House Republicans ready to oust Liz Cheney from leadership role today. Expecting media torrent accusing them of being in thrall to Trump, surrendered to Trump. But here's the thing... 1/16 washingtonexaminer.com/politics/why-r…
Go back to January 13. Cheney, nine other Republicans vote to impeach Trump. GOP leadership takes no action against them. When some members call for vote on February 3, Cheney receives big show of support, winning 145-61. 2/16 washingtonexaminer.com/politics/why-r…
So question: If Republicans were so angry at Cheney for her vote against Trump, how did she win a leadership vote by more than 2-to-1 margin just three weeks after? 3/16
Answer is, contrary to much media reporting and commentary, Republicans just weren't that mad at Cheney at that point. 4/16
Now, looks like Cheney, who won by 84 votes in February, will lose this new vote. That means a lot of the 145 Republicans who voted to keep Cheney in leadership in February will vote to remove her now. 5/16
What happened? Did those members who were OK with Cheney's impeachment vote back in February suddenly become so angry about it that they will now vote to remove her? That doesn't really make any sense. 6/16
Why would Republicans be less angry and more tolerant in early February, closer in time to the Trump impeachment, and more angry and less tolerant in May, now that more time has passed? 7/16
Were House Republicans somehow not in thrall to Trump on February 3 but in thrall to him now? Again, it just doesn't make sense. 'The press is trying to make this all about January 6, but if it was about January 6, she would have been removed two months ago,' says GOPer. 8/16
Cheney's current problems intensified *after* first vote on her leadership. She doubled down on campaign against Trump. Got friendly media coverage, but many Republicans saw her was distracting from GOP mission to oppose Biden, win House in 2022. 9/16
Instead, Cheney seemed determined to re-fight battles of November, 2020 to January, 2021. 10/16
So this leadership vote looks different from one in early February. 'I think a lot of people have changed their minds since the first vote because she just kept it going," says second GOPer, who voted to keep Cheney in February but plans to vote to remove her now. 11/16
Also, some GOPers see Cheney's attacks on Trump in broader context than Capitol riot, impeachment. Millions of voters approve of Trump accomplishments. GOP lawmakers (Cheney included) voted for them. Now, they don't see fighting Trump as way to further GOP agenda. 12/16
Finally, for her part, Cheney has become single-issue politician, and her single issue is Trump. CNN reports Cheney is 'planning to wage a protracted political war' against Trump. WP says effort to 'name, shame and banish Trump' is 'fundamental' to Cheney. 13/16
Those reports--and their own observations--will confirm to many Republicans that they are right to remove Cheney from leadership. 14/16
GOP had no desire to punish, exile Cheney when they voted not to remove her in February. But Cheney has changed. Why reward with leadership position a lawmaker who plans to 'wage a protracted political war' against her own colleagues? What sense does that make? 15/16
Agree. Having watched all bodycam video played in court, it's clear Floyd strongly resisted arrest. Took multiple officers to subdue him. Under influence of drugs. Was repeatedly complaining he couldn't breathe, not just on pavement.
So to layman's eyes, it did not seem excessive that officers got him on the ground. While Chauvin had knee on him, Floyd was talking, grunting, making noise, even spoke with bystander. So way he was held did not seem outrageous. 2/4
Even when Floyd began to talk, grunt less, it would not be unreasonable to think he was finally calming down under restraint. But there came a time when Chauvin should have let up. Floyd was clearly losing consciousness, not moving. 3/4
Press flattery backfire in Biden newser. Reporter tells Biden: 'The perception of you that got you elected--as a moral, decent man--is the reason why a lot of immigrants are coming to this country and entrusting you with unaccompanied minors.' 1/4 washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/byron-…
How nice! First-class flattery. But Biden rejected it, because it conflicted with his (false) explanation of border crisis. Instead, he repeatedly claimed border influx was nothing new, had happened same way over and over in past... 2/4 washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/byron-…
That allowed Biden to claim that current influx has nothing to do with him or his policies. It's the weather! It's conditions in the home countries! It's not because of anything I've done! 3/4 washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/byron-…
Talked a few days ago about charges against Oath Keepers militia in Capitol riot. Big part of story: They were unarmed -- were careful to observe District of Columbia's strict gun-control laws... 1/5 washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/byron-…
...but there was talk of armed 'quick reaction force' waiting in Virginia to help Oath Keepers topple government if things got nasty. 2/5 washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/byron-…
Problem: Some of the Oath Keepers' communications before rally suggested 'quick reaction force' was actually one guy at the Comfort Inn in Ballston who was too tired to spend the day in the District. 3/5 washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/byron-…
Senate hearing on Capitol riot this morning. Perhaps finally we'll learn some basic facts. One key question: Why were Capitol Hill authorities so uprepared? 1/7 washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/byron-…
During Trump impeachment II, Democratic House managers repeatedly told the Senate that FBI, other agencies warned top Capitol Hill officials that there would be trouble on January 6. 2/7 washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/byron-…
In Capitol riot investigation, DOJ has filed superseding indictment against several people affiliated with Oath Keepers militia. They were the ones in military garb who pushed their way up Capitol steps in 'stack' formation. 1/7 justice.gov/usao-mdnc/pr/s…
Appears those charged were living in a kind of fantasy world in days before January 6. When Trump tweeted rally would be 'wild,' they took that as Trump telling them specifically to make it 'wild' through paramilitary action. 2/7
'[Trump] wants us to make it WILD that's what he's saying,' one wrote on Facebook. 'He called us all to the Capitol and wants us to make it wild!!! Sir Yes Sir!!!' 3/7
In last three impeachments, it has been common for Democrats, media, culturati to threaten Republicans with revenge and long-lasting recriminations. 1/6
In Bill Clinton impeachment, Princeton historian Sean Wilentz famously told GOP, 'History will track you down and condemn you for your cravenness.' 2/6 nytimes.com/1998/12/09/us/…
In fact, GOP went on to win House in 1998, 2000, 2002, and 2004. Lost in 2006 for reasons entirely unrelated to Clinton impeachment. 3/6