As we previously reported, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s decision not to seat Rep. Jim Banks (R-IN) and Rep. Jim Jordan (R-Ohio) to her Capitol riots committee, coupled with committee member Rep. Liz Cheney (R-Wyo.) announcing her agreement with the call, provides more evidence that this whole process is no more than a gigantic partisan sham Democrats have put together to try and drag out the issue through the 2022 midterms.
New information this morning further lends credulity to the claim, with CNN reporting Pelosi “is considering” naming Rep. Adam Kinzinger (R-Ill.) to the committee:
During a news conference on Capitol Hill on Thursday morning, Pelosi said, “We’ll see,” when asked about the potential appointment.
“I mean, there are some members that would like to be on it,” Pelosi added. “But, we’ll see.”
Rep. Bennie Thompson, a Mississippi Democrat who’s been appointed chairman of the new committee, said Thursday that adding Kinzinger to the panel has been discussed with the speaker. Thompson said if Pelosi signs off, Kinzinger will be a “welcome addition.”
Of course Kinzinger would be considered a “welcome addition,” considering he’s shown himself to not being above making fantastical allegations about his Republican colleagues and the Capitol riots that can’t be proven just like Democrats have.
The news that Pelosi was considering Kinzinger for a spot on the committee sparked some obscene gushing from CNN White House correspondent John Harwood, who took to the Twitter machine to state that though Kinzinger and Cheney were considered “outcasts” in the GOP, “they are still Republicans,” which in his mind confirmed the committee would be even “more bipartisan” if he was seated:
per CNN colleague @MZanona, Pelosi making Jan 6 select committee more bipartisan by appointing Adam Kinzinger to join Liz Cheney on panel
the fact that Cheney and Kinzinger embrace reality/tell the truth may make them outcasts within GOP caucus, but they are still Republicans
— John Harwood (@JohnJHarwood) July 22, 2021
An hour later, a clearly moved Harwood followed-up by suggesting that Kinzinger and Cheney would “add value” to the investigation because they were “seeking to illuminate” the truth:
the only kinds of people who can add value to a Congressional investigation, whatever the party label, are those seeking to illuminate rather than obscure the truth
— John Harwood (@JohnJHarwood) July 22, 2021
First things first. Neither Kinzinger nor Cheney have proven that they’re interested in “illuminating” the truth. Kinzinger has all but outright accused his own colleagues of being complicit in the Capitol riots by supposedly having advance knowledge, a dangerous allegation he has yet to substantiate in any meaningful way. It got him a lot of media attention and adulation, though, which was the whole point of the exercise.
Cheney has, without evidence, accused House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.) of trying to cover up what happened on January 6th because she believes some of her fellow House Republicans and former President Trump “incited” the rioters and must be held accountable for having the nerve to question the election results.
But beyond the insinuation that Cheney and Kinzinger are brave Republicans who are willing to risk their political careers in order to speak Truth to Power™ or whatever, let’s remember that Harwood is not an impartial journalist. As I’ve noted before, Harwood was caught crossing the line back in 2015 from being a supposedly neutral reporter to being an arm of Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign:
The following question was asked on Sept. 21, 2015, via email, to the chairman of a major presidential campaign, John Podesta: “What should I ask Jeb?”
At the time, Jeb Bush was still a leading candidate to challenge Hillary Clinton for the White House — and had more money behind him.
The question didn’t come from a campaign surrogate or an opinion host — it came from the chief Washington correspondent at CNBC, John Harwood. And just to make sure he hit Bush where the Clinton campaign — which still viewed the former Florida governor as its most likely opponent for 2016 — wanted him to most, Harwood went to Clinton’s campaign chief to do all the thinking for him.
And after Harwood hosted a Republican presidential primary debate in November 2015, he sent this email:
“I imagine that Obama feels some (sad) vindication at this demonstration of his years-long point about the opposition party veering off the rails,” Harwood wrote to Podesta afterward. “I certainly am feeling that way with respect to how I questioned Trump at our debate.”
There was also this:
— BenJammin.eth🍌 (@xBenJamminx) November 3, 2016
Contra to what he wants you to believe, Harwood is a partisan actor in all this himself and would not be praising anything he felt would be detrimental to the narratives and goals of the Democratic party. While I’m sure it was unintentional, his tweets were an accidental admission that his network realizes this committee was designed to be a wildly one-sided affair, and is responding accordingly.