Thread by @KrisGoldsmith85

🧵 Today at 10am EST the House Committee on Veterans Affairs will hold a hearing "Domestic Violent Extremist Groups and the Recruitment of Veterans." Video feed and written statements for record will be in this link.

veterans.house.gov/events/hearing…

2/ I've opted to not submit a statement for the record.

The committee's Majority staff have a draft of the statement for the record that I had prepared, and are free to use the information within as they deem appropriate to inform their investigation and their Members.

3/ After weeks of struggling with it, I ultimately decided not to submit a statement for the record because I felt that I could not self-censor and withhold certain content for the sole purpose of "not triggering Republican Members of the Committee."

4/ To self-censor would be to obscure the truth, which would compromise my values.

I respect that the Committee has been instructed to stay away from anything tangentially related to the events of Jan 6th...

5/ ...and I understand that there's a desire to keep Republican members of the committee from being triggered by the utterance of certain ideas, words, and phrases.

6/ But after what we all experienced during the two years of this committee's investigation into foreign trolls targeting troops, veterans, and our families -- I cannot understand why anyone would expect any modicum of genuine bipartisanship from this minority party on this issue

7/ Republicans of the last Congress (116th) didn't have a dog in the Committee's fight over the investigation into foreign trolls, but they obstructed the Democratic majority at every turn, and then lied about it to the public.

8/ Still to this day, the only time that *any* Republican staffer has reached out to me to discuss anything remotely related to my research and investigations over the last four years was in response to my tweeting about former Ranking Member Phil Roe lying at a hearing...

9/ ...when Roe falsely claimed that Democrats' prevented Republicans from participating in the committee's last investigation. And that outreach from a senior Republican staffer was to warn me that my harsh tweets would make them less likely to listen to what I had to say.

10/ As if they had listened to me when I wrote op-eds, did interviews, testified before the full committee, or published a 191-page report on the subject.

11/ To approach this hearing with the expectation that witnesses and those submitting SFRs censoring themselves will produce a more positive outcome in the long run is, I think, counterproductive.

12/ If Republicans on this committee want to publicly defend veterans who promote nazi ideology claiming that they're the victims of partisanship, I think Democrats ought to let them.

13/ I cannot submit a statement for the record that omits important parts of the truth of the matter at hand.

Therefore, I thought it would be better for me to sit this one out.

14/ The eternal optimism of Democrats believing that Republicans can engage in issues like those at the core of this hearing (the recruitment of veterans by domestic extremist organizations) in good faith is contrary to everything that I've seen.

15/ Out of respect, I'm withholding my SFR, and giving D's the chance to prove me wrong.

I hope that R's don't spend the whole hearing trying to discredit, attack, and provoke witnesses. But if you've seen any recent hearing w/ ADL and SPLC, you know how R's treat them.

16/ In his opening remarks, @HouseVetAffairs Ranking Member @RepBost sets the Republicans' tone for the hearing. Immediately falsely accuses Dems of making this a partisan exercise, and of slandering veterans as ticking time bombs.

17/ First witness @JoePlenzler puts the hearing into proper context, saying how percentage of veterans associated with extremist organizations is vanishingly small, but the danger that that select few poses to the public is extraordinary.

18/ Plenzler offers a history lesson, naming extremist veterans who have taken actions to not only disgrace the uniform, but have changed the arc of history of our nation. Lee Harvey Oswald killed President Kennedy. Timothy McVeigh bombed OK City Federal Building.

19/ Up next is @iava's @JeremyButler01. "To me, extremism is putting party over country." Cites how recent hearings on Afghanistan were essentially wasted by members grandstanding for political points, hardly letting witnesses answer questions.

20/ Respectfully, while objectively true, this is a statement that plays on the "bothsidesism," and is crafted more to "not offend" than to substantively get to the heart of the issue.

21/ Whereas Plenzler implores veterans to hold each other accountable, root out those causing damage, IAVA deflects, blames pols, and essentially feeds R's narrative about how investigation into veterans being recruited by extremists is "bad optics."

There's deep irony there.

22/ @milleridriss says every separating service member "should be inoculated" against disinformation and agitprop. This is critical. Carries into Plenzler's next point: extremism is a cancer. Better to prevent than wait to try to cure.

23/ Rep. Bost tries to bait Plenzler into supporting "bad optics" narrative, which doesn't work. Plenzler makes clear that while the "broken veterans" narrative exists, it's not something that holds our community back as a whole. Far more damaging to us is reputation of Jan6 vets

24/ @ConorLambPA asks for witnesses for feedback on idea of having repentant Jan6 veterans talk in a peer-to-peer way to prevent radicalization.

A good idea.

25/ Well, as I predicted, the first pro-insurrection Member of the committee @RepJimBanks goes right into shouting down witnesses and attacking their credibility.

Asks @JeremyButler01, a black veteran, to call Black Lives Matter an extremist organization.

26/ Butler is clearly fed up with Banks trying to sink the hearing, and with Banks' racist dog-whistles, but remains incredibly restrained. Butler tells Banks that his bad-faith questions are exactly what he had denounced in IAVA's opening statement.

27/ Witness @SethGJones answers to Members' questions are brilliantly crafted, with the next two hearings in mind. Every chance he gets to speak, he lists specific data points that the Committee and VA need so that they can address this issue.

28/ Rep @RepNancyMace also talks about data that we don't have -- suggests an independent commission to study it -- and plugs Republican bill "H.R.2326 - Veterans’ Cyber Risk Awareness Act."

congress.gov/bill/117th-con…

29/ Mace follows what was a relatively positive message with her own malinformation saying that the FBI doesn't track "Black Lives Matter, antifa, anti-fascists, fascists." ...which is a contraction of publicly reported information. brennancenter.org/our-work/analy…

30/ @RepAnthonyBrown sounds like he would like to focus on TAPS - the Transition Assistance Program - to build resistance among separation of service members as they're leaving service. Plenzler emphasizes moving left-of-bang, the earlier the better.

31/ @RepRosendale brings us back to the Bost's talking point, "optics are bad," insisting investigating recruitment of veterans by extremists is an attack against all veterans. This hearing is going exactly as I imagined it would.

32/ Rosendale gets visibly frustrated questioning Plenzler, body language shows his respect for veterans. Closes is remarks by shoving his body/chair way from the camera, throwing up his arms and crossing them, clearly shut down.

33/ Rosendale tried to pin down Plenzler to get him to say that "throwing paint on statues" (by the left) is equivalent to storming the United States Capitol "that some people just walked right into with no barriers because the security was so lax."

34/ In other words, Rosendale blames @CapitolPolice for Jan 6, not the insurrectionists who murdered an officer and whose actions led to multiple suicides within their ranks.

35/ @millermeeks goes right into the whataboutism of "why aren't we talking about Major Hasan?" asking if he's included in datasets on terrorist attacks.

Then inexplicably calls out @MilitaryTimes, which covered that horrible attack up-close and extensively, for not covering it?

36/ @RepRaulRuizMD comes in with a substantive opening, clearly having read the opening remarks and testimony of expert witnesses. Says veterans are targeted not just for their training for violence, but their leadership, and to benefit from their social credibility.

37/ Plenzler emphasizes something very important: that veterans organizations have a role in helping veterans understand this problem -- and to come to their aid when they're vulnerable. Vets orgs do this, albeit without this purpose, giving mission and purpose to tons of vets.

38/ @RepEllzey spends his entire five minutes talking about how it's a shame we don't have answers about Jan 6th and the veterans who committed violence that day... condemns the hearing as "too soon." Then yields his time without asking a question of witnesses.

39/ @RepUnderwood is asking Plenzler and IAVA's Butler why VSOs haven't vociferously condemned violent domestic extremist orgs. Great. Fucking. Question.

40/ Plenzer gives clear answer: "because a lot of those organizations have dues-paying members who are sympathetic to these violent domestic extremist organizations."

"When we don't have a Republic anymore, those [membership] dues won't matter anymore."

41/ Butler essentially says IAVA and veterans orgs don't want to get in the business of condemning other organizations...

This is a good answer to have on the record, because it matters.

42/ Simply put -- if members of Oathkeepers and Three Percenters (and Proud Boys, Patriot Front, Active Clubs, NatSoc) are free to use IAVA events, VFW Posts, and Legion Halls as recruiting centers, that, in the mind of witnesses, may be perceived as implied endorsement.

43/ This perception of implied endorsement of (or at best passivity toward) extremist orgs by traditional veterans orgs causes reputational harm: to current and potential members of these orgs, other non-government orgs, and potential donors. All existential threats to them.

44/ In an age of remote hearings, where Members can be anywhere in the world and still participate in a hearing -- note that Miller-Meeks was in a car -- a bunch didn't show up to this hearing.

Members have to prioritize. This hearing wasn't #1 on the to-do list for some today.

45/ If history rhymes today, even fewer Members will stick around for the second panel.

46/ @RepMarkTakano opens second round of questions asking @heidibeirich for a wrap up, "what concerns you most?"

Dr. Beirch says orgs with clear history of recent violence, like Proud Boys, and lone, radicalized actors.

47/ @orensegal answers the same question: says what keeps him up at night is those groups who can manipulate social media to their advantage to drive recruitment and narratives.

Same here. We study extremists who study propaganda, fascism, and apply it to the internet age.

48/ Bost is more productive in the second round of questions. Asks what damage LARPer unlawful militia types ("stolen valor" fake veterans) do to real veterans' reputations, then what can be done to protect veterans from disinfo and recruiting.

49/ Witnesses keep reiterating the role of social media and the internet on modern radicalization. This is great. But we should, at this stage, be talking about a range of alt-platforms. Most lawmakers have never heard of most of the alt-platforms. They need exposure to this.

50/ I want to commend @RepAnthonyBrown for showing that Members can indeed stay logged in to a hearing for the second round while on the move to other events.

51/ @RepElaineLuria, without naming him or the network, brings up how Tucker of Fox News is a shining example of folks mainstreaming noxious white extremist narratives like "Replacement Theory."

This is getting to the meat of the issue, and what I figured would trigger R's most.

52/ The normalization of hateful, anti-Semitic conspiracy theories fuels a lot of the radicalization that we've already seen -- and Tucker's seeding fertile ground for the extremist orgs I'm most concerned about.

53/ @RepUnderwood's line of questioning and interactions with witnesses is also really encouraging. She's pushing for specifics in identifying the problem and solving problems - wants to go deeper than theory, move to action.

54/ @RepCawthorn, who built his political career on stolen valor, saying his accident stopped him from going to the Naval Academy (he didn't make the cut) opens by saying "I did not serve... there is no racism in the military." Yeah. Okay Madison.

55/ Cawthorn literally endorses his local militias, then asks witness @AmyCooter why she's anti-militia. Dr. Cooter tells Madison to do his homework, because his question obviously wasn't informed by her opening statement.

56/ Want to be clear: I'm not being hyperbolic. The transcript and video will show that @RepCawthorn endorsed his local militias, saying that they're just a bunch of people preparing to fend off a tyrannical government.

57/ To be clear: the people that Cawthorn is giving a shoutout to are training and planning to fight and kill members of law enforcement and our military, and Americans with whom they disagree with politically. They're training to be terrorists.