Marjorie Taylor Greene Plans Vote to Remove Speaker Mike Johnson Next Week

GOP Representative Marjorie Taylor Greene said on Wednesday that she will push for a vote next week to kick out House Speaker Mike Johnson. This comes after Democrats said they will vote against it to make sure Johnson keeps his job. She wants to remove Mike Johnson from his position. Because he pushed through a $95 billion package with aid for Ukraine. She is in favor of cease-fire.

Marjorie Taylor Greene, a Republican from Georgia, announced her plan to go ahead with her motion to remove Speaker Mike Johnson. Who is also a Republican from Louisiana, next week. She seemed pleased that Democrats would help keep Johnson in his position.

Marjorie Taylor Greene, from Georgia, said Wednesday that she will make a move to force a vote next week to get rid of Speaker Mike Johnson. She’s challenging both Democrats and Republicans who support Johnson to stand up and keep him in his job.

Congresswoman Marjorie Taylor Greene declared on Wednesday her intention to push for a vote next week to remove fellow Republican Mike Johnson from his role as House speaker. However, it’s likely to fail, with Democrats and Johnson’s GOP supporters expected to oppose it.

I believe every Congress member should vote on this issue, and we’ll see what happens. So, next week, I’m definitely going to push for this vote, she stated during a press conference.

Greene’s announcement resolves the uncertainty that had been lingering for weeks regarding. Whether she would take action to initiate this important vote. Her decision increases the pressure on Johnson and sets the stage for a significant confrontation in the House. Even though it’s anticipated that the vote will not succeed.

Johnson has stood up for his leadership despite the challenge, stating firmly that he won’t step down. He cautioned that removing him could lead to disorder in the House.

In response to Greene’s announcement, he emphasized his stance, declaring. “This motion is harmful to the Republican Conference, harmful to the institution, and harmful to the country.”

Numerous Republicans are against the effort to remove Johnson and are concerned about the House GOP Conference facing turmoil. What happened after former Speaker Kevin McCarthy was ousted in a significant and unusual vote last year.

Despite former President Donald Trump’s support for Johnson, Greene stressed on Wednesday. That she is “definitely not” going against Trump by pushing for the vote.

I’m President Trump’s biggest supporter, she stated. “I advocate for his agenda every single day, and that’s why I’m standing up against my own Republican conference here.”

Greene also mentioned that she hasn’t decided yet whether she’ll push for additional votes on the matter. If the initial one fails next week. “I haven’t made a decision on that yet,” she clarified.

Greene initially submitted the motion to remove Johnson back in March, prompted by conservative frustration over. How the Louisiana Republican handled the government funding dispute.

For the vote to remove Johnson from his position, a majority would need to support it. However, there’s a chance to prevent this. A motion could be proposed and voted on first to “table” or discard the resolution. This would also just need a simple majority to pass.

House GOP leaders are gearing up to swiftly address and dismiss Greene’s motion, as per Republican insiders. Greene hasn’t pinpointed the exact day she intends to present her motion on the House floor for a vote. GOP sources indicate that they might cast their votes on the same day she introduces it, contingent upon attendance.

Last month, Johnson took action to advance a significant foreign aid package, which notably included assistance for Ukraine. Following this move, House Democratic leadership pledged their support to Johnson by agreeing to vote in favor of tabling the motion. If it comes up for consideration.

House Democratic leaders made it clear on Tuesday that they intend to vote against Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene’s motion to remove the House Speaker from his position. In their statement, they stated, “We will vote to table Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene’s Motion to Vacate the Chair. If she invokes the motion, it will not succeed.”

The following day, Greene passionately criticized Speaker Mike Johnson for approximately 10 minutes. She expressed her discontent with his stance on providing aid to Ukraine. Greene also honed in on the recent announcement from House Democrats. It is emphasizing their decision to oppose her efforts to oust Johnson from his leadership role.

Greene expressed her discontent with what she perceived as an unexpected display of camaraderie between House Democratic leader Hakeem Jeffries and the Democrats towards Speaker Mike Johnson.

In a vivid metaphor, she likened their support to a warm embrace accompanied by a “big, wet, sloppy kiss.” This colorful language vividly illustrated her frustration with what she saw as an alliance against her efforts to remove Johnson from his position.

Moreover, Marjorie Taylor Greene shed light on her decision-making process, revealing. That she had refrained from triggering the motion earlier due to feeling “controlled” and “responsible.” This statement hinted at underlying factors or influences that had previously deterred her from taking action.

By suggesting that she was previously constrained, Greene implied a newfound sense of autonomy. Or determination to pursue her goals despite potential opposition or consequences.

In essence, Greene’s remarks not only underscored her criticism of perceived alliances within the House. But also provided insight into her personal motivations and the internal dynamics influencing her decision making process.

During the news conference, Marjorie Taylor Greene offered insight into her previous hesitation to trigger the motion. It is suggesting that she had been acting out of concern for her party and its majority status. She explained, “I was being conscious and caring about my conference in our majority.

It was a warning to stop serving the Democrats and support our Republican conference and support our agenda. And he didn’t do it. And we all went home and Republican voters everywhere, Americans were raging at Mike Johnson.”

This statement highlights Greene’s perception of her role in advocating for Republican interests and her disappointment with Johnson’s alleged failure to align with those interests. By framing her decision as a warning, she implied that she had been attempting to steer Johnson and others in the Republican party toward a more unified stance in support of their shared agenda.

However, according to Greene, Johnson’s actions did not meet this expectation, leading to frustration among Republican voters.

In a symbolic gesture during the conference, Greene placed a “Make Ukraine Great Again” hat on a photo of Johnson alongside Hakeem Jeffries. This visual representation appeared to serve as a critique of their perceived alignment on issues. Which is related to Ukraine and possibly as a commentary on broader political dynamics within the House.

Following Greene’s announcement, a diverse group of House Republicans swiftly voiced their opposition to her plan.

Representative Ralph Norman of South Carolina, a member of the conservative Freedom Caucus, openly disagreed with Greene’s move. He stated, “I disagree with that. She had every right to do it, but it’s not the time.” Norman’s remarks suggest that while he respects Greene’s prerogative to pursue the motion. He believes that the current timing is not conducive to such actions.

Norman raised practical concerns about the potential repercussions of Johnson’s removal, questioning, “Who’s in line to take over, who wants the job? His inquiry underscores the uncertainty surrounding potential successors. The importance of considering the implications of leadership changes within the party.

Norman also highlighted the broader challenges facing the country, referencing issues such as unrest on college campuses and the upcoming election. This broader context suggests that he believes the party’s focus should be directed. Towards addressing pressing national issues rather than internal leadership disputes.

Norman’s response reflects a cautious approach, emphasizing the need for strategic timing and unity within the party amidst a backdrop of significant challenges facing the nation.

While expressing his disagreement with Greene’s motion, Representative Ralph Norman of South Carolina didn’t shy away from acknowledging his frustration with Speaker Mike Johnson’s performance in his role.

“We expected more when Mike took office and I like him personally, he’s a very devout man but the reason he’s getting the criticism is because they expected him to fight,” Norman explained. Norman’s remarks suggest that while he holds personal regard for Johnson and acknowledges his strong character, he feels let down by Johnson’s perceived lack of assertiveness or vigor in defending Republican interests.

Norman’s comments reflect a sentiment shared by some within the Republican party, who feel that Johnson hasn’t sufficiently championed their agenda or vigorously opposed Democratic initiatives.

By highlighting this disappointment, Norman underscores the underlying tensions within the party and the desire among some members for stronger leadership.

Representative Marc Molinaro, a Republican from New York facing a potentially tough reelection battle, criticized Greene’s motives, suggesting that her push to oust Johnson was driven by a desire for increased attention.

Molinaro stated, “Mike Johnson will sustain the speakership. The speaker acknowledges the reality that we live in, and has been focused on conservative principles, acknowledging that we have to negotiate with another branch and another house that don’t see the world, all the issues the same way we do.”

Molinaro defended Johnson’s leadership, emphasizing his commitment to conservative values and his pragmatic approach to governance. He implied that Johnson’s willingness to engage in negotiations and compromise reflects a recognition of the complex political landscape and the need to work with divergent viewpoints in order to advance conservative objectives.

Molinaro’s remarks underscore the divisions within the Republican Party regarding Greene’s motion, with some members advocating for stability and cooperation, while others, like Greene, advocate for a more confrontational approach.

Representative Greg Pence of Indiana expressed disappointment with Greene’s announcement, stating, “I wish she wouldn’t. We’ve got more important things to work on instead of that.” Pence’s remarks suggest a prioritization of pressing issues over internal party conflicts, indicating a desire to focus on legislative matters rather than divisive motions.

Reflecting on past internal disputes within the party, Pence described the previous speaker fight as “terribly painful” and “unproductive.” This characterization highlights the negative consequences and divisions that can arise from such internal struggles.

Pence urged for unity and forward-looking leadership, stating, “Let’s just move forward. You know, God put our eyes in the front of our head so we would always look forward, and she’s looking back.” His metaphorical reference underscores the importance of focusing on future challenges and opportunities rather than dwelling on past disagreements.

In summary, Pence’s comments convey a desire for party unity and a pragmatic approach to governance, advocating for a shift in focus towards addressing the nation’s pressing needs rather than engaging in divisive internal conflicts.