Caren, I find aspects of your columns I like. But, as you know from past comments, you often frame things inaccurately or to convey malicious intent.

Representative McCarthy IS the leader of the Republican caucus and a presumptive Speaker when the Republicans take control January 2023. But, that position is not guaranteed. He could face and lose to a challenger.

So, he's not "announcing the Republican agenda as if he is already the Speaker". He is signaling to his caucus his agenda plans IF he is elected Speaker. You know, campaigning like politicians do.

With respect to Hunter Biden, the contention isn't whether Hunter "exploited his father's vice presidency to earn millions of dollars from China". The question is whether those millions (which apparently included some held for "the big guy") influenced and/or continue to influence any policies related to China supported or implemented by his father, the President of the United States.

Senator Mitch McConnell has been in Congress for a while now. If there were any reason for ethics investigations regarding his family's wealth, I'm sure Democrats would have called for an investigation by now.

I agree with you on the Preservation Orders. It is somewhat of a double standard. Leader McCarthy's threat to telecommunications companies that comply with the preservation order under some nebulous federal law was also pretty ham handed.

I can, however, understand his concern. I know you believe the records will demonstrate some culpability for McCarthy and other GOP members for the crimes committed January 6. If they don't, whatever is revealed will be used as political fodder by Democrats and their allies in the media against specific Republicans and Republicans in general.

According to the Washington Post, "The Jan. 6 Committee has asked 35 telecommunication companies, like AT&T and Google, to hang onto phone records and other information related to the Jan. 6 attacks." This seems overly broad on its face and puts a large burden on those companies to determine what "relates" to the events of January 6. That means that companies will cast a "wide net" in the data they preserve and theoretically use to respond to any subsequent subpoenas from the Committee.

Such data becoming part of the official record of the Committee, it then becomes public record accessible by the media, political operatives, and the general public. It's not hard to imagine Democrat politicians, their operatives, and their media supporters cherry-picking any embarrassing private information those subpoenas reveal about their Republican opponents unrelated to January 6. Plus, given the left's affection for doxxing, private citizens who might tangentially be named would likely become targets of the left's wrath.

I have a few questions about your comments regarding Leader McCarthy's answer to the questions about the censure resolution.

First, you wrote "The most glaring [problem] being that the '6 RNC members' who were supposedly in Florida that day, remain unidentified". Wouldn't those Representatives know they had been subpoenaed and don't you think they would have informed Leader McCarthy? If so, do you think Leader McCarthy is so unskilled politically as to assert those Representatives were in Florida January 6 if they were provably not so?

Second, you note that Leader McCarthy walked away without saying whether he supported the censure like a politician walking away from a reporter without answering a particular question is a strange thing (it's not). But, then you wrote "he just destroyed all the groundwork that he had been carefully laying for weeks". I don't understand that assertion. Care to explain?