Patterico's Pontifications

12/16/2021

Push To Eject Cheney and Kinzinger From GOP Conference Is Confirmation They Are Doing Their Job

Filed under: General — Dana @ 12:24 pm



[guest post by Dana]

[Ed. – If you don’t like posts about the Jan. 6 Committee’s efforts to hold accountable anyone involved in the events of Jan. 6, no matter who they are, and the sad state of today’s Republican Party, then you might want to skip this post.]

I would expect nothing less:

More than 40 conservative figures sent a letter to House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.) on Wednesday urging him to remove Reps. Adam Kinzinger (R-Ill.) and Liz Cheney (R-Wyo.) from the House GOP conference.

The group, which includes a number of Trump allies, said the two Republicans should be booted from the House conference “due to their egregious actions” as members of the House select committee that is tasked with investigating the circumstances around the Jan. 6 riot.

“As you are aware, this committee has no formal representation from Republicans. Both Reps. Cheney and Kinzinger serve at the request of House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.),” the conservatives wrote.

Let’s look at that again: It is an “egregious action” for Republican members to work with Democrats to investigate the events of Jan. 6 and work toward a common goal of identifying the participants and holding them accountable. To assume that Cheney and Kinzinger are rolling over to Democrats because they answered Pelosi’s call is to ignore their intelligence, conservative voting records, and their decision to honor their oath to protect the Constitution.

More:

We ask that the GOP conference meet immediately to vote on stripping Reps. Cheney and Kinzinger from their membership in the GOP conference. We further inform you that conservative leaders are launching a nationwide movement to add citizens voices to this effort.

Cheney hasn’t responded to the letter, but Kinzinger’s spokesperson released this statement:

It’s sad but not surprising that politicians who push conspiracy theories to their constituents and outright lie for their own personal gain are threatened by Congressman Kinzinger, a truth-seeking Member of Congress who respects the institution he serves, the people he represents, and the oath he took to defend and protect the U.S. Constitution.

This is a shot across the bow of any Republicans who might be weighing out whether it’s time to take a stand and push back against the MAGA stranglehold on the Republican Party. And it’s especially a warning to any Republican members to not offer public support to Cheney and Kinzinger. The message from those pushing to eject Cheney and Kinzinger is pretty simple but carries an immense warning: Protect the Constitution of the United States at your own peril even if you swore an oath to do so.

–Dana

58 Responses to “Push To Eject Cheney and Kinzinger From GOP Conference Is Confirmation They Are Doing Their Job”

  1. Oh, hello again.

    Dana (5395f9)

  2. The GOP is all in on stealing elections. No opposition to that will be tolerated. Trump above all.

    Time123 (f941c5)

  3. Big mistake for Pelosi to refuse Jim Jordan and Jim Banks a spot on the Committee, while Adam Schiff is serving. It just makes Cheney and Kizinger look like Pelosi tools and provides oxygen to the Trumpsters. It’s possible that Cheney and Kizinger could actually raise inconvenient questions about Peolosi supposedly refusing Trump’s request to have additional National Guard security, and that would be a turd in the Democrats’ punch bowl.

    The Wean Corps (39c7fd)

  4. I mean, here’s the key thing:

    > It is an “egregious action” for Republican members to work with Democrats

    Working with the other party cannot be tolerated. Our party are good people, the other party are bad people, and if you work with bad people it shows you to be a bad person.

    A lot on the left behave the same way, swapping the names.

    aphrael (4c4719)

  5. ……inconvenient questions about Peolosi supposedly refusing Trump’s request to have additional National Guard security….

    What did Trump say? What is the documentation (Presidential text message, order to the Pentagon)? This conspiracy theory, like others, has absolutely no proof, but if it makes you feel good…..

    There are three key players here: Steven A. Sund, the U.S. Capitol Police chief; Paul D. Irving, the House sergeant-at-arms, and Michael C. Stenger, the Senate sergeant-at-arms. All three resigned under pressure after the Jan. 6 insurrection. Sund said he ran the National Guard request by Irving and Stenger on Jan. 4 and neither supported the idea.

    In a Feb. 1 letter to Pelosi, Sund wrote he “approached the two Sergeants at Arms to request the assistance of the National Guard, as I had no authority to do so without an Emergency Declaration by the Capitol Police Board (CPB).” He said he spoke first to Irving, who “stated that he was concerned about the ‘optics’ and didn’t feel that the intelligence supported it.” Irving suggested Sund check in with Stenger, at the time chair of the CPB, and get his thoughts. “Instead of approving the use of the National Guard, however, Mr. Stenger suggested I ask them how quickly we could get support if needed and to ‘lean forward’ in case we had to request assistance on January 6,” Sund wrote.
    …….
    At a Senate hearing Jan. 23, Irving said the proposed National Guard troops were to be unarmed and only to “work traffic control near the Capitol.”……
    ……..
    Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Tex.) asked whether Irving or Stenger had communicated the Jan. 4 decision on National Guard troops to congressional leadership.

    “On Jan. 4, no, I had no follow-up conversations,” Irving said. “And it was not until the 6th that I alerted leadership that we might be making a request. And that was the end of the discussion.”

    “For myself, it was Jan. 6 that I mentioned it to Leader [Mitch] McConnell’s staff,” Stenger said.

    Drew Hammill, a spokesman for Pelosi, previously told us there had been no discussions between Irving and either Pelosi or her staff about National Guard deployment before Jan. 6. “We are not involved in the day-to-day operations of that office at all,” he said. “We expect security professionals to make security decisions.”
    ………

    Source. Also the House Sergeant at Arms was a John Boehner appointee. Further, “The spokesman (for Rep. Kevin McCarthy), Mark Bednar, added: “The allegation is not that Nancy Pelosi said no National Guard…….” though his boss had said the opposite. They can’t even get their stories straight. The reason Reps. Jordan and Banks (R-Insurrectionists) were bounced from the January 6th Committee was that they kept repeating this and more fake news.

    Rip Murdock (d2a2a8)

  6. live by expulsion, die by expulsion

    pelosi expelled republican selections to the committee, and that was cheered

    cheney and kinzinger certainly had no problem with it

    different rules i guess, no surprise there

    JF (e1156d)

  7. I don’t think I’ve done this much on this site, but imma declare a little bit of “both side-ism” here.

    Those calling for Cheney and Kinzinger to be ousted from the GOP party is doing a massive disservice.

    Likewise, those calling for the some to be punished in a way that could only ever be exacted politically, is also doing a massive disservice.

    The party needs to be able to deal with disagreements in a way that doesn’t tear the party apart and give your political opponents opposition ammo. We need to stop this ‘appeal to purity’ zeal of either being for/against a political candidate.

    If we, as a party, cannot move on from this, it going to end up being ‘this is fine’ meme:
    https://www.dictionary.com/e/wp-content/uploads/2018/03/This-is-Fine-300×300.jpg

    whembly (ae61f7)

  8. Working for free in the Democrat party deserves a 🏆.

    mg (8cbc69)

  9. Kicking them out of the party is probably good for the party. But not in the way the knuckledraggers think. MAKE them start a new movement.

    Kevin M (ab1c11)

  10. The GOP is all in on stealing elections. No opposition to that will be tolerated. Trump above all.

    The Democrats push the Popular Vote Compact, to steal elections (there is no other reason).

    The Democrats push packing the Supreme Court, to steal the Law itself.

    The Democrats have never been above using the courts to alter results when it served them and once sent in phony electoral slates to attempt to steal a presidential election.

    Urban elections have been stolen in the past, and Democrats control urban areas.

    But TRUMP!!! It must be TRUMP!!!

    This is where the magician wants you to look.

    Kevin M (ab1c11)

  11. A lot of people made a career out of being on Nixon’s Enemies List.

    Kevin M (ab1c11)

  12. > The Democrats push the Popular Vote Compact, to steal elections (there is no other reason).

    the Democrats legitimately believe that the popular vote should determine the outcome rather than having it be apportioned across the states, and would be willing to accept a situation where a Republican won the popular vote but wouldn’t win the electoral vote.

    this is a core philosophical difference about how the system should work.

    you’re welcome to argue that republicans believe the people shouldn’t select the electors and the legislature should, but i htink you’d have a hard time to make that case.

    > The Democrats push packing the Supreme Court, to steal the Law itself.

    The Republican leader of the Senate twice changed the rules for confirmation of justices, in the course of less than four years, so as to benefit his side. Democrats are reacting to the Law already being stolen, in their view.

    aphrael (4c4719)

  13. A lot of people made a career out of being on Nixon’s Enemies List.

    Yep.

    DCSCA (f4c5e5)

  14. The left is all in on using Trump as their Emmanuel Goldstein to give cover for their totalitarian actions.

    Cheney and Kinzinger are deliberately aiding and abeting those actions.

    NJRob (41b884)

  15. @

    12 > The Democrats push the Popular Vote Compact, to steal elections (there is no other reason).

    the Democrats legitimately believe that the popular vote should determine the outcome rather than having it be apportioned across the states, and would be willing to accept a situation where a Republican won the popular vote but wouldn’t win the electoral vote.

    this is a core philosophical difference about how the system should work.

    you’re welcome to argue that republicans believe the people shouldn’t select the electors and the legislature should, but i htink you’d have a hard time to make that case.

    That’s because, fundamentally, those arguing for PVC don’t understand why we have the Electoral College in the first plase.

    Historically, the STATES would’ve never signed onto the Constitution without the comprises hammered out in that document.

    I can easily justify and make the case that PVC is not only something we shouldn’t do for a variety of reasons, its also unconstitutional.

    > The Democrats push packing the Supreme Court, to steal the Law itself.

    The Republican leader of the Senate twice changed the rules for confirmation of justices, in the course of less than four years, so as to benefit his side. Democrats are reacting to the Law already being stolen, in their view.

    aphrael (4c4719) — 12/16/2021 @ 2:50 pm

    ?? Twice?

    Harry Reid nuked the filibuster for all political appointees, district judges and appellete justices during the Obama years. (leaving the 60 vote requirement for SCOTUS). Keep in mind, they thought they’d be safe as they knew Hillary Clinton was running, and would likely win, so they thought the GOP wouldn’t return the favor in quite some time.

    Mitch McConnell only nuked it for Gorsuch when it was apparant that Democrats was even interested in good faith.

    whembly (6c6692)

  16. Kevin, I’ve explained by I disagree with your assessment of the PVC

    Time123 (00b120)

  17. More than 40 conservative figures sent a letter to House Minority Leader Kevin

    Just about all of them these days in other words?

    nk (1d9030)

  18. Why was Jim Banks not allowed on the committee, again? Because he voted against certification? Again, Bennie Thompson, who is the chair of the committee, voted against certification in 2005.

    mikeybates (c22064)

  19. The reason Reps. Jordan and Banks (R-Insurrectionists) were bounced from the January 6th Committee was that they kept repeating this and more fake news.

    And there’s a truth test for membership on other committees?

    Samuel Finkelman (02a146)

  20. It is still a big question whether Donald J. Trump Jr texted Mark Meadows that his father had to “leave now” or to “lead now.” Liz Cheney could be more useful if she didn;t seem to acept that everything the Democrats say is true, or that the guilty parties they are hinting at are guilty

    https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/donald-trump-jr-led-text-message-chorus-pleading-for-dad-to-end-jan-6-riot-hes-got-to-condemn-this/ar-AARO7GR?li=BBnb7Kz

    “We need an Oval Office address,” Donald Trump Jr. texted. “He has to leave now. It has gone too far and gotten out of hand,”

    https://www.cnn.com/2021/12/13/politics/trump-jr-text-mark-meadows-january-6/index.html

    Cheney detailed that when Meadows had texted back that he agreed, Trump Jr. said: “We need an Oval office address. He has to lead now. It has gone too far and gotten out of hand.”

    If Liz Cheney let herself read a doctored text, she is a fool.

    I think the truth is Donald J. Trump Jr wrote “leave” since a news outlet close to the Democratic Party – the New York Daily News – has “leave”- as in leave the presidency and because it makes more sense and because that’s what Trump did later – abandoned his efforts to remain in office.

    “Leave” implies that he does not control the mob but he’s got to take the wind out of their sails.

    “Lead” is closer to the idea that mob listened to him, which Nancy Pelosi is pushing.

    Now this was a text message. The change cannot be the result of mishearing. Does anyone want to say it was caused by Autocorrect?

    Samuel Finkelman (02a146)

  21. The Daily News is not the only source that has “leave now”

    https://www.newsbreak.com/news/2460294669709/we-are-all-helpless-jan-6-committee-revealed-texts-from-frightened-lawmakers-begging-mark-meadows-to-get-trump-to-stop-the-violence-at-the-capitol

    “We need an Oval Office address. He has to leave now. It has gone too far and gotten out of hand,” Trump Jr. responded.

    The quotes are otherwise identical. It’s not two different text messages.

    Samuel Finkelman (02a146)

  22. This is all taking place in the House, not the Senate.

    https://www.newsweek.com/mitch-mcconnell-hated-donald-trump-more-he-loved-being-majority-leader-1658181

    Samuel Finkelman (02a146)

  23. Why is what Junior texted, “lead”, “leave”, or “when’s dinner?”, of any significance?

    nk (1d9030)

  24. Changing “leave” to “lead” implies that Trump could control and direct the crowd. “Leave” means he can’t except by dropping his whole effort.

    Sammy Finkelman (02a146)

  25. It’s all of a piece with making Jim Jordan (an elected official) the originator of a plan to keep Trump in office and chopping off the last sentence so as to eliminate the very idea that Mike Pence would have a (barely plausible) legal argument for rejecting a state’s Electoral votes.

    Sammy Finkelman (02a146)

  26. In Junior’s mind, Sammy. Right after “Breathe in, right foot, left foot, right foot, left foot, breathe out, left foot, right foot, ooh shiny, breathe in, ….”

    nk (1d9030)

  27. The republicans response to anything – is why they will lose.

    mg (8cbc69)

  28. ‘The message from those pushing to eject Cheney and Kinzinger is pretty simple but carries an immense warning:’

    Yep: they’re Neocons.

    DCSCA (f4c5e5)

  29. I don’t know about the neocons part, but I think the contempt vote on Mark Meadows stung even non-Trumplicans. Because Meadows is no Bannon or Trump. He has a solid record as a real conservative and a real Republican. And it does tend to make Cheney and Kinzinger look like turncoats against the entire Party.

    nk (1d9030)

  30. The people who want to bounce Cheney and Kinzinger now should have done it sooner.
    I don’t know if it helps or hurts to dump them now.
    I can understand either argument.
    Just dump them now and lets the chips fall where they may, or take the so called high road, let them stay and try to claim the moral high ground…. but if the GOP choose the latter, they have to know they’ll never get any credit for it.

    I’m leaning to a dump them now. Its a crap sandwich either way just get on with it

    steveg (e81d76)

  31. (Meadows) has a solid record as a real conservative and a real Republican.

    Right up until he started swallowing the Trump Kool-Aid.

    Rip Murdock (0a74c4)

  32. cheney and kinzinger certainly had no problem with it

    The proposal against Cheney/Kinzinger is worse than the one against a MAGA QAnon nutter like Marjorie Greene. In what world is it just that that woman stays in the GOP conference while two conservatives with solid pro-Trump voting records get excommunicated?
    BTW, amen Dana. This patent dysfunction in the GOP needs to be confronted and addressed, not swept under some political rug. Trump is the de facto leader of my party, the very worst kind of person to be placed in that position.

    Paul Montagu (5de684)

  33. …chopping off the last sentence so as to eliminate the very idea that Mike Pence would have a (barely plausible) legal argument for rejecting a state’s Electoral votes.

    The “chopped out” part of the text is irrelevant. That so-called legal argument was shot down as part of Trump and his followers’ legal challenges, which had a 1-65 win-loss record.

    Paul Montagu (5de684)

  34. The House adopted House Resolution 503 on June 30, 2021, creating the Select Committee to Investigate the January 6 Attack on the United States Capitol (“J6 Committee”). Ex. A. Resolution 503 required the Speaker to nominate 5 of 13 members “after consultation with the minority leader.” The Speaker did not engage in meaningful consultation with the minority leader. The J6 Committee consists of seven members of the Speaker’s political party and two from the minority party. It does not have a “ranking minority member.”

    H.Res. 503 specifically requires that “5 [of the 13 members] must be appointed after consultation with the minority leader.” Ex. A, p. 3.
    On July 19, 2021, Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy recommended Representatives Jim Banks, Jim Jordan, Rodney Davis, Kelly Armstrong, and Troy Nehls to serve as the Republican members of the J6 Committee.

    Speaker of the House of Representatives Nancy Pelosi refused to accept two of Minority Leader McCarthy’s appointments, Jim Banks and Jim Jordan.

    Speaker Pelosi acknowledged that her refusal to seat the Republican members 10 Case 1:21-cv-03273 Document 1 Filed 12/14/21 Page 11 of 21 recommended by the Minority Leader was “unprecedented.”

    Minority Leader McCarthy thereafter declined to appoint any Republican members to the J6 Committee.

    Speaker Pelosi instead appointed Republican Representatives Liz Cheney and Adam Kinzinger, who, unlike most of the Republican caucus, are publicly aligned with the majority party on all issues relevant to the Select Committee.

    John Eastman v. J6 committee

    It appears that Pelosi has not appointed the required 13 members of the committee and she has neglected to appoint the members that McCarthy recommended. McCarthy specifically did not appoint Liz Cheney nor Adam Kissinger.

    Pelosi didn’t follow the rules. The J6 committee shouldn’t be meeting because they don’t have 13 members as required by the House Resolution 503 .

    Tanny O'Haley (8a06bc)

  35. John Eastman is the author of the legally craptastic memo that misled Trump into the false impression that Pence could hand him a second term despite the popular vote in multiple states. Eastman is also the hyperpartisan hack who asserted that Kamala is not a natural-born citizen, therefore not qualified for president or VP.
    Like it or not, the House can set the rules as it pleases for forming committees, not unlike the House being able to decide what offenses are impeachable or not. The judicial and executive branches have no legal say.

    Paul Montagu (5de684)

  36. The people who care about the jan.6 riot don’t matter and the people who matter 60% of voters don’t care, nattering nabobs of negativism. How many more times are you going to whine jan.6 rioters bad never trumpets good! We don’t care and despite the vermin in the media acting like harpies neither does the majority of americans who will throw the democrats out in 2022 except for leftist deep blue districts like AOC’s.

    asset (079d98)

  37. I finally understood your mention of AOC in every comment, Perry. I had never noticed before how she fills out a bodice — that barracuda mouth has always repelled me. De gustibus …, I guess.

    nk (1d9030)

  38. So, representatives Cheney and Kinzinger fail the test of fealty to a totalitarian wannabe, and must therefore be purged. And the wannabe is no longer even in office! Such a stranglehold on a party by a former president is certainly unprecedented in our history, and is frightening. It’s reached a point where Trump’s thumbs-up or thumbs-down determines the fate of anyone in the party, the party of Lincoln (who is no doubt rolling in his grave because of this hijacking). What used to be a bulwark of sanity is increasingly the home of crackpottery. If a third party is unable to get off the ground, I’m afraid we’re all doomed.

    Roger (17a3ee)

  39. Roger, the pull of the dark side is strong. Look at some of the co-signers of the ejection letter: Brent Bozell, Gary Bauer, Tony Perkins…one would think people who would understand right and wrong….heck one is President of an organization succinctly titled “American Values”. What’s more American that a peaceful transfer of power and an honest assessment of election results? These life-long conservatives….and Christians to boot….are asking people to join in their lie….and their sadly transparent orange calf idolatry. If it wasn’t so jarring and hypocritical, it might be funny….sort of. I get that Trump has given some hanger-ons access and a new opportunity for relevance…Gingrich, Huckabee, and Giuliani come to mind….but of course they’re not alone. The problem is that Trump uses people….hello Jeff Sessions and Mike Pence……and casts them to the curb faster than the head can turn. The stink is applied and the options are slink into a dark corner or bend the knee. And folks here think it’s wonderful….I guess it puffs them up. They love the strongman routine and have gone all in on supporting it. But what good do we feel will come of it. Trump is less than an inch deep on any of his “conservative convictions”. This is about what he personally wants….and at some point the many good people will be crushed from the cognitive dissonance. The American experiment is quaking…..and there’s no excuse for not seeing it and not acting. There will be a coming accounting…as the levels of hate, violence, and partisanship build. At some point can you really say “I didn’t see it coming”? At some point it’s your fault….

    AJ_Liberty (3cb02f)

  40. And there’s a truth test for membership on other committees?

    When the purpose of the committee is to find the truth about what happened, then people who have demonstrated a commitment to protecting central actors in the event should not be on the committee.

    It’s reached a point where Trump’s thumbs-up or thumbs-down determines the fate of anyone in the party,

    This is what’s so astonishing and appalling. The whole mess began with Trump’s repeated statements even before the election that he couldn’t lose except by fraud, and his prediction that the election would be rigged (as his own campaign’s polling indicated he was likely to lose), and his narcissistic refusal to accept the possibility that he could lose a fair contest.

    If Trump hadn’t kept insisting that he was robbed, every day for the past eleven months, there would still be some Trump acolytes saying that he was, but it wouldn’t be the central credo of an entire political party.

    The people who are now trying to protect themselves from accountability would probably not be in this position of Trump hadn’t been looking for any possible way to overturn the election.

    Most of the GOP has put itself in the service of one man’s fragile ego above all else.

    Radegunda (09cf7d)

  41. And there’s a truth test for membership on other committees?

    Remember that Republicans rejected a nonpartisan commission, even though the Democrats gave the Republican negotiators everything they wanted as to how it would be structured.

    Republicans didn’t want an impartial investigation. They preferred to have a pretext to say that any investigation was just a partisan political attack.

    Radegunda (09cf7d)

  42. Like it or not, the House can set the rules as it pleases for forming committees, not unlike the House being able to decide what offenses are impeachable or not. The judicial and executive branches have no legal say.

    Paul Montagu (5de684) — 12/17/2021 @ 12:12 am

    The House Resolution 503 of June 30, 2021 set the rules for the committee. One of which there must be 13 members and there are not 13 members. One which says five members should come from Kevin McCarthy and there are zero. The appointments of Cheney and Kinzinger did not come from McCarthy but came from Pelosi breaking the rules. The rules she agreed to.

    Look in your heart. Do you really believe that the “ends justify the means“? For me this isn’t about the Cheney and Kinzinger, it’s about following their own rules.

    Also, we have this thing called separation of powers. Law enforcement actions cannot come from Congress. They are the legislature. House committees may be formed because of a legislature purpose. What is the legislative purpose of this committee?

    Tanny O'Haley (8a06bc)

  43. At issue with Trump and others asking Vice President Pence to not accept electors from certain states is how the United States constitution determines the method to be used when voting for electors.

    US Constitution Article II Section 1

    Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress…

    Only the state legislature may make changes to election laws for Electors. Any other party making changes to the election laws for Electors is unconstitutional. A number of states violated this rule.

    Some states had the state legislature send electors and the governor send electors from an unconstitutional vote. It was asked of Vice President Pence that in those cases he accept the electors from the state senates and not accept all other electors from governors by unconstitutional elections.

    Tanny O'Haley (8a06bc)

  44. “One which says five members should come from Kevin McCarthy and there are zero. The appointments of Cheney and Kinzinger did not come from McCarthy but came from Pelosi breaking the rules. The rules she agreed to.”

    Pelosi has veto power over McCarthy’s member choices. Did he submit other options after his initial selection was vetoed? If not, that’s his problem.

    “What is the legislative purpose of this committee?”

    Consistent with the functions described in section 4, the purposes of the Select Committee are the following:

    (1) To investigate and report upon the facts, circumstances, and causes relating to the January 6, 2021, domestic terrorist attack upon the United States Capitol Complex (hereafter referred to as the “domestic terrorist attack on the Capitol”) and relating to the interference with the peaceful transfer of power, including facts and causes relating to the preparedness and response of the United States Capitol Police and other Federal, State, and local law enforcement agencies in the National Capital Region and other instrumentalities of government, as well as the influencing factors that fomented such an attack on American representative democracy while engaged in a constitutional process.

    (2) To examine and evaluate evidence developed by relevant Federal, State, and local governmental agencies regarding the facts and circumstances surrounding the domestic terrorist attack on the Capitol and targeted violence and domestic terrorism relevant to such terrorist attack.

    (3) To build upon the investigations of other entities and avoid unnecessary duplication of efforts by reviewing the investigations, findings, conclusions, and recommendations of other executive branch, congressional, or independent bipartisan or nonpartisan commission investigations into the domestic terrorist attack on the Capitol, including investigations into influencing factors related to such attack.

    All this info is available here: https://january6th.house.gov/about

    Davethulhu (014d15)

  45. Pelosi has veto power over McCarthy’s member choices.

    There is no precedent for actually exercising any such veto of members of a committee assigned to it by the minority party (except maybe when someone has been stripped of all committee assignments.

    It is the essence of bipartisanship to allow the minority party to name its own members. The minority party may sometimes (in important committees like Rules) not get its proportional number of members but its members are never vetoed.

    Sammy Finkelman (02a146)

  46. the Democrats legitimately believe that the popular vote should determine the outcome rather than having it be apportioned across the states…

    And the Trumpist genuinely believe that the 2020 election was stolen. The are organizing at the state level to make sure that, should this “fraud” happen again, they have LEGAL methods to address it by changing the electoral slates.

    The Trumpist approach is constitutionally less suspect.

    …and would be willing to accept a situation where a Republican won the popular vote but wouldn’t win the electoral vote.

    Cynically said as the designed structure of the system favors small, rural states that currently favor Republicans. What they really mean is that they want to destroy the compromise that this INTENTIONAL structure is based on. The founders wanted small states to have extra pull and the (illegal) Compact is intended to defeat that.

    Kevin M (ab1c11)

  47. Davethulhu (014d15) — 12/17/2021 @ 12:00 pm

    I don’t see anything listed there that will lead to proposing legislation. Therefore it looks a lot like a law enforcement issue and not under the purview of the house.

    Tanny O'Haley (8a06bc)

  48. And there’s a truth test for membership on other committees?

    Hank “Guam Tipping Over” Johnson is CHAIR of the Judiciary Subcommittee on Courts, Intellectual Property and the Internet. Clearly there are differing standards.

    Kevin M (ab1c11)

  49. Radegunda (09cf7d) — 12/17/2021 @ 8:49 am

    Remember that Republicans rejected a nonpartisan commission, even though the Democrats gave the Republican negotiators everything they wanted as to how it would be structured.

    Yes they did.

    Republicans didn’t want an impartial investigation. They preferred to have a pretext to say that any investigation was just a partisan political attack.

    They didn’t want any investigation (except law enforcement which would go on anyway)

    Trump didn’t want exposure. It does not have to be be that he engineered the whole thing from beginning to end for him not to want that.

    It ids worth investigating. With something other than the aim of just targeting and blaming Trump and Republican politicians and office holders for everything that happened.

    Sammy Finkelman (02a146)

  50. The left is all in on using Trump as their Emmanuel Goldstein to give cover for their totalitarian actions.

    Well, then, how about Trump retires and makes them argue honestly?

    Kevin M (ab1c11)

  51. Yep: they’re Neocons.

    Isn’t it funny that there are only 2 Neocons in Congress now? Pretty much every Republican was in 2003. I wonder how many Trumpists there will be in 2025.

    Kevin M (ab1c11)

  52. Look in your heart. Do you really believe that the “ends justify the means“? For me this isn’t about the Cheney and Kinzinger, it’s about following their own rules.

    I don’t have to like it, Tanny. I’m giving an assessment. The majority has the power to change the rules, and this is a power play by Pelosi, but it’s not subject to intrusion by the other two branches. If we win back the majority, what goes around comes around.

    Paul Montagu (5de684)

  53. “I don’t see anything listed there that will lead to proposing legislation. Therefore it looks a lot like a law enforcement issue and not under the purview of the house.”

    I disagree, but it’s irrelevant. The endless Benghazi committees have set the trend.

    Davethulhu (014d15)

  54. Isn’t it funny that there are only 2 Neocons in Congress now? Pretty much every Republican was in 2003. I wonder how many Trumpists there will be in 2025.

    The rest are on TV. 😉

    DCSCA (f4c5e5)

  55. Just popping in to say how sad it is to see so many “The Honorable”s on this list of names. Irony, thou art a cruel mistress.

    Demosthenes (3fd56e)

  56. Tanny O’Haley (8a06bc) — 12/17/2021 @ 12:49 pm

    I don’t see anything listed there that will lead to proposing legislation.

    They are never too careful about that but they often hold Congressional hearings on events.

    But there are issues of House Administration, and possible structural changes in organization of the federal government, and maybe issues if criminal investigatory law. There are appropriation matters – who should get more (or less) money and for what.

    And you don’t even know what legislative ideas might develop.

    But, in reality, this seems to be an attempt to blame just Donald Trump and Republicans. The issues of bad intelligence forecasting doesn’t seem to be much present.

    Sammy Finkelman (c49738)

  57. Investigate this:

    https://www.hsgac.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/HSGAC&RulesReport_ExaminingU.S.CapitolAttack_%20ExecutiveSummary.pdf

    https://www.rules.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/Jan%206%20HSGAC%20Rules%20Report.pdf

    From Paged 44, 45

    On January 3, IICD issued its final, 15-page Special Assessment for the Joint Session…..

    ….After numerous pages detailing the location of expected protests and traffic closures and at the end of the document, IICD’s overall analysis contained a starker warning:

    Due to the tense political environment following the 2020 election, the threat of disruptive actions or violence cannot be ruled out. Supporters of the current president see January 6, 2021, as the last opportunity to overturn the results of the presidential election. This sense of desperation and disappointment may lead to more of an incentive to become violent. Unlike previous post-election protests, the targets of the pro-Trump supporters are not necessarily the counter-protesters as they were previously, but rather Congress itself is the target on the 6th.

    As outlined above, there has been a worrisome call for protesters to come to these events armed and there is the possibility that protesters may be inclined to become violent. Further, unlike the events on November 14, 2020, and December 12, 2020, there are several more protests scheduled on January 6, 2021, and the majority of them will be on Capitol grounds. The two protests expected to be the largest of the day—the Women for America First protest at the Ellipse and the Stop the Steal protest in Areas 8 and 9— may draw thousands of participants and both have been promoted by President Trump himself. The Stop the Steal protest in particular does not have a permit, but several high profile speakers, including Members of Congress are expected to speak at the event. This combined with Stop the Steal’s propensity to attract white supremacists, militia members, and others who actively promote violence, may lead to a significantly dangerous situation for law enforcement and the general public alike. 260

    In the days following the issuance of the January 3 Special Assessment, IICD issued three DIRs—none of which reflected the likelihood of violence described in the January 3 Special Assessment or more broadly known within IICD. In fact, the January 4, January 5, and January 6 DIRs assessed the probability of acts of civil disobedience from the planned protests across all of Washington, D.C. as “Remote” to “Improbable.”261 Regarding a “Million MAGA March/US Capitol,” the report assigned a probability of “Improbable,” adding as context, “it [is] possible the Million Magi [sic] March folks could organize a demonstration on USCP grounds. Women for America First has permitted on USCP grounds and Freedom Plaza parade permit through MPD and has been the permitted portion of previous Million MAGA Marches.”262 The Stop the Steal event was assigned a probability of “Highly Improbable” given that “no further information has been found to the exact actions planned by this group.”263 The Women for America First event planned for the Ellipse also received a “Highly Improbable” rating, but the report contained no explanation or context as to why this rating was assigned.

    A very very good question.

    Who turned off those warnings, even going to the extent of claiming that the possibility that even the the rally at the Ellipse would actually take place was highly improbable!!!

    The Senate report says:

    One explanation given to the Committees for why the January 3 Special Assessment was not incorporated into the DIRs is because a single analyst prepared and disseminated the DIRs without supervisory review.

    Was there a penetration by the planners of the riot of the Capitol Police’s lead intelligence component: the Intelligence and Interagency Coordination Division

    It sure seems so.

    Sammy Finkelman (c49738)

  58. Shorter:

    “If only Trump knew”

    Kevin M (ab1c11)


Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.2280 secs.