Composite 3.81 / 10, weighted per the Constitutional Weight Schedule.
Below the 700 bar, Author's Verdict: not supported.
Does not clear the bar. The conduct record is anchored by a self-refuting public falsehood about the Jan 6 attack, credited courage barricading the doors, then months denying it was an attack, alongside converging fiduciary appearance-concerns (a self-dealing ethics complaint tied to his own firearms business and an engineered evasion of upheld House fines) and the refusal to honor an officer who defended the Capitol. No capping flag attaches (no amicus signature; the objection vote is the constitutional process), so the failing posture rests squarely on the measures. Composite well below the support threshold.
The 14 measures
Each measure is scored 0–10 against an anchored example, with a cited source. Hover/expand why? for the reasoning.
| # | Measure | Score | Why |
|---|---|---|---|
| M01 | Duty to Constitution & Rule of Law | 4 | why?Objected to certifying the Arizona and Pennsylvania electors on Jan 6, 2021, a bare floor objection, which the standard does NOT treat as process-subversion on its own. He was a member-elect (not seated until Jan 3, 2021) and is NOT a signatory of the Dec 11, 2020 Texas v. Pennsylvania amicus, so no capping flag attaches. What weighs down oath-fidelity here is conduct, not the vote: a sustained public denial that the attack on the seat of Congress was an attack ('no insurrection,' 'orderly fashion') while he personally barricaded the House doors against that same mob. Short of capping, but a real fidelity concern. [source] |
| M02 | Party Over Country | 3 | why?A hard-line voting and sponsorship posture with little documented cross-aisle legislating. Scored as collaborative conduct (does the officeholder do the work of governing with the other side), not as ideology. Low, on thin bipartisan output. [source] |
| M03 | Persons of Equal Worth | 4 | why?Refused to shake the hand of D.C. officer Michael Fanone, who was injured defending the Capitol on Jan 6, a documented denial of an opponent-adjacent person's worth and sacrifice. Not a sustained enemy-making pattern (so no criterion-10 cap), but a real anti-belonging instance toward a public servant. Mid-low. [source] |
| M04 | Weaponization of Justice | 6 | why?No documented weaponization of state power against rivals or constituents; no criterion-class conduct under this measure. Middle, on the absence of abuse rather than affirmative restraint at cost. [source] |
| M05 | Incitement / Anti-Belonging | 4 | why?Rhetoric centered on minimizing a violent attack rather than inflaming, heated and false, but not a documented pattern of casting opponents/citizens as enemies who do not belong (so no criterion-10 cap). Scored as the false-minimization rhetoric it is. Mid-low. [source] |
| M06 | Fiduciary Conduct | 3 | why?Two distinct fiduciary appearance-concerns: a CREW complaint to the Office of Congressional Ethics alleging he sponsored gun legislation (pistol-brace reversal) directly benefiting his own firearms business, and an unresolved record of evading $15,000 in House security-screening fines by manipulating payroll withholding. Both are weighed as appearance-concerns, not findings; together they are a substantial drag on stewardship of the office. [source] |
| M07 | Duty to Call Out | 3 | why?No documented instance of calling out his own side at political cost, the higher bar this measure sets. The record runs the other way (defending the Jan 6 narrative against his own party's institutionalists). Low, on the absence of the active call-out. [source] |
| M08 | The Discretion Test | 5 | why?The discretion test, using a small amount of latitude well. Neutral-to-low: he chose deliberate defiance of a security rule he was free to simply comply with, then engineered his pay to dodge the resulting penalty. Discretion used to evade rather than to serve. Held at the midline absent broader evidence either direction. [source] |
| M09 | The No-Camera Test | 5 | why?The clearest public/action gap on record: his public 'normal tourist visit' framing is contradicted by his own documented conduct barricading the doors against the mob. Scored as a consistency concern here (the falsehood itself lands hardest at M13). Middle, a posture held publicly that his private actions belie. [source] |
| M10 | Constituent-vs-Donor Vote | 5 | why?Represents GA-9 actively (constituent service, district legislation). The genuine note is the overlap between his legislative agenda and his personal firearms-industry interest, which complicates the constituent-vs-self alignment. Middle. [source] |
| M11 | Net-Worth Trajectory | 3 | why?Scored ONLY on office-attributable self-dealing, not raw wealth: he sponsored legislation (reversing pistol-brace restrictions) that would directly benefit Clyde Armory, a business reporting $1.25M-$7.1M income to him, while the watchdog complaint alleges he did so without the required disclosure. Active/unresolved complaint = appearance-concern weighed, not a conviction. The structure of the concern, using the office to advance a personal commercial interest, is exactly what this measure penalizes. [source] |
| M12 | Floor Decorum | 3 | why?Sustained defiance of the institution rather than honor of it: deliberately bypassed House security screening twice, had the $15,000 in fines upheld by the Ethics Committee on appeal, then restructured his federal withholding to net $1 in pay so the House could not collect. Refusing to honor an institutional rule and then engineering evasion of its enforcement is a documented decorum/comity drag. Low. [source] |
| M13 | Lying & Misleading | 2 | why?The strongest documented-falsehood instance on the record: characterizing the Jan 6 attack as a 'normal tourist visit' with people moving 'in an orderly fashion' and asserting 'there was no insurrection', rated 'Pants on Fire' by fact-checkers and contradicted by his OWN action of barricading the doors against the mob. A self-refuting public falsehood about a matter of grave institutional fact. Low. [source] |
| M14 | Knowledge Depth | 4 | why?Demonstrated competence within a narrow lane (firearms regulation, the civil-asset-forfeiture/structuring fight he personally lived) but thin evidence of substantive command across the broader policy portfolio expected of the seat. Below-middle, niche depth without breadth. [source] |
Why not higher, the points withheld
The standard is the seat; the ceiling is a perfect 10. Every withheld point traces to documented conduct, weighed where the measures and attributes say it belongs, shown openly here, the same way the earned points are.
| Where | Documented conduct | Mitigation weighed |
|---|---|---|
| M13 | Publicly characterized the Jan 6 attack as a 'normal tourist visit' / 'no insurrection' / 'orderly fashion' (PolitiFact 'Pants on Fire'), contradicted by his own documented barricading of the House doors against the mob ↳ Love of Truth, self-refuting public falsehood on a grave institutional fact | None, the contradiction is on the public record from the same hearing |
| M11 | Sponsored legislation reversing pistol-brace restrictions that would directly benefit his firearms business (Clyde Armory, $1.25M-$7.1M reported income); CREW filed an OCE complaint alleging undisclosed self-dealing ↳ office-attributable self-dealing | Complaint unresolved, weighed as an appearance-concern, not a finding |
| M12 | Deliberately bypassed House metal detectors twice; $15K in fines upheld by Ethics Committee; restructured payroll withholding to net $1/pay to evade collection ↳ institutional decorum / enforcement-evasion | He framed the screening as unconstitutional and pursued a federal-court challenge, a legal avenue, weighed slightly |
| M06 | Two converging fiduciary appearance-concerns: the gun-business self-dealing complaint and the fine-evasion record ↳ Fiduciary appearance-of-impropriety | Both unresolved/contested; weighed as appearance, not finding |
| M03 | Refused to shake the hand of D.C. officer Michael Fanone, injured defending the Capitol on Jan 6 ↳ Persons of Equal Worth, anti-belonging toward a public servant | Single documented instance, not a sustained enemy-making pattern |
| M01 | Sustained public denial that the Jan 6 attack was an attack while having barricaded the doors against it; Jan 6 electoral-count objections (carved out as a bare floor objection, NOT capping) ↳ oath/constitutional-fidelity concern | Not a Texas v. PA amicus signatory (member-elect on Dec 11, 2020); the objection vote alone is the constitutional process, not subversion |
| M02 | Hard-line posture with minimal documented cross-aisle legislating ↳ collaborative-governance output (conduct, not ideology) | None noted |
The Four Pillars, worthy to be followed?
A separate axis from the 14 measures. The measures ask did their conduct meet the standard; the Pillars ask is this someone worthy to be elevated and followed at all. The two can diverge, when they do, the divergence is the finding.
| # | Pillar | Score | Why |
|---|---|---|---|
| I | Trust & Loyalty
| 4 | why?Attributes weighed: Courage, Selfless Service, Accountability. He did physically help barricade the House doors on Jan 6, a moment of real courage under pressure that the record credits. The drag toward Self-Interest and away from Accountability is the later denial of what he had just lived through, and the refusal to own the security-fine penalties. Net below the midline. |
| II | Aspiration & Integrity
| 3 | why?Attributes: Authenticity, Self-Reflection, Teachability. The 'normal tourist visit' framing is the inverse of Authenticity, a public account contradicted by his own conduct. No documented self-correction or ownership. Low. |
| III | Protection & Influence
| 4 | why?Attributes: Protection, Stewardship, Accountability. No documented weaponization of power against rivals (keeps it off the floor), but the office-and-personal-business overlap and the fine-evasion cut against Stewardship. Below midline. |
| IV | Legacy & Virtue
| 3 | why?Attributes: Integrity, Justice, Love of Truth. The dominant legacy markers on the conduct record are the documented falsehood about Jan 6 and the converging ethics appearance-concerns. Real drags toward Favoritism and away from Love of Truth. Low. |
| TOTAL: Unfit | 14/40 |
Total 14/40, below the midline. The barricading moment is genuine courage and is credited; the pillars are pulled down by the documented post-hoc falsehood about that same event, the self-dealing appearance-concern, and the institutional-rule defiance.
What the Four Pillars are & the questions behind each →
In their own words
“If you didn't know that TV footage was a video from January the 6th, you would actually think it was a normal tourist visit.”
House Oversight Committee hearing, in the same testimony he acknowledged barricading the House doors against the mob · PolitiFact (rated 'Pants on Fire') · CONTESTED · cite
“There was no insurrection.”
Same House Oversight hearing, downplaying the Jan 6 attack · Atlanta Journal-Constitution · CONTESTED · cite
“The metal detectors are there to detain us... this is unconstitutional.”
Defending his deliberate bypass of House floor security screening · Newsweek · CONTESTED · cite
Full personnel file
1. Identity
Andrew Steven Clyde (born November 22, 1963). U.S. Representative for Georgia's 9th Congressional District since January 3, 2021 (R-GA9). U.S. Navy combat veteran (Iraq). Founder and owner of Clyde Armory, a Georgia firearms retailer. Known nationally for prior litigation against the IRS over civil-asset-forfeiture/structuring seizures, and for his Jan 6-era conduct and statements as a member of the 117th Congress.
2. Voting / Legislative Profile
A hard-line member with a narrow, firearms- and asset-forfeiture-focused legislative footprint and limited documented cross-aisle co-sponsorship (low on the Lugar/McCourt Bipartisan Index frame). Voteview places him on the right wing of the House conference. The bipartisanship note here is scored as collaborative-governance conduct, NOT as ideology or party. His signature personal-experience policy area is the 2014-2015 structuring fight against the IRS, on which he testified before Ways & Means in 2015.
3. Constitutional Moments
Jan 6, 2021: as a newly seated member, voted to sustain objections to the Arizona and Pennsylvania electors, a bare floor objection that the standard treats as the constitutional process, not subversion (no capping flag). He was a member-elect on Dec 11, 2020 and is NOT a signatory of the Texas v. Pennsylvania amicus. He physically helped barricade the House doors against the mob, credited as courage, but then spent months publicly denying that the attack was an attack ('no insurrection,' 'normal tourist visit'), the central conduct concern on this record.
4. Rhetoric & Discourse Profile
The defining rhetorical conduct is minimization of the Jan 6 attack, 'normal tourist visit,' 'orderly fashion,' 'no insurrection', fact-checked as 'Pants on Fire' and contradicted by his own barricading. This is weighed as documented falsehood (M13) rather than as a sustained enemy-making/incitement pattern (no criterion-10 cap applies: there is no documented pattern of casting opponents/citizens as enemies who do not belong).
5. Fiduciary Profile
Two converging appearance-concerns, both weighed as appearance rather than findings. (1) Self-dealing: CREW filed an Office of Congressional Ethics complaint alleging he sponsored legislation (reversing pistol-brace restrictions) that would directly benefit his firearms business, Clyde Armory, which reported $1.25M-$7.1M in income to him, allegedly without proper disclosure. (2) Enforcement-evasion: he incurred $15,000 in House security-screening fines (upheld by the Ethics Committee) and restructured his payroll withholding to net $1 in pay so the fines could not be collected. M11 scores ONLY the office-attributable self-dealing; raw wealth is not penalized.
6. Severity-Class Conduct
No confirmed capping flag. Criterion 8 (process subversion) does NOT attach: he did not sign the Dec 11, 2020 Texas v. Pennsylvania amicus (he was a member-elect, seated Jan 3, 2021), and a bare Jan 6 floor objection is expressly NOT crit-8 on its own. Criterion 10 (sustained enemy-making/incitement) does NOT attach: the record shows minimization and a single handshake refusal, not a documented pattern of casting opponents/citizens as enemies who do not belong. The serious conduct concerns, the Jan 6 falsehood, the self-dealing appearance, the fine evasion, are scored through the measures (M13, M11, M12, M06), not as severity flags. Flag count: zero.
7. What The Framework Says
The conduct record falls below the bar. Clyde showed real courage barricading the House doors on Jan 6, and the standard credits it, but then built a months-long public account ('no insurrection,' 'normal tourist visit') that his own actions refute, the single most documented falsehood on his record. Layered on are converging fiduciary appearance-concerns (a self-dealing ethics complaint tied to his firearms business, and an engineered evasion of upheld House fines) and a refusal to honor the sacrifice of an officer who defended the building. No capping flag attaches, he did not sign the amicus and the objection vote is the constitutional process, so the verdict rests on the measures themselves. They do not clear the bar.
8. Sources & Where To Look Deeper
Tier 1 (primary): Congress.gov member record · House Ethics Committee, magnetometer fines (The Hill report) · House financial disclosures (Clerk)
Tier 2: PolitiFact, 'normal tourist visit' fact-check · CREW / AJC, gun-legislation ethics complaint · Washington Post, Fanone handshake / barricade photos
Research links: Congress.gov member profile · Ballotpedia · Voteview / DW-NOMINATE · House financial disclosures (Clerk) · Wikipedia
Scores derive from the fixed Constitutional Weight Schedule. The bar does not move. Conduct, not party.