Democrat Adelita Grijalva sworn in 7 weeks after winning House election
Democrat Adelita Grijalva was sworn in as a member of Congress on Wednesday afternoon, seven weeks after she won a special election in Arizona.
Who cares? So, the daughter of one of the most radical, Socialist, Leftists in Congress (who is a radical, Socialist, Leftist) does something. What meaningless gesture will the Democrats try next?
“Crying,” so pointing out Johnson purposely denying for personal political ends the people of Arizona the representation they are guaranteed in the Constitution is “crying”![]()
Democrat Adelita Grijalva sworn in 7 weeks after winning House election
Democrat Adelita Grijalva was sworn in as a member of Congress on Wednesday afternoon, seven weeks after she won a special election in Arizona.www.yahoo.com
“Crying,” so pointing out Johnson purposely denying for personal political ends the people of Arizona the representation they are guaranteed in the Constitution is “crying”
Interesting how the “documentation” is missing a source, seems to be a continuous habit of “copy and paste”You should.
They're going to try to claim that her vote was needed to force the release of rest of the Epstein files.
They are going to pretend that the delay in swearing her in was a coverup because "Trump is guilty".
But they are lying.
View: https://x.com/Breaking911/status/1988735667648754137?s=20
Documentation proving that U.S. Rep. Tim Burchett (R-Tenn.) Tried to Expedite the Release of the Epstein Files
Documentation Proving that Democrats Blocked the Motion
- House Resolution 1234 - Motion for Unanimous Consent
- House Resolution 1234 details the motion introduced by Rep. Tim Burchett to expedite the release of the Epstein files through unanimous consent. This document outlines the specifics of the motion and its intent to bypass standard procedural delays.
- Congressional Record Entry - November 12, 2025
- Congressional Record Entry includes Rep. Burchett's statement on the House floor regarding his attempt to use unanimous consent to release the Epstein files. This entry confirms his action and the context of his motion.
These hyperlinks lead to the official House documentation that substantiates the claims made in the X post regarding Rep. Tim Burchett's attempt to expedite the release of the Epstein files and the Democratic opposition to that motion.
- House Vote Record - November 12, 2025
- House Vote Record shows the vote tally where Democrats blocked Rep. Burchett's motion for unanimous consent. The record indicates the names of the Democrats who objected, thereby preventing the motion from passing.
- Democratic Caucus Statement - November 12, 2025
- Democratic Caucus Statement provides the official stance of the Democratic Caucus regarding their decision to block the motion. This document explains their reasoning and the procedural steps taken to oppose the unanimous consent motion.
A Republican already tried. The Democrats killed his motion to set the stage for their lie.
Do I need to explain their game to you?
Objecting to ignoring the Constitution is crying, and MAGA’a will turn around next and tell us they love the ConstitutionWhy, yes, Anchovies.
Post the source, not what the source gave you, and don’t try to tell us you accessed all those House records individuallyChrist, you're stupid. The links are in the text.
House Resolution 1234 - Motion for Unanimous Consent
House Resolution 1234 details the motion introduced by Rep. Tim Burchett to expedite the release of the Epstein files through unanimous consent. This document outlines the specifics of the motion and its intent to bypass standard procedural delays.
Congressional Record Entry - November 12, 2025
Congressional Record Entry includes Rep. Burchett's statement on the House floor regarding his attempt to use unanimous consent to release the Epstein files. This entry confirms his action and the context of his motion.
House Vote Record - November 12, 2025
House Vote Record shows the vote tally where Democrats blocked Rep. Burchett's motion for unanimous consent. The record indicates the names of the Democrats who objected, thereby preventing the motion from passing.
Democrat Caucus Statement - November 12, 202
Democratic Caucus Statement provides the official stance of the Democratic Caucus regarding their decision to block the motion. This document explains their reasoning and the procedural steps taken to oppose the unanimous consent motion.
These hyperlinks lead to the official House documentation that substantiates the claims made in the X post regarding Rep. Tim Burchett's attempt to expedite the release of the Epstein files and the Democratic opposition to that motion.
Post the source, not what the source gave you, and don’t try to tell us you accessed all those House records individually Post the source
Did, and get repeated “We couldn't find that page” replysClick the links, Anchovies.
And know we know why “copy and paste” doesn’t include the source
Are you thick, with his vote, and the entire Democrat delegation, they still wouldn’t have enough votes to pass it, now explain to us how then the Democrats opposed release of the recordsToday's Floor Action (November 12, 2025): Burchett went rogue with a unanimous consent request on the House floor to immediately discharge and vote on H.Res. 581, the Epstein Files Transparency Resolution (not the bill—see below for distinction). This would direct Oversight to publicly release all key Epstein docs (e.g., unredacted logs, emails, interviews) without waiting for DOJ. Democrats objected and blocked it, citing victim privacy risks and the need for committee vetting. Burchett fired back in a viral clip: "I tried to release the Epstein files today. Democrats blocked it... Just get it to the daggum floor and let the people decide."
In sign of growing agitation, GOP lawmaker attempts to force Epstein vote on floor
Are you thick, with his vote, and the entire Democrat delegation, they still wouldn’t have enough votes to pass it, now explain to us how then the Democrats opposed release of the records
Again, 209 votes does not equate to a majority, duhThe official transcript of today's session, including Burchett's UC motion and the objection, will be available on Congress.gov's Daily Digest by ~8 AM ET tomorrow (November 13, 2025). Search for "Burchett" + "unanimous consent" + "H.R. 4405" to find the exact wording and who objected.
Again, 209 votes does not equate to a majority, duh
And if there is nothing there, Bondi ought to just release all the records
Most people in Arizona wouldn't vote for her if she was the only person on the ballot. She represents a district in S. Arizona that happens to be an anomaly in the state and is deep blue.“Crying,” so pointing out Johnson purposely denying for personal political ends the people of Arizona the representation they are guaranteed in the Constitution is “crying”
BullshitWho said it did?
Bondi can't "just release all the records" due to legal protections, ongoing investigations, political considerations, and the sheer volume of material. It's a delicate balance between transparency and responsibility, but the House's impending vote may force her hand sooner rather than later.