to go. (Although I’m unclear on the subject of successful incumbents. They certainly don’t have to leave, since they won reelection … but do they need to be sworn in again after every election, or do they just keep going on like before?)
But if they try to play too many games with the ‘swearing in’ nonesense, the incoming congressmen can play hardball right back. There’s no constitutional requirement for being sworn in, not even a rule of Senate/House procedure. It’s just traditional that new congressmen get sworn in before participating. But if they’re playing games with not letting the new ones get sworn in, they could also just show up and start participating/voting anyway. The current batch of Republicans have violated plenty of norms and traditions already, and if they try to use this norm/tradition as a stumbling block, then let’s violate this one too.