There’s so much to say about Ohio’s Jim Jordan as he tries to become Speaker of the House.
Almost too much to dive into (which is part of the problem).
About his days at Ohio State, and the sexual abuse scandal that took place while he was assistant wrestling coach. About his tenure in Congress—ranked as one of Congress’s least effective members, with almost no successful bills to his name over 16 years. About his actions up to and after January 6—the calls with Trump he tried to play down, and his refusal to abide by subpoenas. About the fact that he currently sits in a district that violates the Ohio Constitution. About the plight of the people in his district, whose interests he votes against time and again.
We in Ohio have watched this guy, for years, skate by on all of it.
So we can only hope there will be much written on all this in the coming days. In any normal time, it would all be disqualifying of any bid to be Speaker. But in this era of broken politics, even if it’s not disqualifying, Americans still need to know the facts as Jordan tries to vault to third in line to the presidency—and when, at a fraught and tense time, the nation and world desperately need responsible leadership in Washington.
But as important as these aspects of Jordan’s background are, I’ll leave it to others to do the work of exploring them.
Because I can’t stop thinking about one Jordan incident in particular.
Amid all of his controversies, there’s a single incident—more recent than the others—which, for me, both captures how disturbing a figure he is and casts important light on past incidents he’s been embroiled in. It also shows how Jordan would act in the future, including if a broken political party ever allowed him to be Speaker.
The Horrific Crime and Its Young Victim
(CAUTION: the content that follows is disturbing)
It happened just over a year ago. And even though it played out on the national stage, it too easily gets lost amid national politics.
Mid-July, the story first emerged from Indiana of a ten-year old rape victim (nine at the time of the rape) from Ohio, impregnated by that rape, being forced to travel to Indiana for the abortion care she could not get in Ohio.
This came on the heels of Ohio Republicans rushing to lock their abortion ban into place right after Dobbs—no exceptions for rape, incest or health of the mother. So the ban took effect in Ohio only a day after the Supreme Court decision came down.
The story of Ohio’s young victim horrified the country. Amid the explosion of abortion bans around the country, it provided the first high-profile proof of just how tragic and immediate the consequences of those bans could be. And it opened eyes about how young the victims of these laws actually are. This was no longer theory, but real life.
So in a way that happens in American politics today, the story quickly transformed from a searing, local personal tragedy and outrage to a highly charged and national political maelstrom. And a young victim right at the center.
Jordan’s Denial
Perhaps because it was their state’s law that forced the young victim to go to another state, Republican officials from Ohio swooped in to do damage control.
Two Ohio politicians in particular revealed themselves more than anyone in how they responded.
There was Dave Yost, who as Attorney General, went onto national television and—claiming credibility by touting his special access to relevant law enforcement information—cast doubt on the victim’s story. He told FOX News’ Jesse Watters that there is “not a whisper” of evidence to support the story, and elsewhere suggested that it was potentially a “fabrication,” and that there was not a “damn scintilla of evidence.”
And then there was Jim Jordan.
Like Yost, his voice here would carry added credibility to a national audience. He too is from Ohio, so a national audience might presume he’d have special knowledge of the situation. Or at least that he had the means and connections to gather details. He’s also a Member of Congress, of course. And Jordan’s primary role at the time was ranking member of the House Judiciary Committee, lending him more weight on issues of crime, justice and the legal system.
From those positions of authority, Jordan leapt into the fray:
In a textbook example of how the right-wing media echo chamber warps truth into nationwide lies, the conservative Washington Examiner published a story amplifying the narrative Dave Yost had spread on FOX News. The Examiner’s story was essentially a long quotation of Yost’s comments.
Then enters Jordan, who tweets out the Examiner story to his 4 million followers and the entire right-wing media echo-chamber, adding his even blunter summary of what was happening in his own state: “Another lie. Anyone surprised?”
Again, this was not just anyone calling the story a “lie.” But the ranking member of the House Judiciary Committee who hails from Ohio.
Of course, the words “another” and “surprised?” threw in added cues to his audience—a not-so-subtle suggestion that stories even as terrible as this one are often lies, and likely to be lies, to be disbelieved. Victims’ horrors, made up. Simply left-wing politics, easily cast aside as untrue.
Erased.
The Truth Confirmed
Shortly after Jordan’s tweet, a local newspaper (the Columbus Dispatch) broke the news that the story was 100% true—the victim very much real, and the defendant arrested (and soon charged with the crime).
How did Jordan respond? He erased the tweet.
But even with the story now proven true—meaning the victim had endured exactly what had been described—Jordan still didn’t utter a word of sympathy for her plight. Nor did he comment on the Ohio law that forced her to go to Indiana to get the care she needed.
Then, when CNN reporter Manu Raja tracked him down and asked him about the tweets, four things happened:
First, Jordan refused to apologize when asked to do so directly. As Raja summarized: Jordan’s “not apologizing for the tweet, not apologizing to the family, not regretting the tweet.”
Second, Jordan lied. “I never doubted the child,” he told Raja.
Huh? To the entire nation, he cast doubt on her entire existence. Characterized her entire story as a politicized lie. “Surprised?” he asked sarcastically, as if lies like this happen regularly, and should be dismissed out of hand.
Third, he blamed journalism: “I was responding to a headline from your profession, the news profession, which happens all the time on Twitter.”
Never mind that what he actually did was knowingly participate in the right-wing echo chamber—amplifying the story of a right-wing newspaper amplifying a right-wing TV station’s interview with a right-wing politician. (Ironically, it was only due to the more fact-based labor of local journalism that the truth was confirmed; the “news profession” actually uncovered the truth).
But set aside for a moment his bizarre blaming of journalism for his claim that it was a lie. Think about what Jordan said here, on its own terms: that he was just “responding to a headline.”
What’s this really saying? What’s he admitting?
That even though the tragic story from his state had become a national story, he had taken no time to actually dig in to (or wait for) the truth before amplifying disinformation from a mere headline.
That even as a member of Congress, from Ohio, and ranking member of the House Judiciary Committee, he had no clue what had actually happened, and hadn’t bothered to find out.
All he saw was a “headline” from Twitter. So he amplified it to 4 million people with his own personal spin that the whole story was a “lie.” “Another” lie.
What’s more, he suggested his doing so was perfectly normal. And ok. Because, as he explained, again without apology, what he did “happens all the time.”
Fourth, Raja asked Jordan why he deleted the tweet. His answer again tells us so much:
So in his own words, when a storyline emerged that boosted a different element of his political agenda, his initial approach to the victim’s story rapidly changed.
And that answer, and instinct, again tell us all we need to know about Jim Jordan.
If a victim’s story hurts the cause—his cause—the victim gets erased. She may be only 10 years old. She may be from his home state. But since her story hurts his cause, he doesn’t even bother to delve into the facts before tweeting out that her story’s a lie. That the whole thing is made up.
On the other hand, if a victim’s story helps his cause, the story becomes worthy of attention. Not because of the victim herself—he still never apologizes to her or her family. But because an aspect of the crime helps Jordan. And he’ll re-frame that victim’s story—the one he at first denied—to advance that cause.
(Again, this isn’t my trying to get into his head. Jim Jordan openly articulated that this was his calculus into a live camera— “we learned an illegal alien did this crime…so we deleted the tweet”)
In the end, his approach means the victim is irrelevant. What matters is his agenda, and his politics, and that’s it. The victim’s status—and his decision whether to erase that victim or acknowledge her while reframing her story—only matters in relation to what serves him.
And that is sick.
As well as a wide open window into this man’s character. His most basic instincts.
Now, Project…Backward and Forward
This wasn’t years ago. This was last year.
This wasn’t fuzzy, or contested. This was clear as day. Jordan’s own words. On twitter and on camera.
This wasn't Jordan in his mid-20s, an assistant coach (although neither that age nor position ever excuse looking the other way or erasing victims, they may provide some with excuses for his past behavior). This was Jordan in his 50s, as powerful as a figure gets in American politics.
And in that position of immense power, with the nation watching, Jordan showed us his approach. He actually spelled it out in just a few, highly clarifying words.
If a story of a victim hurts the cause, the victim gets erased.
Now play that back over Jordan’s entire history.
That instinct sounds exactly like his denials of those victims at Ohio State, some of whom insist that Jordan knew exactly what was happening.
That instinct sounds just like his refusal to cooperate in the investigation into the violence of January 6.
Now, project it forward.
If he were in charge, with the entire apparatus of the House of Representatives at his disposal, the instinct he articulated would wreak havoc on a nation already torn apart by deeply broken politics. On a nation in desperate need of responsible leadership.
Victims erased when they run afoul of his political agenda. Other stories reframed when they serve his aims. But now it’s not just him doing it—it’s the entire House of Representatives, weaponized.
So yes, Jordan’s professed instinct of erasing victims should be absolutely disqualifying to anyone seeking to be Speaker of the House.
One final thing….when asking Members of Congress why they support Jim Jordan’s bid to be Speaker, after they claim to “know nothing about” what happened at Ohio State years ago (which they will do, as Nancy Mace showed yesterday), the next question should be: well, how can you support a man who tried to gaslight a 10-year old rape victim from Ohio just last year?
They all should have to answer that.
You are so incredibly articulate in laying out the facts. I’m absolutely terrified at the prospect of this man having any more power. His handling of his Judiciary Committee assignment proves his utter incompetence. Surely his colleagues in the House have seen through him by now? Sanity must prevail.
This should be sent in an email and letter, to Jordan's office, by a Jordan constituent (I do not live in OH). His inbox should be absolutely filled with people spelling out why he shouldn't be speaker.
And as people have short memories, as does the press, this should be sent to the largest OH papers...it would make a great editorial.
Thank you for all you do.