This thread doesn't just show that the filibuster does, in fact, have a considerable "racial history" but that the argument of its defenders -- that it somehow promotes compromise -- is completely wrong.
When Southern Democrats filibustered anti-lynching bills in the 1930s, they walked away with a total victory. The bills never became law, and no compromise measures were passed.
The filibusterers won everything they wanted. Their opponents got nothing.
"Devolution" might be too strong a word given some of the activities of the earlier L. Brent Bozells, but then again, none of them were ever indicted for insurrection so ...
So the Trump camp's argument now is that they'll get the upper hand by calling Muriel Bowser and Nancy Pelosi? What?
First of all, to call any particular witness, I believe they'd need to get 51 votes -- which would mean peeling away a Democrat.
Possible, I guess, but ... then what?
If the point is to show that Bowser or Pelosi didn't do enough to prep for the riot ahead of time -- that's some bizarre blame-shifting, like faulting a homeowner for not having deadbolts after they suffered a home invasion.