Not unsurprisingly, the New York Times article you linked to which you indicate the New York Times reported Acting Speaker Patrick T McHenry acted on the orders of former Speaker Kevin McCarthy when he evicted Nancy Pelosi and Steny Hoyer from choice office space in the capital is questionable. They do not quote anybody specifically. It's the infamous "person familiar with the situation". Meaning, they don't have someone they can quote directly and for all anyone knows this is someone who had a personal grudge against former Speaker McCarthy and saw a means to make him look even worse. In other words, the quote is unreliable and there is no direct evidence former Speaker McCarthy ordered the evictions.

I agree with you in a sense that Republicans have the majority and therefore controlled what would be going into the House Rules. Setting such a low bar to trigger a vote to "vacate the chair" pretty much guaranteed someone (either a fellow Republican or Democrat) would call for a vote. Former Speaker McCarthy probably could not envision so many of his own caucus voting in favor of vacating.

While it's not Democrats mess to clean up, there is some dispute whether Democrats in Leadership Roles had promised to back McCarthy if ever a vote to vacate was to be taken. From the New York Times article you linked, for her part, Nancy Pelosi has "not disputed Mr McCarthy's account of her earlier pledge to back him, but it is not surprising that she left him to twist in the wind". Representative Pelosi was in California for the actual vote. However, given her sway over her caucus, she undoubtedly could have rallied enough Democrats to vote against vacating the chair to save McCarthy's Speakership.

Similarly, from the New York Times article you linked, acting Speaker McHenry had apparently received similar assurances from Representative Hoyer. He did vote in favor of vacating the chair. This information was provided by the same person who alleged acting Speaker McHenry ordered the offices vacated at the direction of former Speaker McCarthy. However, in this case, the author took the added step of speaking to a spokesperson for Representative Hoyer on the subject to which that spokesperson did not dispute such an agreement existed.

It's not surprising that Democrats Pelosi (by not advocating her caucus vote against vacating the chair) and Hoyer (who did vote to vacate the chair) would ignore promises previously made. With Democrats, the ends always justify the means. If you can act to lie against a previous promise to gain some political capital, by all means, do it. Don't worry if you lied your ass off and it becomes public. You'll be protected by your allies in the press.

You imply there's some hypocrisy in the fact that Speaker Gingrich was having an extramarital affair with a Congressional aide at the same time he was pursuing the impeachment of President Clinton. President Clinton wasn't being impeached for having sexual relations with Monica Lewinsky (sometimes, apparently, in the Oval Office). President Clinton was being impeached for lying under oath to questions be answered in the lawsuit filed by Paula Jones. Lying under oath is an actual crime. Getting his knob polished by an intern is unseemly, immoral (considering he was married at the time), and he did some weird things with a cigar, but none of it was illegal. It only became an issue criminally rather than politically when he lied about it under oath.

You claim that Republicans want to "burn it all down" but that's not exactly true. Not even the Tea Party wanted to do that. But our government never shrinks, it only grows. Duplicative, ineffective, and even programs that act against each other, get funded year, after year, after year. Control which Democrats wish to exert that they can't get done legislatively, sees them turning to unelected bureaucrats to issue regulations to accomplish the same goals. They know it will take judicial action to dispute the regulation. That's the reason Obama filled open judgeships in the DC Circuit Court of Appeals when other Circuit Courts had more openings or a higher caseload. Obama knew that those fellow radicals would enjoy a lifetime appointment and would stand ready to validate regulations issued by his bureaucrats and fellow Democrat's bureaucrats well into the future. Regulations might be appealed to the Supreme Court and Obama could not have envisioned the next President [who thankfully was not named Hillary] appointing three strict originalists to the High Court virtually guaranteeing any Democrat bureaucrat regulations that would surely violate the Constitution or some aspect of Federal Law and would be struck down by that Court.

Finally, there is your reference to Nancy Pelosi as "classy". She is a politician and I would even concede a "good one" in that she tolerates no diversity of thought in her caucus. She wasn't very classy when she tore up the script to President Trump's State of the Union Address while standing behind him having to know she was on camera. That's not classy. That's bitchy.