Republicans Filibuster Keeping the Capitol Safe

Republicans just filibustered the bill to create a bipartisan commission to investigate January 6, 54-35. It was the first bill killed by filibuster in this Congress.

I never held out much hope that the commission would work with our partisanship anyway. But this vote has now made it clear that Republicans put party above country.

91 replies
  1. P J Evans says:

    Manchin is fine with this, I suspect: the filibuster is more important to him than finding out which of his colleagues are seditionists.

    • Savage Librarian says:

      With his hyperbolic fantasy about revering the Constitution relative to his stance on the filibuster, it is deeply ironic that Joe Manchin represents a state that only exists because of “some creative legal maneuvering around the Constitution of the United States.”

      “Lincoln Signs Proclamation Admitting New State of West Virginia” – Mathew W. Lively, 4/20/13

      “On April 20, 1863, President Abraham Lincoln signed a proclamation, effective in sixty days, admitting West Virginia into the Union as the 35th state. Formation of the state, however, had required some creative legal maneuvering around the Constitution of the United States.”

      “West Virginia was created from the northwestern counties of the Commonwealth of Virginia; but according to Article IV, Section 3 of the Constitution: “…no new states shall be formed or erected within the jurisdiction of any other state; nor any state be formed by the junction of two or more states, or parts of states, without the consent of the legislatures of the states concerned as well as of the Congress.” So, how did the legislature of Virginia, which had seceded from the Union, consent to West Virginia being formed from its territory? It didn’t – well, at least the one in Richmond didn’t.”

    • Savage Librarian says:

      Will Joe Manchin look back one day like Senator Robert Byrd (aka C. C. Sale) and describe his stance on the filibuster as “the greatest mistake I ever made”? That’s what Byrd said about his own experience organizing and leading a local chapter of the KKK in the 1940s.

  2. Rugger9 says:

    Well, then let the committees investigate in open hearings what went on. The Ds need to remind the GQP and RWNM when they inevitably start howling “partisanship” that they were offered their chance, the Ds agreed to the quite generous terms and the GQP blocked it anyway. The contrast to the Benghazi investigations (and remember the House Minority Leader gave the game away about doing it to hurt HRC before being shushed by then-Speaker Ryan a couple of years back) can’t be more stark, and let’s also remember the Benghazi attack was in part due to the GQP shorting the State Department on security in their budget.

  3. skilly says:

    Slightly off topic but:

    Why not send some domestic terrorists to Quantanamo Bay? The evidence against many of the insurrectionists is much stronger than the evidence alleged against the original detainees. Of course, this is absurd, but the logic is nearly identical to that of originators for the use of Quantanamo as a holding pen for those who might try to attack America. If one wanted to put an end to Quantanamo this might be a way to do it.

    • bmaz says:

      WTF? What is wrong with you? Send no people to Gitmo. You have been here a long time, and have apparently learned nothing. Do NOT send anybody to Gitmo. Please stop.

      • Skilly says:

        Wow, Learned nothing. what an indictment? Clearly, this is not a serious proposal. Just as Swift did not propose to actually eat English children, he did successfully highlight a serious problem with his essay, “A modest proposal.” Clearly, I lack his wisdom and writing talents, but I think the use of lampoon and satire can demonstrate the folly of bad policy. So, I apologize if anyone thought I was actually proposing to send anyone to Gitmo.

        • Wombat says:

          Both Poe’s law and “Ha-Ha-Ganda” have closed off the use of that sort of satire in political discourse. Unless it is clearly labeled as satire, it can be confused for earnest extremism. Sucks, but that’s where we are.

          No one should be able to use “just joking” as a fig leaf for when their monstrous beliefs are called out.

        • rip says:

          I, for one, had no problem understanding the intent of your post. Please continue posting, at least for this audience of one.

          It’s been said that certain types can’t understand humor or innuendo and like their cereal dry.

        • Savage Librarian says:

          I support skilly who explicitly states in the intended sarcastic comment above, “Of course, this is absurd…”

          Honestly, I don’t see how that sarcasm could have been missed. Maybe it’s because of how twitter, FB, Fox, etc. have been commandeered by bad actors who have used propaganda to distort language in general.

          I also can see how using Gitmo as an avenue for humor has the potential to be a sensitive and misunderstood proposition, perhaps even adding fuel to those who spew propaganda. This valuable democratic learning moment can make us all stronger if we let it.

          I hope skilly continues to participate in discussions.

          • Troutwaxer says:

            I agree completely. To quote a little more of Skilly’s original post, “The evidence against many of the insurrectionists is much stronger than the evidence alleged against the original detainees. Of course, this is absurd, but the logic is nearly identical to that of originators for the use of Quantanamo as a holding pen…”

            He clearly wasn’t serious about putting domestic terrorists in Guantanamo. Getting angry at him pretty clearly constitutes a case of “I didn’t read this clearly before nuking someone.”

    • Rayne says:

      No. The insurrectionists and domestic terrorists are being charged under existing laws for which other convicted felons have been punished inside the continental U.S. They should be treated like all other felons convicted of breaking U.S. laws — and like those who were incarcerated at Guantanamo Bay should have been after conviction.

      We’re defending this representative democracy, not reinforcing authoritarian practices of a previous anti-democratic regime.

        • Rayne says:

          And yet his attempt at sarcasm was a miss as I think we’ve indicated.

          Sometimes I wish you folks could see how much bullshit which isn’t sarcastic arrives in the moderation bin.

          • Ginevra diBenci says:

            Rayne, you are of course right: we don’t see bathwater from which you and the other moderators rescue the baby that shows up here. From that perspective, I can see how skilly’s comment would have come across in the slush pile. (As an assistant editor at a literary magazine I used to read stacks of unsolicited work, and your comment reminded me of the almost subliminal culling mode I went into when my eyes glazed.)

            FWIW, I did not pick up sarcasm in skilly’s comment, but rather the attempt to invoke a prior injustice to throw in stark relief the kid gloves treatment these white Trump terrorists are receiving.

  4. joel fisher says:

    TBH, I don’t see this as a loss. The compromises the Democrats made to get a precious few–and pointless–GOP members aboard were way too generous. They should go back and look at the, yes, Benghazi hearings. Trey Gowdy managed to keep it going for weeks without ever identifying any wrong doing whatsoever. HRT testified for at least a whole day. Time for some hearings now that the shoe is on the other foot.

    • PJB says:

      Rep. Raskin is calling for formation of a House Select Committee to investigate. Some folks on twitter are instead calling for AG Garland to appoint a Special Counsel to investigate. Does the existing law permit that? If so, is a DOJ investigation preferable to a House investigation? What are the pros and cons of each, if the goal is to expose the truth about the insurrection? If both are formed, does that pose conflicts? (I am thinking about a potential Ollie North problem)

      • Robot17 says:

        A DOJ Special Counsel is what I think they should do. I believe a Subpoena that comes from the DOJ is actually enforceable as opposed to the clown show we’ve seen before regarding Congressional subpoenas. I suspect Garland may insist on a referral prior to that but I don’t know, maybe not.

        • joel fisher says:

          Congressional subpoenas do take forever to get enforced. But, sadly, a fat, orange, squirmy witness taking the 5th in front of a grand jury can’t be seen by the general public on TV. There is zero sense of urgency on the part of Congress–and by Congress, I’mean the House, the GOPs in the Senate will filibuster everything–and so, it’s time to get busy, stop talking, stop negotiating with the GOP, and start issuing some fucking subpoenas.

          • BobCon says:

            They don’t have to take a long time if Congress and DOJ have a sense of urgency in filing and pursuing them — it has happened in the past.

            But as a practical matter it requires congressional leadership to push it, and I don’t see that, unfortunately. That urgency was also lacking for the select Covid committee, which spent a tiny fraction of time in session compared to the enormity of the issue.

        • Peterr says:

          There’s no need for a “special counsel” – the regular prosecutors are doing just fine.

          The benefit to a commission is that they (generally speaking) describe what they find, as opposed to the DOJ which (generally speaking) only presents crimes they have found and can prosecute.

          • PJB says:

            Given that Trump’s actions on and before 1/6 will be at issue, appointing a special counsel probably makes sense to insulate Garland/Monaco from claims of politicization. But, like you i was thinking that a Select Committee makes more sense in the context of finding and reporting the whole story. As for the subpoena issue others have mentioned, neither a DOJ nor Congressional subpoena are self-executing (let’s leave Congress’s inherent powers out of it, since that power is moribund). If someone if planning to move to quash, it gets tied up in Court either way.

      • Timmer says:

        To give it it’s appropriate prominence, name it “House Select More Serious than Benghazi Committee”

      • BobCon says:

        A Mueller-style special counsel is going to be fairly narrowly focused on issues of criminal actions, and it would take someone more well versed in the authority of a SC to say if one would have advantages over what DOJ is doing now.

        But it’s clear from Mueller that a prosecutorial approach is insufficient — it does not include broader fact finding, nor would it address policy in a comprehensive way.

        A congressional panel has the advantage of being able to follow a very broad scope –fact finding, testimony gathering, and making policy recommendations. Historically they have covered the waterfront. Literally, in the case of the extensive organized crime hearings circa 60 years ago, but also all kinds of other milestone issues including war profiteering led by Truman, IC abuses led by Church, and of course Watergate.

        The problem is that Congress let this power wither starting when Gingrich took over in 1995, and frustratingly the Democrats have refused to revive it.

        EW linked to this excellent long read on the subject:

        A key issue is that investigations require budgets and staffing which exist outside of direct control of leadership. Blocking ths autonomy was fine for leaders like Ryan and Hastert, who preferred to get nothing done. Unfortunately, Pelosi and Schumer haven’t had the stomach for it either.

        They have the authority to establish almost any kind of panel they want with almost any membership and rules. They don’t need to be bound by the idiotic five minute ping pong questioning format that House hearings follow, and they could choose the sharpest, toughest questioners out there, like Porter, Lieu, Warren and Wyden. But they would also need to give them the authority to go where they wanted, let them spend as they felt necessary, and create their own headlines.

        They’d need to keep people off the panel who want the spotlight but don’t want to do the work, and they would need to back them up with the scheduling and messaging they need.

        I just don’t know if there is the willpower to do this.

        • dude says:

          I also believe the Democrats should proceed on their own and create an investigational committee to cast the widest net possible for talent. The Republicans have been given enough opportunities. For every day that passes, their base grows more hardened and determined to revisit insurrection via the ranks of Waffen Storm Trumpers. It is the “moderates” who merely want to establish Jim Crow 2.0. The mainstream media seems to think Republicans are “at war amongst themselves”. From where I sit (in North Carolina), I do not see it.

          • BobCon says:

            I think they tipped their hand by not having a Plan B in their back pocket ready to go as soon as McConnell began lobbying against it.

            There is a tendency among the Democratic leadership to take things one step at a time, which reduces their leverage and makes them victims of the clock.

            On impeachment they had no staffing in place when the Ukraine whistleblower emerged in the summer of 2019, and they had to scramble to get hearings off the ground, and they were stuck with a narrow focus because they didn’t have the time or the staff to do more.

            They are single tracking too much because of a lack of personnel — that article describes how Warren is diverting personal staff to do work that should be done by committee staff. That’s not how a coequal branch should be operating.

            • ChuckD says:

              Thank you. My sentiments exactly.
              AGAIN, the optics are that this comes as a surprise to the Dems and now they have to scramble for their Plan B.
              I use the word optics because maybe they already worked behind the scenes preparing for the inevitable. We don’t know that, but they could put many minds at ease by quickly, very quickly, get the ball rolling and announce the commission’s members.
              Like, today.

              [Welcome back to emptywheel. Please use the same username each time you comment so that community members get to know you. You’ve attempted to use a 3rd and 4th username today; I’ve reverted both comments to your 2nd as it has had the most approved comments to date. Thanks. /~Rayne]

              • ChuckD says:

                And thank you too. I realize that’s the policy but my browser had several cached and I wasn’t sure which was for this site.

        • Raven Eye says:

          You’ve pointed out the fundamental dishonesty in McConnell’s slobbering rationalization. He wants to convince people [and, apparently, he has done so] that the roles of a congressionally initiated commission is exactly the same as the authorities of the Executive and Judicial branches to deal with violations of the law. That’s just so bogus.

          Daffy has McConnell’s measure:

          A commission should be examining the facts of the incident, and then mapping them against existing law and regulation. If legislative action would reduce the likelihood of another January 6th, then Congress needs to go to work.

        • bmaz says:

          Of course Garland’s DOJ is trying to stay mostly clear of this. I have no idea why anybody expected anything different. What will the House do? Well they consistently refuse to enforce their subpoena power, so likely nothing effective.

          • jerryy says:

            I did not / still do not expect any difference, but “who knows maybe the horse will learn to sing.”

          • Troutwaxer says:

            And we could lose our democracy because the House refuses to do anything effective. History will tell of both Republican awfulness and Democratic inaction.

  5. Rugger9 says:

    It also will mean (since I do not see the Ds letting this go) that this will extend the process into the 2022 election, like Barr’s interference in Flynn’s case extended into 2020. It would depend on how the press runs with it to see whether this hurts the GQP like it should.

    • madwand says:

      I happen to agree, if as Republicans say their purpose in avoiding a commission is to forestall keeping it in the news as they did very effectively with Benghazi then they have opened the door to other congressional investigations, so it seems as a tactical error to me and the only question is whether Democrats will take advantage of it and not cry in their beer.

  6. Pete T says:

    To Tell truth, I was a bit ambivalent about this committee. Yes, Jan 6 needs to be investigated, but this is not 9/11 Commission political landscape. I think an outside “select committee” or whatever you want to call it lead by an apolitical person (if any such exist) established by Dems is fine given the political climate.

    I suppose there is some political value in campaigning in the mid terms against for those who voted no or did not vote. But enough with re-election freezing Congress for nearly half a term trying to get/keep party power.

    To me, the potential “value” in this filibuster is Schumer using it to solidify support for nuking the filibuster. That assumes that Manchin will see the light. Sinema worries me – she didn’t have the decency to show up for this vote.

    Nothing, I mean nothing, else will pass the Senate as things now stand. And the 2022 clock is ticking and we’ll go into midterm madness starting in early 2022 if not later 2021.

    McConnell cannot be allowed to win by blocking everything in the Senate.

  7. OmAli says:

    I’m glad it failed. Wtaf Dems? Let the co-seditionists fill half the seats with their assclowns? Gowdy, Gingrich, Cantor and Starr come to mind – and give them veto power over subpoenas?

  8. FL Resister says:

    I am certainly not alone in wanting to hear from the key players who were making decisions before and during the violence January 6th. We witnessed the storming of the Capitol, the evacuation of our House and Senate, and were shocked and upset as the security breach expanded, hour after hour.
    Congress must stop pussyfooting around.
    We have a serious and growing problem in this country and at the center of it is the radicalization of the Republican Party as it swoops up fringe groups, embraces lies as truth, and adopts anti-rational policies, if you can call backing what Trump wants policy.
    Democrats need to reveal the facts in order to impress upon voters the peril we are in as a country right now due to the present anti-democratic, authoritarian tactics of the GOP, with help from Russia.

  9. Rayne says:

    Think harpie, Eureka, klynn might find this interesting…

    Awfully difficult to believe anything that happened was in anyway spontaneous. Also want to know as Sandi does why we don’t yet know more about the bombs — they look like they were intended to trigger a stampede. Was Defense Dept. waiting for detonation as a signal and therefore dragged its feet because there wasn’t a detonation?

    • Dutch Louis says:

      “[…] the bombs — they look like they were intended to trigger a stampede.” A chilling assumption, but  to me it seems to make sense, because from the start there is a hole in the story. A big balloon was forcefully inflated but at the critical moment in the timeline the needle was missing, there was no knot, the air spluttered out with chaotic movements and around 4 p.m. the party was over. So I agree, much more important to investigate than what was for a big part random behaviour and happened inside the Capitol is what was intended but didn’t happen outside the building. Not what caught the eye, but the script and footage of what did not materialize is the heart of the matter.

    • Eureka says:

      Yes I do, or did, LOL. I transcribed that infographic*/flyer on February 2nd and subsequently discussed the significance of the spatial (well, spatio-temporal) relations of the two rally points, crowd movements, and other events numerous times. harpie (our inversely-seasonal hibernating friend — though the weather justifies it this weekend!) and I were pretty fixated on the planning and the whole northeast location of the next “rally” given the context of events and claims/other behavior of people like Alex Jones/Ali Alexander. I think this was then you were busy with non-EW stuff.

      I’ll add that Bachom is underselling the point. [And a question: how do we know that the bombs were set to go off at 1pm? I missed that.]

      The first thing anyone heading from Trump’s speech to the second rally point would see (approaching after, say, 12:48pm-ish), would be the insurrectioning in “front” of the Capitol. Shiny objects.

      The PBs (coming around from the east side of the Capitol building where they’d already assembled in the morning sans permits or announced public events) were breaching the northwest police lines, arriving ~ 12:48pm and succeeding by 12:53pm. [In near-simultaneity Capitol Police responded to the RNC bomb call (12:49pm).] A cascade of barrier breaches follows. Relatively early in his speech, Trump began telling folks to go to the Capitol and some of the normies had already arrived to visually intersect with and become interested in joining the PB action. [Some significant number of normies arrived as early as 12:30pm per the wiki, so that might have got the PBs to step it up a notch.]

      Even if folks headed intentionally to the permitted rally point on Northeast Drive instead of the (“front”/west side of the) Capitol building proper, en route they’d first encounter visually, minimally, and actually, possibly, the PBs as they came round from the east side (earlier on) or the growing crowds and scrums already at the Capitol.

      Ample evidence suggests that’s exactly what happened — for example, Alex Jones losing control of the crowd traveling with him, imploring them to go instead to the northeast permitted area (and later claiming Trump set him up, etc.).

      Of course as time went on and more people arrived, they breached the building north and east to continue the action / draw even for the people following the “rules.”

      Folks were all over the place but the breach action was centered in the upside-down U where rally-goers would see it and join. The promised presence of Trump at the Capitol was the bait for honest rally goers; while he didn’t show the PBs OKs et al. showed out.

      * AA posts it on the 5th with the text, “DC becomes FORT TRUMP starting tomorrow on my orders!”:

      Some links on these issues collated here, and see harpie’s start of thread:

      • Savage Librarian says:

        IIRC, Eureka, you also mentioned that you thought there could be a 2nd person involved with the pipe bombs. Since then, I wonder if you saw this:

        “Police records show threats to kill lawmakers in wake of Capitol attack” – Jason Wilson, 5/23/21
        “The bulletin mentions a “possible second suspect” in the placement of pipe bombs near the DNC and RNC, who was “observed on video scouting/taking photographs in advance of the placement”, who “took a metro to the East Falls church stop and took a Lyft from there”.

        • Eureka says:

          Thanks, Savage — I had not seen that. I wondered in part because the FBI wasn’t releasing readily-estimable biometric data / they weren’t creating framing to put out there.

      • Rayne says:

        Bachom’s noting the 1:00 pm timing on bombs was the key point I wanted to make sure you noted. If I get time this week I need to find a time lapse of cell phone tracking from the Ellipse to the Capitol to note where the bulk of the traffic would have been at 1:00 pm — and where Capitol Police would have been most occupied at 1:00 pm.

        I can’t help wonder if the bombs were intended as the trigger for DoD deployment of National Guard *and* implementation of a state of emergency via executive order. Was there an executive order drafted and waiting but never signed?

        • Eureka says:

          Thanks, Rayne. The best source for (schematically-) timed movements of MAGAs that I can think of is the NYT mapping of smartphone data, though I can’t view it now:

          Something else in back of mind, we’ll see if it emerges.

          I still don’t recall (and cannot find) where it was established that they were set to go off at 1pm so if anyone can point me to there I’d appreciate it (or does Bachom have a source?).

          Your reasoning and suspicions still apply to any number of times they would have been set to go off (or called-in, perhaps, by the perps).

            • Rayne says:

              Thanks for that, very helpful. New hypothesis: the bombs were placed at DNC and RNC facilities which were located southeast of the Capitol building. If they had detonated, a sizeable number of LEO would have been dispatched to the south of the Capitol, leaving the north side more exposed to attack by insurrectionists, along with the Russell and Hart Senate buildings which are located north of the Capitol.

              Guess that 1:00 p.m. time needs to be nailed down along with how close the speakers were to their scheduled time slot on the event agenda. Did something slip which changed outcomes?

              • Rayne says:

                Just read the new indictment against Oathkeepers; the leader is identified as Person One and redacted throughout, which makes it very interesting just before 1:00 p.m. where there’s a graf fully redacted and discussion back and forth with Person One just before/after 1:00 p.m. (see page 22 of 38 under the tick-tock of January 6 in Overt Acts).

                There’s no mention of bombs except in an earlier exchange about potential LEO responses to insurrectionists’ acts, but the use of encrypted comms may have hidden any discussion. Can’t rule out possibility Oathkeepers were responsible for them just yet. What’s interesting is the disappointment in Pence “doing nothing” at 1:25 p.m.; were the bombs supposed to trigger Pence, perhaps?

                • Eureka says:

                  Para 35 Person One seems to be saying (in a GoToMeeting of Nov 9th) that if “Antifa” bombs _them_ [the OKs, when the OKs go to DC (whenever) to support 45], that would hopefully result in Trump declaring the Insurrection Act.

                  Which supports one point under discussion, the notion that someone may have heard this (here or elsewhere) and been inspired or independently come to the same idea. And false-flagging “antifa” to achieve their aims sounds par for the course.

                  I mean they all have limited tools and concepts so this might have been a popular topic in their bubbles.

              • Eureka says:

                At the very least it’s consistent with the bomb planter(s) having a theory-of-mind to avoid that upside-down U area (W-NW-N-NE-E) as insurrection planners would be attuned to avoiding where they’d have their crowds of people congregating. i.e. the bomber(s) was coordinating w/spatial awareness of the planned events (as opposed to a lone-actor nusto not thinking things through/for kicks).

                So yes, that time needs to be nailed down — but again I think your original suspicions would fairly apply to a number of potential times. For the bombs to cause the effect of flushing out LE/ leaving the Capitol exposed, there’d have to be a number of folks already there. [And would “nornies” rush _towards_ where bombs had gone off? Doubtful.*] As we know, the PBs were since the am, and — while Trump started speaking late, early in his speech by ~ 12:15 (I think this is in the wiki) he started directing people to go to the Capitol and by ~ 12:30 some number were there. If cops were diverted early, the breachers would have met less resistance. [Given events in December + Tarrio’s arrest, the PBs (at least) were suspicious of LE no longer “cooperating” with them by this time.] If the purpose of the bombs included a hope for “martial law” (sic), later times might be as useful.

                I see where you’re going with that Q about did something slip…

                *meaning generally geographically /effectively from the Ellipse towards the Capitol (towards the RNC/DNC bombs) — if they had gone off too early

                Adding, now that I see your 9:27 PM: I agree on not ruling out OK or other coordinating militia like threepers.

                I’ll have to read that new indictment but beforehand will note that Person One is surrounded by lots of “activists”, including those livestreaming on the 5th w/ him

                • Eureka says:

                  (cont. reply to Rayne 9:27pm / ye olde edit window snipe)

                  clarify — meaning while Person One isn’t known to do much but carp (about others’ inactivity/being all talk while his followers accuse him of same), his clique/ routine surrounds include people who are “doers” such as the Qanon Hummer guys who hopped in said vehicle, drove from VA to PA, & got picked up on weapons charges / later charged w elections interference of the Philadelphia vote count. Plus folks like “the stack” who seem to be doers as well. Not that I’m saying they had anything to do w the bombs.

                  *LOL 947pm “normies”

              • Eureka says:

                The other thing is — besides AFAIK there not having been any detonation time info released by the FBI (and am happy to be shown wrong/forgetful/unaware*) — they could have been planned to go off at different times (say, creating a 9-11-like cascade of terror and panic, with an implication that more might be about).

                *also, is it possible, given Bachom’s saying that they were found at 12:30 (tho AFAIK Capitol Police responded at 12:49 as above), and seeing the 30 minutes “left” on the kitchen timer (which I thought I’d read had failed or gone inert or something), that this was her or someone else doing some math?

          • Rugger9 says:

            IIRC, wasn’t the request for NG assets before 1 PM and was stonewalled (allegedly) by the WH until well after 1 PM? If there was supposed to be an event like the detonations, then it would make some sense to keep the Capitol Poloce hanging on the telephone until events forced a change.

            I think the idea of the imposition of a state of emergency post-explosion is a sound theory listening to how Flynn has been going on since then, but I would say there was enough noise at the Capitol for DJT to have tried it anyway without the bombs.

            • Eureka says:

              Yep Flynn & followers were exactly who I had in mind, they way they talk.

              True as far as Trump goes that just about anything would be enough for _him_ to “declare stuff” but remember Flynn, Powell, Byrne, that other gal & whoever (Pillow guy?) had been in the WH late in Dec. (showed up impromptu) pushing hard for all sorts of cockamamie whatnot and saw first-hand the resistance from the adults in the room (so much so that they continued this meeting to the private quarters IIRC).

              So my guess is that the more hands-on types in the Parler crowd “knew” it would take some more spectacular doing for Trump to overcome various suits and brass to get that “martial law” (sic) up and running.

  10. Rayne says:

    WAIT WAIT WAIT…Did Sinema seriously no-show for this vote???

    Seriously, Arizona, you had best be recruiting hard for a good Democrat to primary this sorry POS in 2024. Plenty of time to find somebody to run — anybody must be better than this wretch.

    • bmaz says:

      She sucks, but is one of the best retail politicians I have ever seen. Not gonna happen. The GOP here is focused on Kelly.

      • Rayne says:

        You and I are going to have to disagree on the meaning of “best.”

        This is one of those moments when I am struggling against my six decades of indoctrination into language which marginalizes women; she has pushed those buttons.

        • bmaz says:

          She walks neighborhoods. Personally, not just her campaign staff, though they do too. And when she comes to your door, is prepared to talk to you and answer questions. She has personally been to my door twice. She is personable and likable. Also holds meetings and coffee klatches etc. consistently. Regularly goes to legislative district meetings all over the state.

          Like I said, her politics suck, but she is an excellent, and extremely effective, retail politician.

    • joel fisher says:

      AZ just barely went blue and you want to run her off? The blueing of previously red states is going to take a while. One shouldn’t expect an Elizabeth Warren-type Democrat to show up and lock down a Senate seat held very recently by John McCain. The only thing keeping the Democrats in business in West VA is conservative Joe Manchin. His seat is a red seat that the Democrats are basically holding until Manchin calls it quits. Hold your nose and think: big tent.

      • Rugger9 says:

        However, Sinema’s cowardice gave the GQP cover and was particularly galling given that she was already on the record supporting the bill. Murray from WA too, WTAF? It’s harder to hang this filibuster around the GQP necks if some Ds didn’t vote for it either.

        • joel fisher says:

          Yep, “galling” is a good word for it. Now replace her with Martha McSally and, for good measure, replace Joe Manchin with that asshole who broke into the capitol–a real comer in WV GOP circles–and look for the right word. 5’ll get you 10 you won’t be able to say it in church.

  11. jaango1 says:

    Earlier this week, I had to purchase a new computer and in doing so, I had to change many of the codes to access the Internet. To wit, where I work, we got assaulted by SolarWinds and thusly, the Russians are concerned with Chicano politics.

    Today, Edgar Hoover is now “rolling in his grave” for his fictionalized Chicano “insurrection” via his COINTELPRO of many years past.

    As to the subject matter at hand, we have to let the DOJ do its job without the inevitable interference of an Insurrection Commission.

  12. Manwen says:

    The Republicans run around saying that current investigations are sufficient AND that the bipartisan commission will provide political fodder for Democrats. They are putting the Dems in the position of holding investigations that Republicans certainly plan on accusing of being the very “partisan witch hunts” that say a bipartisan commission would bring. They are having it both ways. Then, when the Dems use their “select” committees, or “standing” committees, or if the DOJ investigations brings criminal charges, they will use the epithet “partisan investigation” to attack their findings. It is all set up.
    The 9-11 Commission was completely different. Both political parties held an interest in minimizing their own failings leading up to those attacks. And, the Commission hired Philip Zellikow as the lead staffer. From his position, he controlled the hiring of additional staff, heavily influenced the agenda of the inquiry, and controlled the flow of information. The problem was that Zellikow was Condoleezza Rice’s top aide of many years when she worked at NSC in the Reagan-Bush years. Without Richard C. Clarke’s very public push that the new administration had ignored warnings, along with the diligence of Richard Ben-Venista, the 9-11 Commission’s work would have white-washed many of the failures at the upper levels of government.
    From my perspective, there was a tacit agreement, or acceptance, leading the 9-11 Commission to take it easy on the highest levels of government. By contrast, there is no synchronicity of interests for the Insurrection Commission. The Republicans, once they realized just how complicit many of their fellows appear to be, and the fact that the Democrats had no comparable interests in downplaying the role of political actors on this stage, were never going to support it. For the GOP, an Insurrection Commission is a zero-sum game leading to political suicide.
    As an alternative, Norm Ornstein suggests that the Justice Department should create a unique group (via executive order from Biden, if necessary) to determine whether or not prosecutions are warranted. It seems like it is similar to the Kerner Commission and the Warren Commission, but, it would run through Justice, have subpoena power, yet retain independence from Attorney General Garland.
    No matter the future course, whatever Republicans serve on a bipartisan panel, it will not matter. They will quickly be labeled, “anti-Trumpers”, “RINOs”, or “traitors” by the Trumpets. This group has one playbook. It is predictable. The Dems have to simply find the least assailable means to minimize the inevitable attacks of “partisanship” that are certain to follow whatever the outcome.

    • bmaz says:

      Lol, “it would run through Justice, have subpoena power, yet retain independence from Attorney General Garland.” Ornstein is just being silly.

      • Manwen says:

        Perhaps Ornstein, usually a sober and fair-minded analyst (IMHO) is peering through some rose-colored lenses, seeking light in dark times. I’m probably guilty of that myself. But, we have to find a way to get to the truth of this. I don’t see how it happens without effective subpoena powers. The Trump era led me to believe that at some point, the government has to establish special and expedited authority for court-ordered enforcement of Congressional subpoenas. Perhaps something modeled along the lines of FISA courts without the secrecy needed for national security warrants could be looked at in the future.

  13. Tom says:

    Republicans wanted to include the vandalism that was part of a tiny fraction of last summer’s BLM demonstrations as part of any investigation into the Jan. 6th Insurrection, apparently to create a storyline that both events are equally deserving of condemnation as manifestations of violence in political protest movements. But as I see it, the BLM protests and the Jan. 6th Insurrection are fundamentally different.

    From the news reports I saw, the vast majority of BLM protests were peaceful. Their participants represented a cross section of society and were part of a movement for racial justice that spread around the world. BLM protesters seemed to have a basic trust in the established political system and a belief that peaceful protest could bring about positive change within that system.

    The Insurrectionists, on the other hand, were–and are–a small group of older white men who perceive the world of privilege they grew up in slipping away from them. They seem to feel the established political system has betrayed them and so they reject it absolutely and seek to achieve their goals through threats, intimidation, brute force, and general mayhem. Violence is at the core of their movement, not an unwanted and unintended consequence. They also have fervent allies within the Republican party, which is the ugly and barely concealed truth that McCarthy and McConnell want to keep hidden.

    The GOP devotion to Trump is so un-American and contrary to what the generation of 1776 fought for. If the colonists had wanted a cult of personality they could have stuck with King George III.

    • ChuckD says:

      For a better understanding of what all went down last summer, read up on the Umbrella Man in Minneapolis. Or Noah Latham in Troy, NY.

    • Rayne says:

      Republicans wanted to include the vandalism…

      Yes, because they place property rights at the same or higher level than human rights. They support police without question because police exist primarily to protect property, not people, even from the earliest days of policing in America when it represented slave patrols and pursuit of runaway slaves. Black people protesting in the street represent vandalism against white supremacy — the destruction of white people’s ownership of human chattel, not just the damage to real estate and fixtures — and therefore protests must be linked to property damage in the minds of the public.

      • Tom says:

        Thanks, Rayne, for the reference to the ABA article. I’ve also read that in the antebellum South there were men known as “breakers” whose self-appointed job it was to break the spirit–and body–of slaves who persisted in running away or otherwise resisted their bondage. Derek Chauvin seems to fit that description.

  14. P J Evans says:

    One suggestion I saw, which won’t happen and might not work anyway even if it did happen, is a presidential commission: Biden names Obama and Bush43 as co-chairs, and they choose the members.

  15. Savage Librarian says:

    Act of Omission

    As they spewed their chilling bluster,
    and tarnished the commission luster,
    minimizing militia muster,
    The GOP pitched its downhill duster.

    And as Sinema’s free will shushed her,
    we know we can’t stand still & trust her,
    As for the devious Louisville adjuster,
    democracy must end the filibuster.

    • bmaz says:

      I have every problem in the world with Sinema, and have said so forever. But the apoplexy over her missing a meaningless vote is insane. It is irrelevant. Here is something from over seven years ago, so before folks start carping to me about Sinema, take a step back, I was in this lane long, long before.

        • bmaz says:

          That may be apt. As terrible as she is, she works her ass off for constituents and campaigning. She is not in risk of losing a primary here. Kelly might could be had, but only if Gallego took him on, and he got froze out once already. But Kelly will have a serious GOP opponent, and that is coming soon because his was only a special election.

      • Savage Librarian says:

        Actually, bmaz, this was not at all directed at you. It’s interesting that you thought it was, though. Thanks for sharing.

        And I thought it very helpful that you mentioned her campaigning style. Others should take note. That’s very useful info.

        • bmaz says:

          Oh, did not take it as necessarily directed at me. But at least a continuation of my discussion with Rayne. Despite everything else, it has always been a hallmark of Sinema. It still is, even though a LOT harder statewide than in a single legislative district. But she does still try, and do not sell that kind of effort short, even if her politics truly suck.

  16. OmAli says:

    I’m thinking up a laundry list of things I want to see in an investigation.

    – Subpoenas that can be backed up with jail time for contempt.
    – None of that 5 minutes for every committee member nonsense. They grandstand or poo-fling and never have a coherent, progressive line of questioning. Hire an attorney like Daniel Goldman.
    – Get the Trumps and the pols who were instigators sworn and questioned. Start with McCarthy.
    – Televise the hell out of it.

    What else?

    So what would that be called?

Comments are closed.