GOP Leader Announces Bad Faith on Jan. 6 Commission
In deal with Rep. Katko (R-NY), Dems agreed to equal numbers of Rs and Ds, and that Rs could block any subpoenas on their own.
Minority Leader McCarthy rejects anyway, tries vague process complaints, whatabout unrelated things.
The GOP caucus position, if it wasn't already obvious from their decision to oust Liz Cheney, is that the Capitol attack was good, or at least not bad, and that lying about it is more important than understanding it and preventing something like it or worse from happening again.
It would be much better if both parties thought a violent attack on American democracy was bad.
But given Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy's official announcement of bad faith on a Jan. 6 commission, it's clear the GOP doesn't, so we have no choice but to move forward without them.
The GOP caucus's intention is clear: hinder, delay, and ideally block investigation of the Capitol attack—to avoid revealing things that make Republicans look bad, and/or to keep it out of the news—in the hope the trail gets colder and disinformation muddies things for the public
Negotiating in good faith with people determined to act in bad faith is counterproductive.
The GOP position leaves Congress with no choice: form a coalition of Dems and pro-democracy conservatives like Cheney, and investigate Jan. 6 despite GOP attempts to sweep it under the rug.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
Concerning. Retired military have the right to express political opinions, but I don’t think there’s ever been such a partisan statement from retired officers, especially not outside of campaign season. Includes multiple disproven falsehoods about 2020. politico.com/news/2021/05/1…
The US survived the recent threat to Constitutional democracy because:
-enough state officials followed the law (many now purged or sidelined)
-courts rejected claims for lack of standing and lack of evidence
-security services didn’t split (despite some individuals joining 1/6)
A scenario with two people claiming to have won the White House in 2024 and military officers splitting to line up behind one or the other may not be likely, but the chances aren’t as close to zero as they should be, putting it in low probability - high impact event territory.
I appreciate Liz Cheney's rejection of whataboutism in her call for a Capitol attack commission.
Some will object to her characterization, but the point is these are separate events, and there's no reason anyone has to be concerned with only one, or has to address them together.
Cheney's right, we need a full Capitol attack investigation.
And she's right that "whatabout BLM and antifa?" is just an attempt to avoid one.
Unfortunately, the main obstacle to investigating the insurrection is her party doesn't have a problem with it. washingtonpost.com/opinions/2021/…
Nationally & especially in states, the GOP is working to facilitate future election theft by removing things that thwarted Trump's effort.
Downplaying & trying to move on from Jan. 6 is part of that, as is sidelining truth-telling pro-democracy officials. arcdigital.media/p/set-up-the-s…
Much of the IDW ended up in anti-vax, fad dieting, post-fact Trumpism, and “just asking questions” conspiracy theorizing.
There’s a lesson there.
I think the lesson is be wary of confusing iconoclasm or contrarianism with genius.
Sometimes thinkers are out of the mainstream not because they’re serving up brilliant insights the powerful don’t want you to hear, but because they’re bullshitting and/or recycling rejected ideas
I disagree. “Steelmanning” is in large part a trick.
Don’t strawman. Be fair to positions you’re critiquing. Those are important.
But in practice, many calls to steelman are effectively “no fair pointing out flaws in the argument I made; argue against something smarter instead.”
Jan. 6 was an attack on US democracy in a way 9/11 wasn't—incited by a POTUS' lies, aimed to overturn a US election—but at least 9/11 was an attack. The difference is who, what, and why.
The 1965 Immigration Act is a duly passed law that reduced discrimination by national origin.
Was the Jan. 6 insurrection "the worst attack on our democracy since the Civil War," as Biden said? Debatable. How do we measure "worst"? Hoes does an attack "on our democracy" differ from an attack on America?
But is an immigration law an attack on our democracy? Absolutely not.
Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965 removed preferences for northwest Europe, and gave priority to relatives of US citizens & permanent legal residents.
You can criticize it, sure, but thinking it an attack on US democracy is accurately called “white nationalist” or “racist.”
I don't really know why Russia mobilized near Ukraine and then demobilized. I doubt anyone outside of Putin's inner circle knows.
But it wasn't because Russia was "testing" Biden and he passed. As @DanielLarison notes, he didn't follow hawks' suggestions. daniellarison.substack.com/p/the-russians…
Two of the biggest, most common mistakes in US foreign policy: (1) overrating reputation and resolve; (2) thinking other countries' actions are all about America.
If you don't show "strength" everywhere they'll think you "weak" and "test" you elsewhere? Not how the world works.
Obama didn't invade Syria, so Putin thought him weak and attacked Ukraine, right?
Doubt it. Influence over Ukraine is a core Russian foreign policy interest.
And Putin attacked Georgia when Bush was POTUS. Bush, you may recall, ordered invasions. Didn't matter re: Russia-Georgia.
In general, I think old, youthful stuff shouldn’t matter. (For example, I didn’t care that Kavanaugh drank hard, I cared that he lied about it).
But celebrating a man who murdered two people, including a gay icon, seems like an insight into character given where Tucker ended up.
Tucker shouldn't be "canceled" for what he wrote in college. What he's doing today matters much more.
But celebrating the murder of Harvey Milk then does make it less likely that his current support for white nationalist conspiracy theories that motivate terrorism is inadvertent.
Celebrating the murder of Harvey Milk isn't white nationalism. The murder was homophobic, not racist.
But celebrating it does, however, indicate that he doesn't think political violence is bad when directed at people he doesn't like.