\n<\/p>\n
House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) will, on Wednesday, finally swear in Rep.-elect Adelita Grijalva (D-Ariz.).<\/span>Nathan Posner\/SOPA\/ZUMA<\/span><\/p>\n<\/div>\n More Epstein files<\/a><\/span> could, in theory, be coming soon. <\/p>\n That\u2019s because, at 4 p.m. ET on Wednesday, House Speaker Mike Johnson will finally<\/em> swear in Rep. Adelita Grijalva, the Arizona Democrat who has promised to provide the final congressional signature on a discharge petition to force a vote on a\u00a0bipartisan bill<\/a> to release government files from the Jeffrey Epstein investigation. That would include flight logs, names of people and entities with ties to Epstein, sealed settlements, and internal Department of Justice (DOJ) communications related to the case.<\/p>\n The discharge <\/strong>petition\u2014introduced by Rep. Thomas Massie (R-Ky.) and Rep. Ro Khanna (D-Calif.)\u2014back in July, allows<\/a> members to bypass House leadership and force a floor vote once 218 members have signed on. It currently has 217 signatures, with four Republicans\u2014Massie, Rep. Nancy Mace (R-S.C.), Rep. Lauren Boebert (R-Colo.), and Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-Ga.)\u2014among them. Grijalva, who won her House seat in a special election in September, will provide the critical 218th vote to move the vote forward; she told<\/a> Semafor<\/em> that signing the petition is the first thing she plans to do after being sworn in. The rules of the House stipulate<\/a> that members can initiate a floor vote seven days after filing a successful discharge petition, and that the Speaker must schedule a floor vote within two days of getting that notice, which Johnson has committed<\/a> to doing. Top aides told<\/a> Politico<\/em> they expect the House vote will take place just after Thanksgiving.<\/p>\n In the nearly two months since Grijalva won the election to fill her late father\u2019s seat, Johnson has refused to swear her in\u2014pointing to the government shut down and his own decision to largely keep the House out of session as justification for his obstructionism. Last month, Grijalva and Arizona\u2019s attorney general filed<\/a> a lawsuit against the House, alleging that the delay was unconstitutionally leaving Grijalva\u2019s district without representation. Survivors of sex abuse and trafficking by Epstein and his co-conspirator, Ghislaine Maxwell, also called<\/a> for Grijalva\u2019s swearing-in, alleging the delay \u201cappears to be a deliberate attempt to block her participation in the discharge petition that would force a vote to unseal the Epstein\/Maxwell files.\u201d<\/p>\n Johnson has denied claims that he delayed Grijalva\u2019s swearing in due to the files and has called the discharge petition a \u201cgambit,\u201d arguing the GOP-controlled House Oversight Committee is already working on releasing the files. The committee has, indeed, released<\/a>\u00a0more than 33,000 pages of documents that it secured by subpoenaing the DOJ, and it released<\/a> another 20,000 pages on Wednesday morning provided by Epstein\u2019s estate. Democrats and Epstein survivors have pointed out<\/a> that some of the documents released by the committee had already been made public through prior court cases. Rep. Robert Garcia (D-Calif.), the committee\u2019s ranking Democrat, said<\/a> Wednesday that the DOJ has more files and alleged<\/a> that the White House is behind a \u201ccover up\u201d to prevent their release. In a statement provided to\u00a0Mother Jones<\/em>, Massie said: \u201cThe Epstein files should be released in their entirety, not leaked selectively by members of the Oversight Committee. When we get the 218th signature on the discharge petition today, we will be one step closer to delivering justice to Epstein\u2019s victims and transparency to the American people.\u201d A spokesperson for Khanna added that there are \u201cat least hundreds of thousands of documents still out there.\u201d<\/p>\n On CNN Tuesday night, Grijalva called<\/a> the delay to swear her in \u201cunconstitutional\u201d and \u201cillegal,\u201d adding, \u201cThis kind of obstruction cannot happen again.\u201d The newly elected congresswoman also said that House members are \u201choping\u201d to expedite the vote on the Epstein files. \u201cI feel like at this point we\u2019re done sort of tap dancing around what it, the implications of those files really mean,\u201d Grijalva told host Kaitlan Collins. \u201cAnd anyone who is implicated needs to deal with the legal consequences for breaking the law and committing horrific crimes against children and women.\u201d<\/p>\n If the bill passes the House, which Massie has said<\/a> he expects, it would still need to get through the Republican-controlled Senate. Leadership there has not indicated on whether they would allow a vote, but Politico<\/em> reports that Republicans expect it to die there. If public pressure does succeed in pushing it through the Senate, President Donald Trump could still choose to veto it. Trump, of course, is the guy who has called<\/a> the whole thing \u201ca hoax\u201d\u2014despite the fact<\/a> that, according to newly released emails<\/a> sent by Epstein, Trump may have been aware of at least some of what Epstein was doing. <\/p>\n White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt told<\/a> reporters that House Democrats\u2019 release of those emails represented \u201cnothing more than bad-faith efforts to distract from President Trump\u2019s historic accomplishments, and any American with common sense sees right through this hoax and clear distraction from the government opening back up again.\u201d<\/p>\n In the meantime, the president already appears to be doing everything he can to try to tank the petition\u2019s chances of success: CNN reported<\/a> Wednesday afternoon that Trump officials have a meeting planned with\u00a0Attorney General Pam Bondi, Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche, FBI Director Kash Patel, and Boebert to discuss the matter. Meanwhile, the New York Times<\/em> reports<\/a> Trump has also been trying to get Mace to remove her name. Neither she nor Boebert, according to the Times<\/em>, have agreed to Trump\u2019s request. <\/p>\n