'Complicit in everything': Questions raised about Jim Jordan after Cassidy Hutchinson's testimony
In a column noting the continuing interference Republican Party members are running for Donald Trump as the Jan 6th Committee exposes more evidence of the former president's links to the Capitol insurrection, political scientist Jeffrey C. Isaac from Indiana University, Bloomington, singled out Rep. Jim Jordan (R-OH) as the man who could be the key to more information about that day's events.
While Jordan has demurred when asked to testify under oath before the committee, Isaac said his participation is even more critical after comments made by Cassidy Hutchinson during her bombshell appearance on national TV where she kept referring to him as "Jim."
Posing the question, "Was it merely the excessive anger and violence that boiled over? Were they [GOP lawmakers] basically onboard with Eastman’s legalistic fantasies that the Electoral College vote count might might be obstructed with only a minimum of disruption and violence?" He pointed the finger at the controversial Ohio Republican who is in line to be the chair of the House Judiciary Committee if the GOP should take the House in November.
"There was a moment in Hutchinson’s testimony when this question briefly sprang into view. She commented that 'Jim' had been trying to reach Meadows by phone as the Capitol was being breached. 'Jim' was Representative Jim Jordan, one of the more notable Trumpists in Congress. The substance of the conversations between Jordan and the White House remains unknown, because Jordan has refused to cooperate with the committee," he wrote before making his case.
'"Jim' was one of the most violent and adamant promoters of Trump’s Big Lie," he accused. "After the violence of Jan. 6th subsided, Jim led the effort on the floor of the Senate to delay and obstruct the counting of the Electoral Votes, and was perhaps the most vocal and visible of the 147 Congressional Republicans who voted to overturn Biden’s victory.
Jim was as vociferous in his opposition to Trump’s second impeachment as he was to Trump’s first impeachment."
Adding, "In the months since Joe Biden’s inauguration, Jim has waged a relentless rhetorical war against the Democratic party and promised that if the Republicans retake the House in November, he will use his position as incoming chairman of the House Judiciary Committee to organize a series of public hearings to investigate the Bidens, hearings that would surely make the Benghazi inquisition of Hillary Clinton in 2015 seem like a picnic," he suggested, "Perhaps it is the case that as the violent mob approached his position, 'Jim' was frantically trying to convince Mark Meadows to get Trump to do something to prevent the crowd from assaulting him and his friends. Or perhaps not."
"But whatever the case it hardly matters, because 'Jim' was innocent of nothing and complicit in everything that transpired that day," he concluded.
You can read more here.
NOW WATCH: 'The court doesn't care': CNN legal analyst delivers chilling implications of latest SCOTUS cases
Leave a Comment