Thread by @BillKristol

This very well reported piece is worth reading. Here's a short thread with just a few comments based on my own (much less extensive) glimpses over the past year and a half into some key aspects of how the Committee did what it did. nytimes.com/2022/12/23/mag…

1. Cheney was key.
"It was also evident to Goldston that Cheney, more than anyone else on the committee, seemed to appreciate the importance of skillfully produced hearings—because in her mind, failure was simply not an option..."

"What was impossible to ignore, in the end, was Cheney’s contribution to a committee that was expected to flounder...It was in her role backstage, the source of most of the internal criticism against her, where Cheney’s singular standing was especially felt."

3. "Kinzinger went even further. 'I think, frankly, when this is all done, she’s going to be the whole reason this was successful. I’ve been frustrated with her on a number of things. But with all her faults, this would’ve been a complete failure, I think, without her.'”

4. Speaker Pelosi was also crucial. (If anything, I suspect the piece understates how key her behind-the-scenes role was in keeping members focused and on task.)
"Throughout the committee’s 18-month life span, the speaker’s role in its affairs was both opaque and unmistakable."

5. I suspect this may understate Tom Joscelyn's role in making a report of many hands as strong and compelling a document as it is.
"After months of dysfunction and infighting, Thomas Joscelyn...ended up submitting drafts that would constitute significant portions of the report."

6. In any case, all honor to the Select Committee, and to all involved--members, staff, witnesses, and others. They have made an important contribution to the history of the American republic. They should be proud of what they accomplished. And we should be proud of them.

FIN