Politico reports that the only Rs eager to join 1/6 committee are Marjorie Greene/Jim Jordan types. "Serious" Rs have no interest. This shows a real probe has no upside for Rs: Only full fabulists/insurrectionists can make this work for them. New piece: washingtonpost.com/opinions/2021/…
One GOPer admits to Politico that no good at all will come from appointing more serious Rs to the 1/6 committee.
The reason is obvious: Any serious accounting can *only* reveal that the insurrection and GOP complicity were *worse* than we thought:
Appalling: Conservative groups are pressuring Republicans to oppose funding IRS enforcement. But this would bring in revenues from the rich and corps that they *already owe.* This also sets up a big test for "anti-elite populists" like JD Vance. My latest: washingtonpost.com/opinions/2021/…
JD Vance:
"When companies have effectively rigged the economy such that they pay a lower tax rate than my middle-class sister, that’s not fair.”
You're in luck, JD! Biden and Dems are currently pushing numerous proposals to address exactly this problem:
We could have a real debate over the Dem proposals.
But the pull of right wing media totems (jackbooted IRS, Biden as "globalist") will make it harder for people like JD Vance to develop a serious conservative populist response to them.
Pelosi has jammed Kevin McCarthy into a corner on the 1/6 committee. Picking Republicans who supported the Big Lie will show how deeply implicated the party is in the crime. Yet he can't pick Rs who will treat the proceedings seriously, either. My latest: washingtonpost.com/opinions/2021/…
Kevin McCarthy may pick Elise Stefanik and Jim Jordan for the 1/6 committee, according to Punchbowl News.
They are both major proponents of the Big Lie.
Indeed, virtually every GOPer floated by Punchbowl voted against Biden's electors:
Trump is now raging at Wisconsin Republicans for not doing *enough* to find fictional fraud and overturn his loss. This again shows that his movement will never be pacified by audits and investigations. Only a future steal attempt will suffice. My latest: washingtonpost.com/opinions/2021/…
A naive pundit reading holds that if Republicans pass "election integrity" measures, it'll be easier for them to rebuff demands to subvert future results that Trumpists say are fraudulent.
Trump's raging lunacy in Wisconsin should crush those fantasies:
These audits aren't good faith efforts to empirically confirm the results for folks who are "misled." They're dry runs at creating pretexts for questioning/overturning future elections.
Fealty to Trump means being willing to subvert *legitimate* results:
Right wing anger at Gen. Milley over the "white rage" comment is really an effort to delegitimize any debate over the role of white supremacy and racial nationalism in inciting 1/6. The new select committee should engage this debate frontally. My latest: washingtonpost.com/opinions/2021/…
There's important stuff buried in the bill creating the 1/6 select committee.
Its mission is to investigate threats to our democratic institutions more broadly. It defines white supremacy as a key anti-democratic threat. That will force a crucial debate:
The right's anti-democratic nationalism turns on the idea that the opposition is illegitimate and can be excluded from the Real Nation. Once this is established, anti-democratic tactics constitute the righting of a profound wrong.
.@SenatorSinema has accidentally exposed the profound weakness of the pro-filibuster stance. She raises the prospect of legislative majorities curbing voting, without admitting this is *already* upon us. She is consigning us to that very fate. My response: washingtonpost.com/opinions/2021/…
@SenatorSinema The threat posed by ending the filibuster really is frightening.
Imagine a world in which legislative majorities could pass voting restrictions over the objections of minorities!
@SenatorSinema Here's what makes Sinema's argument so dishonest.
Sinema claims we have more to lose than gain from ending the filibuster. But she doesn't admit to what we *actually would gain* from ending it -- a check on democratic backsliding and minority rule:
An interesting move: As part of their probe of the Trump DOJ subpoening of Dems' phone records, House Judiciary Dems have demanded release of communications between the Trump WH and DOJ about those subpoenas.
DOJ is still refusing to answer basic questions from @RepAdamSchiff's office about the Trump-era subpoenaing of his and @RepSwalwell's phone records, an official confirms to me.
Judiciary Dems are now demanding info from DOJ that will shed light on that:
@RepAdamSchiff@RepSwalwell “AG Garland has an interest in restoring the rule of law — of that I have no doubt. But we believe that there will be no return to the rule of law if we allow these events to be swept under the rug.”