Thomas Massie to AG Garland: What gives you the authority to appoint a Special Counsel?

An odd concession that I was correct, but I'll take it.

prior Subcommittee rules that could be used for comparison don’t immediately pop up on my search of government archives.

For your reference, here is a link to the H. Res. 8—Adopting rules for the 117th Congress (1/3/21 - 1/3/23).

Note that the first paragraph says:

Resolved,
SECTION 1. ADOPTION OF THE RULES OF THE ONE HUNDRED SIXTEENTH CONGRESS.
The Rules of the House of Representatives of the One Hundred Sixteenth Congress, including applicable provisions of law or concurrent resolution that constituted rules of the House at the end of the One Hundred Sixteenth Congress, are adopted as the Rules of the House of Representatives of the One Hundred Seventeenth Congress, with amendments to the standing rules as provided in section 2, and with other orders as provided in this resolution.

Here is a link to House Rules for the 117th Congress. See Rule I Section 11 (Committee appointment).

Also, here is a link to an archive of historical House Rules. You can find the 116th (and earlier) House rules here.

Instead of using “altered”, I should have used “intentionally and patently misused”, but it was a busy weekend.

If you had said that, I wouldn't have called you out on it. Like I said, I hate to have been put in the position of defending Pelosi, but she didn't alter the rules -- she just ruthlessly used them to her advantage -- which is something that Republican Speakers never do. In fact, Pelosi, Hoyer, Jeffries, and all the rest are also experts at using the minority powers against Republicans when the roles are reversed -- another thing that Republicans don't know how to do.

-PJ

An odd concession that I was correct, but I'll take it.

Good, and thank you for the links. But think of it more as an "ethical" concession pending my opportunity to review the literature. There is a difference, of course, between modifying the text of a writing and altering the terms of an agreement by one's actions.

In any event, we have reached a stable plateau for a time and it remains an enjoyable exchange. [:^)

To your earlier post, note that Pelosi did "consult" with McCarthy and he nominated five people: Jim Jordan, Jim Banks, Rodney Davis, Kelly Armstrong, and Troy Nehls. It was when Pelosi rejected Jordan and Banks that McCarthy pulled all the nominations in protest.

That freed up Pelosi to name them all, and she only went with Cheney and Kinzinger.

Was she being sneaky with the rules or did she outmaneuver McCarthy? Would Republicans have been better off with the remaining three picks even if Pelosi still put Cheney and Kinzinger on the committee?

Honestly, I don't think McCarthy thought things through completely. Pelosi said she removed Jordan and Banks because of "statements made and actions taken by these members," but I believe that was just cover to keep one of them from becoming the ranking member of the committee. Jordan has been in the House since 2007 and Banks joined in 2017. Jordan would have been the ranking Republican on the committee.

Cheney also joined in 2017 with Banks, while Kinzinger joined in 2011. Kinzinger wasn't named the ranking Republican because Pelosi named Cheney first on July 1 and gave her that title. She added Kinzinger on July 25th.

Of the other three of McCarthy's picks, Davis joined in 2013, Armstrong joined in 2019, and Nehls joined in 2021. If McCarthy had not pulled out all the rest, that might have forced Pelosi to name Davis as the ranking member instead of Cheney, because Davis was McCarthy's pick. If Pelosi jumped seniority and still named Cheney as the ranking member, all heck would have broken out on the committee.

So I believe that McCarthy's retreat of pulling out all the members was a tactical mistake that allowed Pelosi to completely shape the committee.

-PJ

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.