The House Jan. 6 panel on Wednesday acknowledged altering a text Rep. Jim Jordan, R-Ohio, had forwarded to then-White House chief of staff Mark Meadows, according to The Federalist.
The text, originally sent by attorney Joseph Schmitz to Jordan, included a three-paragraph legal summary of a four-page legal memo that Schmitz had written regarding congressional certification of the 2020 presidential electoral vote count, which Jordan subsequently forwarded to Meadows.
On Wednesday, the Jan. 6 committee acknowledged that it had altered a text Jordan had forwarded to Meadows. The Federalist reported that the text was edited by Rep. Adam Schiff, D-Calif., who sits on the Jan. 6 panel, and his staff. With the addition of the period, the sentence was cut in half, eliminating the rest of Schmitz’s legal argument.
”The Select Committee on Monday,” a spokesman wrote, ”created and provided Representative Schiff a graphic to use during the business meeting quoting from a text message from ‘a lawmaker’ to Mr. Meadows. The graphic read, ‘On January 6, 2021, Vice President Mike Pence, as President of the Senate, should call out all electoral votes that he believes are unconstitutional as no electoral votes at all.”’
”In the graphic, the period at the end of that sentence was added inadvertently. The Select Committee is responsible for and regrets the error,” the spokesman said.
So far, it was not explained why the text, written by Schmitz and sent to Jordan on Jan. 5, was attributed to Jordan writing it.
On the evening of Jan. 5, Schmitz texted Jordan, ”Good luck tomorrow!” and included the four-page legal memo. Schmitz then texted Jordan a three-paragraph summary of the document, which Schiff edited and attributed to Jordan.
When asked if Jordan would have written the three-paragraph summary, a lawmaker responded: ‘That’s just not Jim’s style. Long, nerdy paragraphs might be my style, but that’s not Jim’s style at all.”
”Plus, you have to remember what was going on at that time,” the lawmaker added. ”People were sending around these law review articles and debates left and right because we had an interest in learning the facts and getting them right. And if it’s somehow seditious in this country to debate or share a law review article on Alexander Hamilton’s view on things, that’s not really a country I want to be a part of anymore.”
Another lawmaker laughed when asked if Jordan could have sent the three-paragraph summary.
”If he texts at all, it’s usually something like ‘yes’ or ‘call me,”’ they said.
”The idea that Jordan would sit down and punch out a long-winded legal argument via text is absurd,” a colleague close to Jordan said. ”That’s just not how he works.”