When preparing to ask someone about a document that bears their name, such as a Supreme Court filing, before attempting to grill them on national TV over the aforementioned document, it is always a good idea to READ the document beforehand. But, alas, CBS’s Margaret Brennan did no such thing before attempting to grill Speaker Mike Johnson on the 2021 Texas amicus brief filed before the United States Supreme Court.
WATCH as Brennan cites the brief as a set-up to a broader point on questioning the 2020 election, and gets BUSTED:
MARGARET BRENNAN: Back in 2021, you were the lawmaker who circulated the legal briefing known as the Texas amicus brief challenging the 2020 election outcome in a number of states which, by CBS editorial standards, makes you an election denier. So…
SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE MIKE JOHNSON: That's nonsense.
BRENNAN: So, well, that- can I get you on the record on that?
JOHNSON: I've always been consistent on the record. Did you read the brief? Did you get a chance to read what we filed with the Supreme Court?
BRENNAN: Well- I… I have read extensively some criticisms of that.
JOHNSON: You’ve read commentary on the brief but not what we submitted to the Court.
BRENNAN: But you recognize that President Biden won the 2020 election. Can you just put that aside as an issue?
JOHNSON: President Biden was certified as the winner of the election, he took the Oath of Office, he's been the president for three years. What I -- the argument that we presented to the Court, which is our only avenue to do so, was that the Constitution was clearly violated in the 2020 election. It’s Article 2, Section 1, and anyone can Google and read it for themselves. The system by which you choose electors to elect the President of the United States must be done by the individual states and the system must be ratified by the state legislatures. That is language- plain language out of the constitution.
BRENNAN: So you have issues…
JOHNSON: Yes.
BRENNAN: …with the validity of the 2020 election?
JOHNSON: The Constitution was violated in the run up to the 2020 election. Not always in bad faith, but in the aftermath of Covid, many states changed their election laws in ways that violated that plain language. That's just a fact.
Ultimately, Brennan wanted to use the Texas brief as a means with which to tie Speaker Johnson to the January 6th Capitol Riot. Make him an “insurrectionist”, if you will. By first asking Brennan whether she read the brief, Johnson nullified any intended effectiveness the question may have had.
Brennan, caught off guard, was instead reduced to sheepishly admitting that she read “extensively some criticisms of that”. Johnson proceeds to calmly explain the substance of the brief and why there was a sense that the Constitution had been violated.
After an exchange on Liz Cheney’s criticisms of Johnson, Brennan asks Johnson to reconcile his questioning of the election with the fact that he has to work with the Biden White House as Speaker. Here, again, Johnson puts the media on their collective back feet when he says, “this discussion about what happened in 2020 is yesterday’s news.”
It’s yesterday’s news to an American public struggling with rent and food prices, but certainly not to this White House, nor to the drive-by media that carries its water.
Click “expand” to view the full text of the aforementioned interview segment as aired on CBS’s Face The Nation on Sunday, January 7th, 2024:
MARGARET BRENNAN: Back in 2021, you were the lawmaker who circulated the legal briefing known as the Texas amicus brief challenging the 2020 election outcome in a number of states which, by CBS editorial standards, makes you an election denier. So…
SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE MIKE JOHNSON: That's nonsense.
BRENNAN: So, well, that- can I get you on the record on that?
JOHNSON: I've always been consistent on the record. Did you read the brief? Did you get a chance to read what we filed with the Supreme Court?
BRENNAN: Well- I… I have read extensively some criticisms of that.
JOHNSON: You’ve read commentary on the brief but not what we submitted to the Court.
BRENNAN: But you recognize that President Biden won the 2020 election. Can you just put that aside as an issue?
JOHNSON: President Biden was certified as the winner of the election, he took the Oath of Office, he's been the president for three years. What I -- the argument that we presented to the Court, which is our only avenue to do so, was that the Constitution was clearly violated in the 2020 election. It’s Article 2, Section 1, and anyone can Google and read it for themselves. The system by which you choose electors to elect the President of the United States must be done by the individual states and the system must be ratified by the state legislatures. That is language- plain language out of the Constitution.
BRENNAN: So you have issues…
JOHNSON: Yes.
BRENNAN: …with the validity of the 2020 election?
JOHNSON: The constitution was violated in the run up to the 2020 election. Not always in bad faith, but in the aftermath of Covid, many states changed their election laws in ways that violated that plain language. That's just a fact. We presented that argument and those facts to the Court, and it was never directly addressed because the Texas litigation, but that was the only vehicle we had to present that issue squarely to the court.
BRENNAN: Well, it was completely shut down. As an issue. But your colleague Liz Cheney, former colleague, wrote “Mike Johnson and our Republican leaders played a destructive role”. You, she says, “convinced 125 other Republican Members of Congress to sign on to an amicus brief that many never read, that made numerous false factual and constitutional claims”. How do you respond to that? And the impression that you might have contributed in some way to January 6?
JOHNSON: I don't spend much time responding to Liz Cheney’s criticism these days. Liz Cheney worked with the Democrats on the Jan 6- January 6th Select Committee to make all of this even more politicized than it was. She was a close friend and colleague before she knew those choices--
BRENNAN: She said that in her book about you.
JOHNSON: Yeah. I-- you know. Look.
BRENNAN: Which is why she was surprised, she said.
JOHNSON: Well, I'm surprised that she's giving that criticism because during that process, Liz and I were in constant dialogue about that and at one point she even considered signing on to that bill. I’ll tell you that that is a fact. To that amicus brief. We talked about that at great length. We had a difference of opinion on the law and people can agree to disagree on that, but I'm telling you that the plain language of the Constitution has never changed and what happened in many states by changing the election laws without ratification by the state legislatures is a violation of the Constitution. That's a plain fact that no one can dispute.
BRENNAN: How do you make sense of the idea that you still have issues with the validity of the 2020 election, but you have to negotiate and talk with the President of the United States, Joe Biden?
JOHNSON: This is water under the bridge. I mean, when the Supreme Court passed on the Texas litigation and did not address the issue I believe in the rule of law. This is our system. We move forward. I work with President Biden as the President of the United States. I think that he will be a one-term president but, you know, this discussion about what happened in 2020 is yesterday’s news.
