Where’s The Anger? Where Are The Consequences?

On January 6 a mob attacked the Capitol. Legislators were rushed out of their chambers and into safe rooms barely ahead of thousands of seditionists. Staff people, Senators and Representatives cowered under desks and behind barricaded doors. People died. Dozens of police were injured, many hospitalized.

Then the legislators resumed business as if nothing horrible and terrifying had happened. The newly-created Insurrection Party shouted about the theft of an election and lied about their concerns. Democrats responded with facts and logic. In the middle of the proceedings, Sen. Amy Klobuchar appeared on A Late Show with Stephen Colbert. In response to Colbert’s increasingly agitated questions, she said that the important thing was that they went back to the floor and did their job. Like Colbert, I’m stunned by the normalcy she displayed. There isn’t a hint of anger, hostility, or outrage in her face, even when she claimed to be angry about it.

Colbert asks if it upsets her at all that six Senators only changed their votes after they were physically attacked, even though they knew they were stirring up trouble around the country by repeating Trump’s big lie about election fraud. She says (my transcription):

Of course it does. But I figured my job today was to bring as many people with me and with our side as we could and to do it in a way that would give them that space. And the reason I did it is because, I made this case to our caucus, is that I want Joe and Kamala to come in with bipartisan support. I want to leave the what Joe Biden calls the grim era of demonization behind us and actually get things done. … I think what they did was atrocious, but at the same time we have to move forward as a nation.

[1] Colbert, his voice rising with emotion, asks if there shouldn’t be consequences for people who promulgated the lie that the election was stolen, consequences “… so severe that no one will ever think to foment an insurrection against this government again without shuddering at the prospect of what will happen to them.” She moves straight to “I’m a former prosecutor”, and starts talking about jailing the invaders. Colbert tries to focus her on the Senators, but she won’t answer whether they should face consequences. She launches into what a toad Trump is, and never responds about the co-toads. Colbert surrenders.

Nothing changed among Democratic politicians after that. On January 15, for example, I saw Jason Crow, D CO-6, on CNN discussing the revelation that some Representatives or their staffers might have led invaders on a reconnaissance tour of the Capitol the day before the attack, even though tours were banned. The oily flow from Crow could be used to lubricate a Mack Truck.

Where’s the demand for accountability for those shits who repeated Trump’s lies with their own imprimatur? [2] Are there no consequences for lies that undermine our democracy? Are elites just utterly free from any duties? Cruz, Hawley, Blackburn, Hyde-Smith, Marshall, Tuberville, and Kennedy are not stupid. Well, Tuberville is a couple of hundred million neurons short of a human brain. But the rest are pretty close to average in intelligence and a couple of them might pass for bright normal.

There are two who simply should be expelled immediately: Mo Brooks, R AL-05, [3] and Madison Cawthorn, R NC-11. These bastards spoke at Trump’s incitement rally and encouraged the assembled mob to action. There’s video. We know what they said, we know what they meant, and we know what happened. If Speaker Pelosi can ask the House to impeach Trump for his incitement based solely on what he said, what he meant and what happened, why can’t she summon the anger and grief we all feel and throw those anti-democratic shits out of the House?

[1] I’ve got a mental draft of remarks in response to objections to certification, starting with “I ask the Gentleman from Texas who told him there was fraud in the election? Was it the loser, the guy who lied about his own election in 2016, and has lied continuously about rigging ever since? Or was it @JohnnyFeathers39873858 Flag Flag? Or one of the witnesses dug out of internet swamps by the Loser’s elite legal team of crack lawyers? Were they vetted by the Gentleman’s brilliant staff?”

[2] I salute Freshman Representative Cori Bush, who introduced a resolution, co-sponsored by Freshman Representative Marie Newman;

St. Louis representative Cori Bush is calling for the investigation and expulsion of any representatives who objected to election certification, saying their actions lead to the Capitol riots that cost five people their lives.

Compare the aggressive action of the Freshman Congresswomen with elderly Senator Ben Carden D-MD. On January 16 on CNN Carden said expelling these seditionists was up to the voters in their states.

[3] There is a resolution calling for censure of Brooks, sponsored by Debbie Wasserman-Schultz and Tom Malinowski. That’s bullshit. He’ll frame it and use it in the next election.

83 replies
  1. P J Evans says:

    At least there *are* people calling for Brooks and Hawley to be expelled. Cawthorn should be, also.
    My first reaction was anger, to the point where I understood what my great-grandfather and his brother felt about the South and the Copperheads in the 1860s.
    I will not support anyone who talks about “unity” and “healing”, or those who persist in calling it a “riot” or a “protest”.
    There have to be consequences – it’s not “free speech” when it turns to violence, especially when it attacks legislators in their own chambers, and wants to kill them. The zipties weren’t free speech, the firearms weren’t free speech, and neither was that gallows: those were intended to frighten if not kill.

      • Roger says:

        Please find another descriptor:

        1.) The 1860’s Copperhead Democrats were opposed to the Civil War. Cawley not so much.
        2.) Copperheads serve a useful purpose. Cawley not so much.
        3.) Why denigrate a beautiful reptile? As far a Cawley is concerned, say what you’d like.

        This doesn’t work with congress critters but when I first moved to what was then considered rural if I saw a black snake crossing the road I’d stop the car, catch it, bring it home and release it under the decks at the house. I had young children and dogs used to suburban life. Since moving the black snakes in I haven’t had any copperheads in or around the house. And I do live in a good copperhead habitat, trees, rocks, field mice and a running stream.

        • P J Evans says:

          The Copperheads were Confederate sympathizers, not “opposed to the Civil War”.

          (I like snakes generally, although I prefer a good solid barrier between me and the venomous types.)

  2. What Constitution? says:

    A lingering question about “that gallows” — the one made out of precut lumber and plywood and erected outside the United States Capitol Building in a notable “photo op” position. So exactly who erected that and exactly how did they do it? Did someone just come up with that thought, look around outside on the Capitol grounds and find those materials lying around? Or did they chop down a tree, hew the logs into boards with their tomahawks, then pull nails and a noose out of their butt to finish the assembly? Put another way, has the person who erected this been identified, and who has that person spoken with about this idea over the past 60 days? Yeah, a guy was arrested this morning with a gun and 500 rounds of ammunition in DC. But I’d like to also know what human thought taking a prefab gallows to the US Capitol was a boffo idea last week. Maybe the same guy.

  3. PhoneInducedPinkEye says:

    It’s stunning, like you said, that a large number of congressional Ds have not forcefully responded to this assault by leading a demand for expulsion at the very least. It is disheartening and shows a massive disconnect between leadership and what the moment demands, let alone what the voters want.

    It kills my enthusiasm, it frustrates me and angers me to no end. I have to think I’m not the only one who sees this unmoored fecklessness and wonder what these people are even doing seeking these positions in the first place.

    From a cynical political perspective, a more reactive party with strong leadership and the ability to lead rather than stumble along blindly on a path of timidity and focus groups would increase the turnout.

    There are some exceptions like members of the squad, Porter, but they are being stifled at every turn by a terrified and petty gerontocracy that have failed. And they don’t know what to do about it but hold perfectly still in a vain attempt to turn back time to 1980.

    It drains us.

    • Peacerme says:

      They are afraid of taking that maximum step to hold the GOP responsible, for fear of backlash or whether it’s popular. Also the fear that once again they won’t be able to convict. (And that’s a serious one to consider). However that’s the difference between codependency and leadership in my view. A leader is careful to document the facts and follow truth regardless of the circumstances. Sometimes the validation doesn’t come for years. But it is important for the path ahead and for building accurate maps of reality. MLK Jr was not sanctioned or fully validated for his leadership until he was gone. Copernicus also comes to mind. It’s not without risk to confront a paradigm.

  4. Wm. Boyce says:

    I think you sell Jason Crow short. He has been all over the media demanding an investigation of his colleagues who may have supported the insurrection. That investigation has yet to happen or is only starting. One investigator put it that if this were a football game, the investigation would be in the first quarter.

    Shit’s gonna come out, no doubt.

    • Ed Walker says:

      I hope you are right about Crow and the others. What galls me is that none of them display normal human emotions when talking about being attacked.

      Klobuchar says in the clip that they were watching the events on TV in the safe room. They must have seen the marauders peacefully exiting and going free. I was apoplectic! I wanted them one by one zip-tied hand and foot and laid on the ground like so many peaceful decent protesters have been. I wanted vengeance. I cannot stomach the oily words of politicians not accompanied by the outrage shown by Colbert, obviously barely able to control his emotions.

      • readerOfTeaLeaves says:

        1. I think that some of them are still in shock.
        2. I think that some of them have been advised to keep a civil tone and calm manner.
        3. I think that, for good or ill, we underwent some kind of ‘phase shift’ on Jan 6-7, and it crystallized when we heard a police officer was murdered in an absolutely brutal fashion.

        It feels as if the water has been boiling for years.
        On Jan 6-7th, suddenly, all that boiling water finally turned into steam.
        It was a phase change.

        It fogged up some glasses, burnt some people, but every time in history when we have a phase change, it’s a bit hard to grapple with initially — in large part because people still want to say the old rules for boiling water will still work.

        They won’t.
        We’re in a steam bath.
        You don’t just ‘move on’ from that, although the people most complicit in making this disaster will be the first to claim we should simply ‘move on’. It’s their only hope to avoid accountability, but this was so horrendous, and so dangerous, that ‘moving on’ is no longer an option. However, given the rampant Trumpism remainders, it is extremely important to proceed with detailed, specific, clear evidence.

        And the first to be investigated should be the Republican Atty Gen Assn, and the former GOP AG Josh Hawley. What a travesty.

        This may sound a bit bizarre, given the harrowing effects of 2008 (jobs lost, suicides, foreclosures)… but we never, ever heard of a police officer killed as a result of the Financial Meltdown.

        Talking to a relative in a very red state last weekend, he reported that most people that he knows and works with are conservative. But after they saw that rampage, and heard that an officer had been murdered, they were absolutely d-o-n-e with Donald Trump. That, to my mind, is a symptom of phase change.

  5. pdaly says:

    I found this link to Pelosi’s comment that prosecution could be a ‘possibility’ if Congresspersons were involved in the insurrection/obstruction of transfer of power.

    Still, it bothers me that there isn’t a condemnation of all who objected to the electoral college vote and it bothers me there isn’t a mandatory (no exceptions) metal detector screening for all entering the US Capital given recent events.

  6. Nehoa says:

    I have been out of government for a while, but spent decades in it. There is a need for deliberation. What seems obvious in the short term may not be appropriate for the long term. Example, VP Pence ordering the NG to mobilize. He had no authority. Absolutely the right call then, but what happens in the future? Do VPs get to make their own calls? That is what legislators and policymakers think about. And it takes time to go through the implications. Slow but deliberate is the order of the day.

    • PhoneInducedPinkEye says:

      The VP thing was problematic, agreed.

      That being said, the large strokes of this insurrection played out in full view of the public, and politicians who supported it/goaded it on should be forcefully called out. An effort to expel Cruz, Hawley, and others is justified by everything on the public record alone.

      The longer they wait, the more chances they have to muddy the waters and distract the media. There are downsides to a deliberative approach in a 24 hour news cycle. Heck a four hour news cycle on social media.

      Even if they didn’t try to expel them, more dem reps should be loudly and angrily making the case for it. Those two would have gone along with a successful coup.

    • Ed Walker says:

      I agree that deliberation and investigation are important. I’d add Pelosi’s call to General Milley apparently about the nuclear codes to your VP example.

      But I absolutely think outrage is crucial. And I agree with PhoneInducedPinkEye that immediate action can and should be taken against some of the ringleaders.

    • Yargelsnogger says:

      The right call would have been to immediately invoke the 25th amendment when it was clear that Trump was not willing to call in the troops because he wanted this coup to happen.

      By doing it illegally, he really was an enabler and protector of Trump yet again. I realize that there would likely have been an additional death or two for every hour it kept up, but it also would have been even more vivid for more people that Trump was fully in favor of this coup. It sure seems like it would strengthen the case that his pre-riot speech’s intent was to overthrow the election, and not just political hyperbole carried too far.

  7. Calvin says:

    Can someone please tell me the estimated size of the tRump rally at the White House on the 6th versus the estimated size of the crowd surging close to the Capital? It seems the latter was at least as big from the footage I have seen, which tends to discredit countless claims of attending the first but not not the second – or claims of people like Justice Thomas’ wife who funded busloads of MAGAts into town yet claims they all were innocent.

  8. posaune says:

    I’m so appalled at the general reactions of congress people — I’ll bet if you talk to the house staff members, they would give another story. I’ll bet they were terrified. I think AOC was seriously threatened, although she says she can’t talk about it. PIPE, above, referenced the gerontocracy. Absolutely right. They are so beholden (and Cardin, that’s you too) to Wall Street, the banks, the insurance companies, the pharma companies, etc. for money that they give away the store before they even start. They are too afraid to be fearful or mad about January 6. I truly believe that all the congressional “cooperators” (Gaetz, Boebert, Jordan, etc.) should NOT be seated this term as their collaboration is established. (This was done in 1860 for those elected who refused to recognize Lincoln’s win.) Especially so if it is proven that they allowed the Capitol to be “cased” by their visitors touring as their guests on January 5. It’s despicable.

    I am amazed that DOJ has stated that all the criminal trials will be held in DC. Can’t imagine how they will get that many jury pools. Those MAGA types may be surprised by a typical DC jury: African Americans, federal workers, retired feds, health care workers who mask, urban dwellers.

    • cavenewt says:

      (This was done in 1860 for those elected who refused to recognize Lincoln’s win.)

      Thank you for that historical precedent. I like it a lot.

  9. skua says:

    I’m not sure that a lot of the low key response isn’t an attempt to get Biden sworn in without further bloodshed.
    There are people around America who would be identified by insurrectionists as targets for violence.
    With Trump still the Commander In Chief, and, in his mind, the top LEO, and his accomplices still holding positions of high authority in security/LE there is the possibility of deliberate failures to safeguard such people, or even, like Jan 6, deliberate efforts to activate insurrectionsists against them.

    Once those offices are cleansed then at least the top layer of domestic security will be reliable.

    Yes, there will still be insurrectionists embedded in the security and LE forces. Hopefully all of them have been so embolded by Trump/Murdoch that they made themselves identifiable with comms, appearing in photos, trying to recruit colleagues, etc, etc. They need to be cleaned out too.

  10. CHETAN R MURTHY says:

    Can a house of Congress expel 49% of its members, if 51% of its members vote thus? Really? I’d think not. I’d think it takes 2/3 vote to expel, even with 14th Am, Clause 3. I interpret the fact that nothing -substantive- has happened, as the Dems waiting for proof and at least indictments, if not convictions. B/c again, do they really think they can expel with a bare majority of the house?

    OTOH, Even John Tester was on Maddow spitting fire at these fuckers. I mean he was spitting fire about there needing to be consequences and accountability, and that without that, there could be neither healing nor unity.

    The GrOPers are gonna bang on the drum of “The Dems control the entire government”, but it’s only true if “control” means “by a hair’s breadth”. Give ’em a little time, eh?

    • readerOfTeaLeaves says:

      Oh, they want to act like a pack of entitled crybabies? What an embarrassing collection of spoiled brats.

      Unpack their bullshit and expose it to sunlight, and the sooner, the better.

      If you have not read this WaPo report yet, get a good look at who was funding, organizing, and instigating this dangerous stupidity, because it’s a terrific piece of investigative reporting, and I hope this is only the intro: https://www.washingtonpost.com/investigations/capitol-rally-organizers-before-riots/2021/01/16/c5b40250-552d-11eb-a931-5b162d0d033d_story.html

      Let’s see how the GOP “Dems control everything hysteria holds up once it is made absolutely clear that it was GOP electeds, staffers, and related non-profits — specifically charged with writing and enforcing laws! — that roiled citizens to riot, destroy property, and threaten the safety of elected officials.

      None of us should ‘move on’ from the fact that a policeman was brutally murdered.
      The GOP electeds ought to be scared shitless about their culpability, but they do not get to set the guidelines going forward.

      What the GOP probably fears, and rightly so, is the nation waking up to the fact that it was the **Republican** Attorney General’s Association that incited people to riot, which directly led to the brutal murder of a police officer.

      Observe that RAGA created a non-profit 501(c)4 arm of the organization, which looks like a premeditated attempt to create ‘plausible deniability’ for robocalls that incited riot.
      Let that sink in.

      How will Americans react as they start to connect the dots that place responsibility at the feet of the very people they most wanted to trust, including (for some) Donald Trump? What kind of panic, or cognitive dissonance, or doubling-down, lies ahead of us all?

      If lawsuits over the riots in DC ever reach the SCOTUS, and if Justice Thomas’s wife was involved in any manner whatsoever, then he needs to recuse. If his wife had **any** role in this disaster, then he would be wise to wait a few months and then resign from his position. The tragedy of what has happened is mind-boggling.

      Imagine being a Republican, realizing that your Attorney General’s lobbying arm incited you to riot, that your Republican SCOTUS justice’s wife bankrolled the buses that took the rioters to the Capitol, and that the Capitol is now damaged and several people — including a uniformed police officer — are dead.

      This is an epic betrayal.
      It’s going to take some time, and more investigation, and more calm voices, before the enormity of what happened sinks in.

  11. d4v1d says:

    The anger is suppressed, in many cases, by fear – the fear Republicans have of their own voters. As to the other side of the aisle, effectiveness is more important than reflexiveness. Brooks, Cawthorn, Hawley, and Cruz will be dealt with, given that the constitution’s definition of treason is inadequate. (And the pardoned in chief needs to be gone before the range of punitive remedies can be assessed, so Jan 20 has to come and go first.)

    In the case of Trump, Hawley, and Cruz, they have already been impeached by the ‘free’ market.

  12. emptywheel says:

    I think everyone is trying to get through to the 20th. And I think the story will continue to shift in that time, making it more likely Congress will try to expel the most obvious coup-conspirators.
    That’s not adequate, but right now I’m not sure the country is robust enough to do more, at least until Trump no longer has Executive authority.

    • Badger Robert says:

      I agree with Ms. Wheeler. For the next year, Biden is going to need some bi-partisan help on very big issues.

      • harpie says:

        I think this from Rep. Don Breyer, is also something to keep in mind:
        10:43 AM · Jan 11, 2021

        Not all wounds are visible.

        Our community has been through major trauma. We need to check on staff, on Capitol Police, on custodial/support staff, on press, on Members. Some of us will be working through this for a long time. It’s OK to seek help.

        Let’s take care of each other.

        • Eureka says:

          Yes, it’s the trauma (harpie) with the event ongoing (emptywheel). I read most congressional speakers as just in ‘go mode’; it’s not time to relax their vigilance and process emotions.

          It’s similar to all of the medical people giving flat, robotic interviews about how horrible COVID is in the hospitals. There is always some degree of dissociation and shift to a public face when a camera (or other social obligation, particularly one bearing responsibility) is present. (A recent exception well-illustrates this, where that CNN reporter-witness finally broke down and could not stop crying.)

          As a consequence, no one can get the true sense of the horrors they experience(d) and witness(ed). Just because we don’t see it (being used) to our satisfaction or expectation doesn’t mean it’s not there. (And it strikes me as a kind of victim-blaming/shaming/not acting right. I didn’t watch Colbert, but the discussion reminds me of some opportune Dr. Drew-esque “I gotcha not properly expressing your emotions at that terrible trauma you faced” type of thing.)

          I think the trajectory is normal, esp given the circumstances; the problems will come if if there’s no reckoning given safer distance.

    • earlofhuntingdon says:

      Klobuchar would have been more effective if she’d said what you said, rather than appearing to avoid and triangulate. The former is leadership, the latter is fitting in, while attempting to look as if she were acting on principle. That’s not adequate behavior for the moment.

      • harpie says:

        In my opinion, Klobuchar is one of the WORST communicators in government…don’t know what anyone sees in her.

        • Ginevra diBenci says:

          Perhaps it is her ability to win elections. And as in the past general one, to help others do so as well.

        • vvv says:

          I know she’s Minnesotan, but she reminds me of some of my So. Side Chgo. aunts of Irish heritage.

          IOW, real tough under the smiles, very focused behind the platitudes.

          And I seem to recall she’s done some good cross-exams in various hearings.

    • joel fisher says:

      The US government has very strong and not pardonable civil causes of action to pursue against the various actors. The damages are catastrophic and not dischargeable in bankruptcy. I’m trying to stay medicated with single malt, as I stress over the inevitable pardons which promise to piss me off. The notion of those assholes struggling–no more private airplane trips to go riot, Ms Ryan–gives me some peace.

    • PhoneInducedPinkEye says:

      I want my pound of flesh, damnit!

      I get what you are saying but the democratic party has an equally large problem of being too passive.

      As Lincoln said, “public sentiment is everything. With public sentiment, nothing can fail; without it, nothing can succeed. Consequently he who molds public sentiment goes deeper than he who enacts statutes or pronounces decisions. He makes statutes and decisions possible or impossible to be executed.”

      On this insurrection as with so many other issues, progress will not fall into their lap. They need to lead public sentiment, rather than waiting for it.

    • BobCon says:

      The House and Senate Ethics Committees are empowered to do extremely thorough investigations with broad authority to work with executive branch agencies. They need to use that authority and start ASAP.

      The FBI can’t do the same things as the Ethics Committees, which don’t have to limit themselves to criminal behavior in order to carry out investigations. The committees can go ahead and demand phone records and interview witnesses under oath. If they discover criminal behavior along the way, it can be referred, but it is not a requirement for penalties or expulsion.

      A big problem with the Ethics Committees is that they are understaffed, but there is no reason Schumer and Pelosi can’t bring in outside help. And unlike the past four years, they will be able to get a better degree of help from the executive branch.

      Another obstacle is the Ethics Committees have declined to pursue investigations parallel to law enforcement investigations in recent years, and that practice needs to end. There is no congressional rule requiring this, and the FBI is capable of doing its work while coordinating with other investigators — they do it all the time.

      Also, the House and Senate are going to need to revise and tighten ethics rules. In the past a great deal has depended on bipartisan cooperation, but it is clear that most of the GOP won’t work in good faith, especially in the House. The kooks won’t stop, and the time to push through comprehensive rules is now, not after the next time they do something, and it also makes no sense to implement rules piecemeal.

      • timbo says:

        Except in the current Twitler regime where Congressional “Democrat!” subpeonas have been ignored left and right from here to Tuesday.

  13. Badger Robert says:

    I disagree with Ed Walker. There is a serious risk that the inserrectionists might win the next time. Strategies and operations have be designed to maximize the number of Republicans that peal off from the conspiracy theory cult. There are critical issues that have to be addressed now.
    There is always a pathway back to respectability, but it does involve quitting the conspiracy and atoning.
    Klobuchar needs votes, especially if she is going to modify rules.

  14. S.Chepaitis says:

    I agree with senator Klobuchar that they had to get back into session and finish the counting and vote to reject the objections that night. This is exactly what the mob and its instigators wanted to disrupt so not doing that would have been a grievous error and a defeat.
    As far as throwing out the senators and congress members who voted for the big lie, well you cannot do that without very clear evidence of guilt. You know that Cruz et.al will come back with all sorts of plausible deniability and acting in anger and too swiftly will just backfire. If it is possible at all it will still be difficult to carry out and will need strong proof as well as a thoughtful process. I have seen this play out many times in academic circles and it almost always fails and the person attempting it is almost always hoisted on their own petard. so to speak.
    Stephen Colbert is a good entertainer, but I am glad he’s not a senator. I am also glad that I am not a senator. They don’t have a hard job, they have an almost impossible one.

    • cavenewt says:


      I want my pound of flesh too, but I’d rather they act in a way that will be more effective in the long term. A knee-jerk angry reaction feels good but as you point out, people like Cruz will find it easier to rebut. I’d much rather they act deliberately and have a better chance of getting rid of him permanently.

      I watched the Colbert/Klobuchar interview, and I do wish that she had expressed herself in a little less relaxed fashion.

    • BobCon says:

      The House and Senate are not bound by the standards of criminal courts or universities as far as tenure. They can impose major sanctions on a simple majority vote and expulsion only requires a 2/3 vote, not a unanimous jury, and there is no court that can hear an appeal.

      The first order of business is investigation and the idea of plausible deniability for conspirators is far from certain. The standard for a vote is much lower than what a jury must consider. Expulsion will be hard due to partisanship, but political infl6ence cuts both wys — given enough evidence, or the strong likelihood of further bad behavior — the political incentive for expulsion grows, especially in states where temporarily appointed replacements can be made by a GOP governor.

  15. Artemesia says:

    AND on Jan 20 we have no Cabinet — no line of succession. I hope Nancy Pelosi is at a secure location as designated survivor because there would seem a non-zero chance of catastrophe that day. How many right wing evangelical traitors are in the Air Force? We are incredibly vulnerable that day without a line of succession in place.

    • cavenewt says:

      Wouldn’t that be the case at every inauguration of a new president? Without, of course, the imminent threat we face this year.

    • cavenewt says:

      Saw that earlier, and it is indeed excellent. But imagine trying to get someone to listen to it who needs that message…I’m picturing Clockwork Orange with eyelids pinned open…

  16. Vinnie Gambone says:

    Average American watches 5 hours of TV per day. A speck of whitewash drips onto their brain with EVERY word, with every image. Old rant but still true, Russia’s active measures programs were SABOTAGE not MEDDLING. Hence the public reaction was shruggish. Same now with riot vs insurrection. In stead of a prayer at the start of each session, congress should be made to watch the footage of these Jihadist beating capital police on the capital steps. What the fuck is going to take for America to see these crimes as acts of war. They are one beheading away from truly being Jihadi. Flynn, Stone.Bannon. This shit is crack cocaine to them. Of course they’re already fixing up the next hit. How you break the hypnotic spell ? Dunno. Only those who go too far find out how far they can go.
    NG already authorized to use leathal force. I read. Herein death by NG will become a form of suicide. Those who think they’re being hunted also become more dangerous. They are now the new lunatic fringe.
    But go easy on them, they weren’t trying to overthrow the government, they were only meddling.

    • bmaz says:

      Why does Congress need to watch film every morning? They were there in real time, they know exactly what happened. Thery witnessed it live.

  17. John Langston says:

    Folks, give it time to marinate. Over time the facts will come out, no one involved will come out for the better. The facts will only incriminate more of them. Trump won’t find new “facts” to make him innocent, only more info that will make him more guilty.

    I just learned from Palast that Trumpers had a rally permit but did not obtain a parade permit. Trump’s own words were to march to the Capitol. Hell, he even said he was going to march with them. You might say “technicality”, I’d say it was a clear violation and showed intent.

    • earlofhuntingdon says:

      I would not mistake the passive reading of history for the work and agency involved in uncovering and assessing it.

  18. earlofhuntingdon says:

    Helaine Olen reports (h/t Dan Gillmor) that Nancy Pelosi has removed Katie Porter from the House Financial Services Committee. If that’s correct, it is another own goal by the Speaker, and emblematic of the establishment wing’s appeasement of the donor class. It would be helpful if this were a prelude to promoting her to something bigger, but I am not holding my breath.

    Porter is a rising progressive star (and Elizabeth Warren protege) and an outstanding MoC. She ran twice and won in GOP-dominated Orange County, where normal Democrats fear to tread. Her fundraising skills are superb, and she brings much needed attention to her work, much of which her predecessors left undone. She irritates Wall Street and corporate CEOs, a minimum qualification for any agent of reform. There should be more to this story. The public should hear it.


    • Dizz says:

      I don’t know if ‘removed’ is strictly correct – she got her first two asks for Committees: Oversight and Natural Resources. Ms. Porter needed a waiver to rejoin Finance (her 3rd choice) and the waiver was denied.
      Porter loses seat on House panel overseeing financial sector
      01/14/21 06:02 PM EST

      In a Nov. 30 letter to Pelosi, Porter asked to be considered for seats on the Oversight and Reform, Natural Resources, and Financial Services committees — in that order — in the new Congress that began on Jan. 3.
      Porter also asked Pelosi to “prioritize” her spot on the Oversight Committee and asked to rejoin the Financial Services Committee on a waiver.
      Porter will hold onto her seat on the Oversight Committee and join the Natural Resources Committee this year, the Democratic aides said. Both committees are non-exclusive, meaning a member can serve on several.
      “Under House Dem rules, a member is allowed to serve on two non-exclusive committees. Mine are Oversight and Natural Resources. One can ask for a waiver for a third committee. I asked. Others in same situ got waivers. I did not. I play by the rules,” Porter said in a tweet.
      A senior Democratic aide familiar with the steering committee decision said it was risky for Porter to prioritize spots on other committees while asking for a waiver to retain her spot on Financial Services after Democrats lost seats in the 2020 election. A smaller Democratic majority means Democrats have a smaller ratio of seats per committee.

      Ms. Porter was well-prepared and quite effective on the Financial Services Committee. I will miss her presence there.

      • bmaz says:

        Yes, but she previously was given a waiver, and easily could have been given one this time. This is entirely on Pelosi, who got heavy pressure from the banking and finance sector to not let her have another one. And the fossil Pelosi granted their wish.

        • Dizz says:

          I was going to object to your use of ‘fossil’ but I looked it up and mostly concur. I also agree that what Ms. Pelosi wants she tends to get.
          With the reduced Democratic majority, thus a reduced # of committee assignments, there was likely a need to weigh committee assignments more equitably. I remember Ms. Pelosi in her recent 60 Minutes interview being criticized for not raising more younger member’s profiles. (After the 79yo Leslie Stahl blurted out Nancy’s, Steny’s, and Biden’s ages … lol.) Perhaps there is another MoC who will rise to Ms. Porter’s abilities on the Finance Committee?
          I understand Ms. Porter’s pique but if she wanted to remain on Finance she could have.

          • earlofhuntingdon says:

            This discussion is not about Ms. Porter’s “pique.” In fact, the characterization seems sexist. Nor is it about her apparently considering two other assignments more important than Financial Services. The discussion is about Ms. Pelosi’s priorities.

            If she wanted to move in a more progressive direction – following the priorities of her electorate – or to raise the profiles of her young turks, she could do so. As bmaz tells it, Porter had a waiver in the last Congress, which Pelosi apparently chose not to renew. She prefers not to do either. (Had she wanted to up – rather than dampen – the profile of progressives, for example, Porter’s progressive replacement would have been announced.)

            • Dizz says:

              I am no expert on committee assignments nor do I have any idea how my using the word ‘pique’ could be construed as sexist. (My defense of Ms. Pelosi’s motives is likely sexist – she is definitely my *fossilized* girl!)
              In the last/ 116th Congress the Dems had 34 of 61 members – four from CA: https://financialservices.house.gov/about/committee-membership.htm Because of their smaller majority, the Dems will likely have fewer committee members in the 117th. Jennifer Wexton/D-VA was also denied a waiver to stay on the Financial Services Committee. Perhaps Maxine Waters/D-CA, the chairwoman of the Finance Committee, had some input on the selections?
              The only new Dem nominated to Finance was young Ritchie Torres/ NY: https://www.speaker.gov/newsroom/121720 Mr. Torres is a member of the Congressional Progressive Caucus and was recently announced as co-chair of Andrew Yang’s NY Mayoral campaign.

              • earlofhuntingdon says:

                For starters, “pique” is rarely used with men. For another, it focuses on the personal – an emotional disappointment – rather than the policy issue of whether to advance or retard progressive change.

    • Eureka says:

      This was depressing news. My hopes are that she uses her superpowers to save our lands from the oligarchs, if we no longer have the benefit of her loosening their clutches on our people.

      In rechecking the Financial Services Committee wiki (and various .gov sites), I see no update with the final membership yet. Does anyone know when those and other assignments will be finished?

  19. BobCon says:

    The critical followup question people like Colbert should be asking people like Klobuchar is “why do you think it is going to stop now?”

    The failure to ask that particular question is what has allowed people like Klobuchar and the GOP in general to compartmentalize and then sidestep. The focus of every encounter should be to put them on the hook for future breakdowns.

    The only way to get them to take responsibility for the past is to make them fear for their survival in the future.

    The GOP knows the rhetorical game they are playing — they used 9/11 for their cynical purposes in Iraq by constantly harping on future risks, and I am sure they are secretly delighted by how little current discussion there is on how these freaks are an ongoing menace.

    Democracy backers shouldn’t leave the past behind, but unless they tie it — truthfully, unlike the liars about Iraq — to the dangers of the future, then they will struggle to wrestle this to the ground.

    • P J Evans says:

      For that matter, it didn’t start with Trmp. I recall GHW talking about liberals being unAmerican. That was never retracted, nor was there an apology. (Why yes, I’m still mad at him for that.)

  20. klynn says:

    What I saw in Klobuchar was active practice of 10 conflict resolution / deescalation techniques. She has probably been briefed on the domestic threat level. She’ll get to the accountability in the process of exercising these practices but the deescalation is vital in reducing the spiral of violence first.

    • earlofhuntingdon says:

      It would seem vital to be more candid with what the goals are, especially after four years of Trumpian lies being perpetrated throughout government.

      There’s also a legacy problem: Democrats of the look forward-not back variety have been less than resolute in imposing accountability. If Biden intends to change that, his and congressional spokespeople will have to be clearer. Otherwise, they convey the impression they are avoiding the problem or are simply manipulating their audience.

      Conflict de-escalation that tells people they needn’t worry, nothing bad will happen to them, when you intend to impose accountability on them later seems to be a fairly obvious deception that no contemporary right winger (presumably, the intended audience) would believe. It succeeds only in lowering the credibility of the spokesperson and their patron.

  21. harpie says:

    CLASSIC ABUSER BEHAVIOR- blame the victim
    Lindsey Graham edition:

    10:19 AM · Jan 17, 2021

    Lindsey Graham doesn’t blame Trump for promoting Jan. 6 rally, his speech there, telling them to go to the Capitol and lying for weeks about a stolen election. Says of the riot:
    “How in the hell could that happen? Where was Nancy Pelosi? It’s her job to provide Capitol security.”

    • P J Evans says:

      He’s been in the Senate long enough that he should have some idea how the Capitol is run. It isn’t her job to arrange protection for the building. (If he’s going to go that route, what was *Mitch* doing? Wouldn’t he be at least as responsible?)

    • skua says:

      Is Mitch showing severe cognitive decline, confabulation?
      Or just lying?

      “The United States Capitol Police (USCP) is overseen by the Capitol Police Board and has Congressional oversight by appropriations and authorizing committees from the U.S. House of Representatives and U.S. Senate. This oversight affords the Department the support and opportunity to continually ensure that the USCP meets the safety and security needs of the Congress, the staff, and the many visitors who come to the United States Capitol each day.”

  22. P J Evans says:

    Apparently the military has rejected the demand for a big sendoff, or any kind of sendoff. I don’t know if that’s from a reliable source or not.

    • Chris.EL says:

      Sooo glad to hear that!!! Yaay! (re: lack of send off — how about put to sea w/o a proverbial paddle.)

      Think it was Michael Beschloss on Twitter earlier today that expressed frustration with all the money the govt. will have to spend on Trump after leaving office.

      I say No! Nyet! Trump paid for private security for himself before, let him resume carrying that load.
      Zoned out from politics and looked at these videos of building a simple off-grid cabin; Dave Whipple, bushradical. Whipple and his wife live in Michigan!

      I like his philosophy expressed in the third part where he gets on the case of a viewer who may express an inability to accomplish building the simple cabin. (No electricity, no plumbing/water.) Cost under $3,000, estimated.
      He also said out the plan for building wealth through home ownership: start small, pay cash, and take it from there! GOOD ADVICE! SO TRUE!
      This was interesting:

Comments are closed.