Any bipartisan January 6 commission is probably doomed
...the chances for such a commission are imperiled. A bill to establish it passed the House last Wednesday with support from every Democrat and 35 Republicans. But most others in the GOP, including party leaders, have come out strongly against the bill, with the party’s senators planning a filibuster.
Republicans have evidently calculated that such a commission’s findings would likely hurt their party’s electoral prospects.
But even if a deal does somehow come together, there are real reasons to doubt whether such a commission would achieve anything substantial.
There’s nothing magical about this proposed bipartisan commission — it would have the same formal powers as any ordinary congressional committee looking into the matter. In fact, its requirement for bipartisan support to issue subpoenas means it could well be less aggressive at unearthing new information than, say, a Democratic-only House committee investigation could be.
Its hoped-for advantage would instead be in the realm of messaging. The idea is that if such a body is deemed above politics, it could deliver an assessment of what happened that would be viewed as credible by both sides, shaping a national narrative.
This second aim is what supporters of a January 6 commission are really hoping to achieve. The hope is that, if the reasonable Republicans and Democrats could only get together, they could reach consensus and sagely explain how and why the Capitol was stormed, and how the US can stop something like it from happening again.
It’s a doomed hope.
The sunny view of bipartisan commissions is that members of both parties boldly manage to put politics aside and do the right thing for the country. The more cynical and probably more realistic way to look at them is that politics never truly leaves the process — especially when the issue has serious electoral implications for both parties.
The storming of the Capitol is an issue with very different partisan dynamics, and it’s difficult to imagine what a “balanced” report on it could look like. Any broad and serious assessment of what happened only has a realistic chance of making one party — the party of Donald Trump — look bad. And Republicans have been very clear that, for electoral reasons, they don’t want to do this.
In practice, the commission would spotlight an issue that divides the GOP
Even though Republicans would likely be able to prevent a bipartisan 1/6 commission from achieving much of substance, they’d really prefer not to have one at all.
That’s because, as Thune admitted above and as Liz Cheney’s ouster shows, party strategists view any discussion of Trump’s attempt to overturn the election result as a harmful issue for their party at this point. They want to make the 2022 elections about Biden and Democrats, not Trump.
Democrats, meanwhile, have electoral incentives to try and keep the storming of the Capitol in the news however they can. “Democrats should spend every day tying all of it to the Republican Party,” political consultant James Carville recently told my colleague Sean Illing. (McConnell has reportedly been sharing that interview to argue that Democrats are motivated by politics here.)
So if electoral and messaging advantage is the true goal, the commission would still be worthwhile for Democrats. But feel-good bipartisanship isn’t in the cards, and fact-finding would probably be difficult too if the Republican commissioners agree to vote as a bloc against any controversial subpoenas.
Do Democrats have fallback options if the bill doesn’t pass?
In any event, theories of how such a commission would play out are probably moot, unless there’s a surprising sudden shift in Senate Republicans’ thinking.
Currently, there are a few Senate Republicans, like Susan Collins (R-ME) and Mitt Romney (R-UT), who sound open to supporting a changed version of the bill (Collins wants the staff to be bipartisan, and Romney wants to ensure that they’ll finish by their end-of-year deadline). Many others, though, are dug in firmly against the idea and seem immovable. So the current betting is that the 10 GOP votes needed to overcome a filibuster will not materialize.
What, then, can Democrats do instead?
It’s useful again to remember the two main things such a commission can do — fact-finding and narrative-shaping.
As far as formal fact-finding powers go, a congressional committee can do everything a bipartisan commission can do; namely, it can hold hearings and issue subpoenas. One advantage the commission might have is unified focus on one topic — but that could also be achieved by establishing a special “select committee” to investigate January 6, as House Republicans did for Benghazi.
And when it comes to shaping the narrative, it does seem that congressional committees would, more likely, be deemed partisan by the media, as compared to a special bipartisan commission. But the hope to establish one consensus national narrative around the events of January 6 was always a pipe dream.
Most Republican voters now inhabit an information environment dominated by conservative media outlets like Fox and social media similarly designed to tell them what they want to hear. Acknowledging that reality, the most Democrats may be able to do is push on forward, trying to gather facts and make a public case to their best of their ability — on their own.
This is the post quoting me (from nearly 3 mos age), which sucked me back into this thread.
Had I not received a notification telling me I was quoted, I would not even have opened this stupid thread.
Any bipartisan January 6 commission is probably doomed
...the chances for such a commission are imperiled. A bill to establish it passed the House last Wednesday with support from every Democrat and 35 Republicans. But most others in the GOP, including party leaders, have come out strongly against the bill, with the party’s senators planning a filibuster.
Republicans have evidently calculated that such a commission’s findings would likely hurt their party’s electoral prospects.
But even if a deal does somehow come together, there are real reasons to doubt whether such a commission would achieve anything substantial.
There’s nothing magical about this proposed bipartisan commission — it would have the same formal powers as any ordinary congressional committee looking into the matter. In fact, its requirement for bipartisan support to issue subpoenas means it could well be less aggressive at unearthing new information than, say, a Democratic-only House committee investigation could be.
Its hoped-for advantage would instead be in the realm of messaging. The idea is that if such a body is deemed above politics, it could deliver an assessment of what happened that would be viewed as credible by both sides, shaping a national narrative.
This second aim is what supporters of a January 6 commission are really hoping to achieve. The hope is that, if the reasonable Republicans and Democrats could only get together, they could reach consensus and sagely explain how and why the Capitol was stormed, and how the US can stop something like it from happening again.
It’s a doomed hope.
The sunny view of bipartisan commissions is that members of both parties boldly manage to put politics aside and do the right thing for the country. The more cynical and probably more realistic way to look at them is that politics never truly leaves the process — especially when the issue has serious electoral implications for both parties.
The storming of the Capitol is an issue with very different partisan dynamics, and it’s difficult to imagine what a “balanced” report on it could look like. Any broad and serious assessment of what happened only has a realistic chance of making one party — the party of Donald Trump — look bad. And Republicans have been very clear that, for electoral reasons, they don’t want to do this.
In practice, the commission would spotlight an issue that divides the GOP
Even though Republicans would likely be able to prevent a bipartisan 1/6 commission from achieving much of substance, they’d really prefer not to have one at all.
That’s because, as Thune admitted above and as Liz Cheney’s ouster shows, party strategists view any discussion of Trump’s attempt to overturn the election result as a harmful issue for their party at this point. They want to make the 2022 elections about Biden and Democrats, not Trump.
Democrats, meanwhile, have electoral incentives to try and keep the storming of the Capitol in the news however they can. “Democrats should spend every day tying all of it to the Republican Party,” political consultant James Carville recently told my colleague Sean Illing. (McConnell has reportedly been sharing that interview to argue that Democrats are motivated by politics here.)
So if electoral and messaging advantage is the true goal, the commission would still be worthwhile for Democrats. But feel-good bipartisanship isn’t in the cards, and fact-finding would probably be difficult too if the Republican commissioners agree to vote as a bloc against any controversial subpoenas.
Do Democrats have fallback options if the bill doesn’t pass?
In any event, theories of how such a commission would play out are probably moot, unless there’s a surprising sudden shift in Senate Republicans’ thinking.
Currently, there are a few Senate Republicans, like Susan Collins (R-ME) and Mitt Romney (R-UT), who sound open to supporting a changed version of the bill (Collins wants the staff to be bipartisan, and Romney wants to ensure that they’ll finish by their end-of-year deadline). Many others, though, are dug in firmly against the idea and seem immovable. So the current betting is that the 10 GOP votes needed to overcome a filibuster will not materialize.
What, then, can Democrats do instead?
It’s useful again to remember the two main things such a commission can do — fact-finding and narrative-shaping.
As far as formal fact-finding powers go, a congressional committee can do everything a bipartisan commission can do; namely, it can hold hearings and issue subpoenas. One advantage the commission might have is unified focus on one topic — but that could also be achieved by establishing a special “select committee” to investigate January 6, as House Republicans did for Benghazi.
And when it comes to shaping the narrative, it does seem that congressional committees would, more likely, be deemed partisan by the media, as compared to a special bipartisan commission. But the hope to establish one consensus national narrative around the events of January 6 was always a pipe dream.
Most Republican voters now inhabit an information environment dominated by conservative media outlets like Fox and social media similarly designed to tell them what they want to hear. Acknowledging that reality, the most Democrats may be able to do is push on forward, trying to gather facts and make a public case to their best of their ability — on their own.
This is the post quoting me (from nearly 3 mos age), which sucked me back into this thread.
Had I not received a notification telling me I was quoted, I would not even have opened this stupid thread.
I only posted an eye roll because you suggested it. You posted that long diatribe. TL/DR. Lay off the geritrol.
Any bipartisan January 6 commission is probably doomed
...the chances for such a commission are imperiled. A bill to establish it passed the House last Wednesday with support from every Democrat and 35 Republicans. But most others in the GOP, including party leaders, have come out strongly against the bill, with the party’s senators planning a filibuster.
Republicans have evidently calculated that such a commission’s findings would likely hurt their party’s electoral prospects.
But even if a deal does somehow come together, there are real reasons to doubt whether such a commission would achieve anything substantial.
There’s nothing magical about this proposed bipartisan commission — it would have the same formal powers as any ordinary congressional committee looking into the matter. In fact, its requirement for bipartisan support to issue subpoenas means it could well be less aggressive at unearthing new information than, say, a Democratic-only House committee investigation could be.
Its hoped-for advantage would instead be in the realm of messaging. The idea is that if such a body is deemed above politics, it could deliver an assessment of what happened that would be viewed as credible by both sides, shaping a national narrative.
This second aim is what supporters of a January 6 commission are really hoping to achieve. The hope is that, if the reasonable Republicans and Democrats could only get together, they could reach consensus and sagely explain how and why the Capitol was stormed, and how the US can stop something like it from happening again.
It’s a doomed hope.
The sunny view of bipartisan commissions is that members of both parties boldly manage to put politics aside and do the right thing for the country. The more cynical and probably more realistic way to look at them is that politics never truly leaves the process — especially when the issue has serious electoral implications for both parties.
The storming of the Capitol is an issue with very different partisan dynamics, and it’s difficult to imagine what a “balanced” report on it could look like. Any broad and serious assessment of what happened only has a realistic chance of making one party — the party of Donald Trump — look bad. And Republicans have been very clear that, for electoral reasons, they don’t want to do this.
In practice, the commission would spotlight an issue that divides the GOP
Even though Republicans would likely be able to prevent a bipartisan 1/6 commission from achieving much of substance, they’d really prefer not to have one at all.
That’s because, as Thune admitted above and as Liz Cheney’s ouster shows, party strategists view any discussion of Trump’s attempt to overturn the election result as a harmful issue for their party at this point. They want to make the 2022 elections about Biden and Democrats, not Trump.
Democrats, meanwhile, have electoral incentives to try and keep the storming of the Capitol in the news however they can. “Democrats should spend every day tying all of it to the Republican Party,” political consultant James Carville recently told my colleague Sean Illing. (McConnell has reportedly been sharing that interview to argue that Democrats are motivated by politics here.)
So if electoral and messaging advantage is the true goal, the commission would still be worthwhile for Democrats. But feel-good bipartisanship isn’t in the cards, and fact-finding would probably be difficult too if the Republican commissioners agree to vote as a bloc against any controversial subpoenas.
Do Democrats have fallback options if the bill doesn’t pass?
In any event, theories of how such a commission would play out are probably moot, unless there’s a surprising sudden shift in Senate Republicans’ thinking.
Currently, there are a few Senate Republicans, like Susan Collins (R-ME) and Mitt Romney (R-UT), who sound open to supporting a changed version of the bill (Collins wants the staff to be bipartisan, and Romney wants to ensure that they’ll finish by their end-of-year deadline). Many others, though, are dug in firmly against the idea and seem immovable. So the current betting is that the 10 GOP votes needed to overcome a filibuster will not materialize.
What, then, can Democrats do instead?
It’s useful again to remember the two main things such a commission can do — fact-finding and narrative-shaping.
As far as formal fact-finding powers go, a congressional committee can do everything a bipartisan commission can do; namely, it can hold hearings and issue subpoenas. One advantage the commission might have is unified focus on one topic — but that could also be achieved by establishing a special “select committee” to investigate January 6, as House Republicans did for Benghazi.
And when it comes to shaping the narrative, it does seem that congressional committees would, more likely, be deemed partisan by the media, as compared to a special bipartisan commission. But the hope to establish one consensus national narrative around the events of January 6 was always a pipe dream.
Most Republican voters now inhabit an information environment dominated by conservative media outlets like Fox and social media similarly designed to tell them what they want to hear. Acknowledging that reality, the most Democrats may be able to do is push on forward, trying to gather facts and make a public case to their best of their ability — on their own.
This is the post quoting me (from nearly 3 mos age), which sucked me back into this thread.
Had I not received a notification telling me I was quoted, I would not even have opened this stupid thread.
I only posted an eye roll because you suggested it. You posted that long diatribe. TL/DR. Lay off the geritrol.
Why are you trolling me now, with a 3 mos old post, which was accurate? There was no bi-partisan commission.
You seem disoriented. Don't cross the street alone.
Any bipartisan January 6 commission is probably doomed
...the chances for such a commission are imperiled. A bill to establish it passed the House last Wednesday with support from every Democrat and 35 Republicans. But most others in the GOP, including party leaders, have come out strongly against the bill, with the party’s senators planning a filibuster.
Republicans have evidently calculated that such a commission’s findings would likely hurt their party’s electoral prospects.
But even if a deal does somehow come together, there are real reasons to doubt whether such a commission would achieve anything substantial.
There’s nothing magical about this proposed bipartisan commission — it would have the same formal powers as any ordinary congressional committee looking into the matter. In fact, its requirement for bipartisan support to issue subpoenas means it could well be less aggressive at unearthing new information than, say, a Democratic-only House committee investigation could be.
Its hoped-for advantage would instead be in the realm of messaging. The idea is that if such a body is deemed above politics, it could deliver an assessment of what happened that would be viewed as credible by both sides, shaping a national narrative.
This second aim is what supporters of a January 6 commission are really hoping to achieve. The hope is that, if the reasonable Republicans and Democrats could only get together, they could reach consensus and sagely explain how and why the Capitol was stormed, and how the US can stop something like it from happening again.
It’s a doomed hope.
The sunny view of bipartisan commissions is that members of both parties boldly manage to put politics aside and do the right thing for the country. The more cynical and probably more realistic way to look at them is that politics never truly leaves the process — especially when the issue has serious electoral implications for both parties.
The storming of the Capitol is an issue with very different partisan dynamics, and it’s difficult to imagine what a “balanced” report on it could look like. Any broad and serious assessment of what happened only has a realistic chance of making one party — the party of Donald Trump — look bad. And Republicans have been very clear that, for electoral reasons, they don’t want to do this.
In practice, the commission would spotlight an issue that divides the GOP
Even though Republicans would likely be able to prevent a bipartisan 1/6 commission from achieving much of substance, they’d really prefer not to have one at all.
That’s because, as Thune admitted above and as Liz Cheney’s ouster shows, party strategists view any discussion of Trump’s attempt to overturn the election result as a harmful issue for their party at this point. They want to make the 2022 elections about Biden and Democrats, not Trump.
Democrats, meanwhile, have electoral incentives to try and keep the storming of the Capitol in the news however they can. “Democrats should spend every day tying all of it to the Republican Party,” political consultant James Carville recently told my colleague Sean Illing. (McConnell has reportedly been sharing that interview to argue that Democrats are motivated by politics here.)
So if electoral and messaging advantage is the true goal, the commission would still be worthwhile for Democrats. But feel-good bipartisanship isn’t in the cards, and fact-finding would probably be difficult too if the Republican commissioners agree to vote as a bloc against any controversial subpoenas.
Do Democrats have fallback options if the bill doesn’t pass?
In any event, theories of how such a commission would play out are probably moot, unless there’s a surprising sudden shift in Senate Republicans’ thinking.
Currently, there are a few Senate Republicans, like Susan Collins (R-ME) and Mitt Romney (R-UT), who sound open to supporting a changed version of the bill (Collins wants the staff to be bipartisan, and Romney wants to ensure that they’ll finish by their end-of-year deadline). Many others, though, are dug in firmly against the idea and seem immovable. So the current betting is that the 10 GOP votes needed to overcome a filibuster will not materialize.
What, then, can Democrats do instead?
It’s useful again to remember the two main things such a commission can do — fact-finding and narrative-shaping.
As far as formal fact-finding powers go, a congressional committee can do everything a bipartisan commission can do; namely, it can hold hearings and issue subpoenas. One advantage the commission might have is unified focus on one topic — but that could also be achieved by establishing a special “select committee” to investigate January 6, as House Republicans did for Benghazi.
And when it comes to shaping the narrative, it does seem that congressional committees would, more likely, be deemed partisan by the media, as compared to a special bipartisan commission. But the hope to establish one consensus national narrative around the events of January 6 was always a pipe dream.
Most Republican voters now inhabit an information environment dominated by conservative media outlets like Fox and social media similarly designed to tell them what they want to hear. Acknowledging that reality, the most Democrats may be able to do is push on forward, trying to gather facts and make a public case to their best of their ability — on their own.
This is the post quoting me (from nearly 3 mos age), which sucked me back into this thread.
Had I not received a notification telling me I was quoted, I would not even have opened this stupid thread.
I only posted an eye roll because you suggested it. You posted that long diatribe. TL/DR. Lay off the geritrol.
Why are you trolling me now, with a 3 mos old post, which was accurate? There was no bi-partisan commission.
You seem disoriented. Don't cross the street alone.
I made no reference to any commission. I did post an eye roll because you suggested it. You are confused. Could be a UTI.
Any bipartisan January 6 commission is probably doomed
...the chances for such a commission are imperiled. A bill to establish it passed the House last Wednesday with support from every Democrat and 35 Republicans. But most others in the GOP, including party leaders, have come out strongly against the bill, with the party’s senators planning a filibuster.
Republicans have evidently calculated that such a commission’s findings would likely hurt their party’s electoral prospects.
But even if a deal does somehow come together, there are real reasons to doubt whether such a commission would achieve anything substantial.
There’s nothing magical about this proposed bipartisan commission — it would have the same formal powers as any ordinary congressional committee looking into the matter. In fact, its requirement for bipartisan support to issue subpoenas means it could well be less aggressive at unearthing new information than, say, a Democratic-only House committee investigation could be.
Its hoped-for advantage would instead be in the realm of messaging. The idea is that if such a body is deemed above politics, it could deliver an assessment of what happened that would be viewed as credible by both sides, shaping a national narrative.
This second aim is what supporters of a January 6 commission are really hoping to achieve. The hope is that, if the reasonable Republicans and Democrats could only get together, they could reach consensus and sagely explain how and why the Capitol was stormed, and how the US can stop something like it from happening again.
It’s a doomed hope.
The sunny view of bipartisan commissions is that members of both parties boldly manage to put politics aside and do the right thing for the country. The more cynical and probably more realistic way to look at them is that politics never truly leaves the process — especially when the issue has serious electoral implications for both parties.
The storming of the Capitol is an issue with very different partisan dynamics, and it’s difficult to imagine what a “balanced” report on it could look like. Any broad and serious assessment of what happened only has a realistic chance of making one party — the party of Donald Trump — look bad. And Republicans have been very clear that, for electoral reasons, they don’t want to do this.
In practice, the commission would spotlight an issue that divides the GOP
Even though Republicans would likely be able to prevent a bipartisan 1/6 commission from achieving much of substance, they’d really prefer not to have one at all.
That’s because, as Thune admitted above and as Liz Cheney’s ouster shows, party strategists view any discussion of Trump’s attempt to overturn the election result as a harmful issue for their party at this point. They want to make the 2022 elections about Biden and Democrats, not Trump.
Democrats, meanwhile, have electoral incentives to try and keep the storming of the Capitol in the news however they can. “Democrats should spend every day tying all of it to the Republican Party,” political consultant James Carville recently told my colleague Sean Illing. (McConnell has reportedly been sharing that interview to argue that Democrats are motivated by politics here.)
So if electoral and messaging advantage is the true goal, the commission would still be worthwhile for Democrats. But feel-good bipartisanship isn’t in the cards, and fact-finding would probably be difficult too if the Republican commissioners agree to vote as a bloc against any controversial subpoenas.
Do Democrats have fallback options if the bill doesn’t pass?
In any event, theories of how such a commission would play out are probably moot, unless there’s a surprising sudden shift in Senate Republicans’ thinking.
Currently, there are a few Senate Republicans, like Susan Collins (R-ME) and Mitt Romney (R-UT), who sound open to supporting a changed version of the bill (Collins wants the staff to be bipartisan, and Romney wants to ensure that they’ll finish by their end-of-year deadline). Many others, though, are dug in firmly against the idea and seem immovable. So the current betting is that the 10 GOP votes needed to overcome a filibuster will not materialize.
What, then, can Democrats do instead?
It’s useful again to remember the two main things such a commission can do — fact-finding and narrative-shaping.
As far as formal fact-finding powers go, a congressional committee can do everything a bipartisan commission can do; namely, it can hold hearings and issue subpoenas. One advantage the commission might have is unified focus on one topic — but that could also be achieved by establishing a special “select committee” to investigate January 6, as House Republicans did for Benghazi.
And when it comes to shaping the narrative, it does seem that congressional committees would, more likely, be deemed partisan by the media, as compared to a special bipartisan commission. But the hope to establish one consensus national narrative around the events of January 6 was always a pipe dream.
Most Republican voters now inhabit an information environment dominated by conservative media outlets like Fox and social media similarly designed to tell them what they want to hear. Acknowledging that reality, the most Democrats may be able to do is push on forward, trying to gather facts and make a public case to their best of their ability — on their own.
This is the post quoting me (from nearly 3 mos age), which sucked me back into this thread.
Had I not received a notification telling me I was quoted, I would not even have opened this stupid thread.
I only posted an eye roll because you suggested it. You posted that long diatribe. TL/DR. Lay off the geritrol.
Why are you trolling me now, with a 3 mos old post, which was accurate? There was no bi-partisan commission.
You seem disoriented. Don't cross the street alone.
I made no reference to any commission. I did post an eye roll because you suggested it. You are confused. Could be a UTI.
That post is nearly 3 mos old & unrelated to anything going on now. OBE. You're really falling behind on your trolling.
Any bipartisan January 6 commission is probably doomed
...the chances for such a commission are imperiled. A bill to establish it passed the House last Wednesday with support from every Democrat and 35 Republicans. But most others in the GOP, including party leaders, have come out strongly against the bill, with the party’s senators planning a filibuster.
Republicans have evidently calculated that such a commission’s findings would likely hurt their party’s electoral prospects.
But even if a deal does somehow come together, there are real reasons to doubt whether such a commission would achieve anything substantial.
There’s nothing magical about this proposed bipartisan commission — it would have the same formal powers as any ordinary congressional committee looking into the matter. In fact, its requirement for bipartisan support to issue subpoenas means it could well be less aggressive at unearthing new information than, say, a Democratic-only House committee investigation could be.
Its hoped-for advantage would instead be in the realm of messaging. The idea is that if such a body is deemed above politics, it could deliver an assessment of what happened that would be viewed as credible by both sides, shaping a national narrative.
This second aim is what supporters of a January 6 commission are really hoping to achieve. The hope is that, if the reasonable Republicans and Democrats could only get together, they could reach consensus and sagely explain how and why the Capitol was stormed, and how the US can stop something like it from happening again.
It’s a doomed hope.
The sunny view of bipartisan commissions is that members of both parties boldly manage to put politics aside and do the right thing for the country. The more cynical and probably more realistic way to look at them is that politics never truly leaves the process — especially when the issue has serious electoral implications for both parties.
The storming of the Capitol is an issue with very different partisan dynamics, and it’s difficult to imagine what a “balanced” report on it could look like. Any broad and serious assessment of what happened only has a realistic chance of making one party — the party of Donald Trump — look bad. And Republicans have been very clear that, for electoral reasons, they don’t want to do this.
In practice, the commission would spotlight an issue that divides the GOP
Even though Republicans would likely be able to prevent a bipartisan 1/6 commission from achieving much of substance, they’d really prefer not to have one at all.
That’s because, as Thune admitted above and as Liz Cheney’s ouster shows, party strategists view any discussion of Trump’s attempt to overturn the election result as a harmful issue for their party at this point. They want to make the 2022 elections about Biden and Democrats, not Trump.
Democrats, meanwhile, have electoral incentives to try and keep the storming of the Capitol in the news however they can. “Democrats should spend every day tying all of it to the Republican Party,” political consultant James Carville recently told my colleague Sean Illing. (McConnell has reportedly been sharing that interview to argue that Democrats are motivated by politics here.)
So if electoral and messaging advantage is the true goal, the commission would still be worthwhile for Democrats. But feel-good bipartisanship isn’t in the cards, and fact-finding would probably be difficult too if the Republican commissioners agree to vote as a bloc against any controversial subpoenas.
Do Democrats have fallback options if the bill doesn’t pass?
In any event, theories of how such a commission would play out are probably moot, unless there’s a surprising sudden shift in Senate Republicans’ thinking.
Currently, there are a few Senate Republicans, like Susan Collins (R-ME) and Mitt Romney (R-UT), who sound open to supporting a changed version of the bill (Collins wants the staff to be bipartisan, and Romney wants to ensure that they’ll finish by their end-of-year deadline). Many others, though, are dug in firmly against the idea and seem immovable. So the current betting is that the 10 GOP votes needed to overcome a filibuster will not materialize.
What, then, can Democrats do instead?
It’s useful again to remember the two main things such a commission can do — fact-finding and narrative-shaping.
As far as formal fact-finding powers go, a congressional committee can do everything a bipartisan commission can do; namely, it can hold hearings and issue subpoenas. One advantage the commission might have is unified focus on one topic — but that could also be achieved by establishing a special “select committee” to investigate January 6, as House Republicans did for Benghazi.
And when it comes to shaping the narrative, it does seem that congressional committees would, more likely, be deemed partisan by the media, as compared to a special bipartisan commission. But the hope to establish one consensus national narrative around the events of January 6 was always a pipe dream.
Most Republican voters now inhabit an information environment dominated by conservative media outlets like Fox and social media similarly designed to tell them what they want to hear. Acknowledging that reality, the most Democrats may be able to do is push on forward, trying to gather facts and make a public case to their best of their ability — on their own.
This is the post quoting me (from nearly 3 mos age), which sucked me back into this thread.
Had I not received a notification telling me I was quoted, I would not even have opened this stupid thread.
I only posted an eye roll because you suggested it. You posted that long diatribe. TL/DR. Lay off the geritrol.
Why are you trolling me now, with a 3 mos old post, which was accurate? There was no bi-partisan commission.
You seem disoriented. Don't cross the street alone.
I made no reference to any commission. I did post an eye roll because you suggested it. You are confused. Could be a UTI.
That post is nearly 3 mos old & unrelated to anything going on now. OBE. You're really falling behind on your trolling.
I saw it today. Wasn’t scrolling through old posts. You ain’t that important. I made a mistake if that wasn’t something you posted today. If necessary, I apologize. You provide plenty of cheddar. I don’t need to go through posts. I suppose it’s possible I landed on that page some how and did realize it wasn’t today.
Any bipartisan January 6 commission is probably doomed
...the chances for such a commission are imperiled. A bill to establish it passed the House last Wednesday with support from every Democrat and 35 Republicans. But most others in the GOP, including party leaders, have come out strongly against the bill, with the party’s senators planning a filibuster.
Republicans have evidently calculated that such a commission’s findings would likely hurt their party’s electoral prospects.
But even if a deal does somehow come together, there are real reasons to doubt whether such a commission would achieve anything substantial.
There’s nothing magical about this proposed bipartisan commission — it would have the same formal powers as any ordinary congressional committee looking into the matter. In fact, its requirement for bipartisan support to issue subpoenas means it could well be less aggressive at unearthing new information than, say, a Democratic-only House committee investigation could be.
Its hoped-for advantage would instead be in the realm of messaging. The idea is that if such a body is deemed above politics, it could deliver an assessment of what happened that would be viewed as credible by both sides, shaping a national narrative.
This second aim is what supporters of a January 6 commission are really hoping to achieve. The hope is that, if the reasonable Republicans and Democrats could only get together, they could reach consensus and sagely explain how and why the Capitol was stormed, and how the US can stop something like it from happening again.
It’s a doomed hope.
The sunny view of bipartisan commissions is that members of both parties boldly manage to put politics aside and do the right thing for the country. The more cynical and probably more realistic way to look at them is that politics never truly leaves the process — especially when the issue has serious electoral implications for both parties.
The storming of the Capitol is an issue with very different partisan dynamics, and it’s difficult to imagine what a “balanced” report on it could look like. Any broad and serious assessment of what happened only has a realistic chance of making one party — the party of Donald Trump — look bad. And Republicans have been very clear that, for electoral reasons, they don’t want to do this.
In practice, the commission would spotlight an issue that divides the GOP
Even though Republicans would likely be able to prevent a bipartisan 1/6 commission from achieving much of substance, they’d really prefer not to have one at all.
That’s because, as Thune admitted above and as Liz Cheney’s ouster shows, party strategists view any discussion of Trump’s attempt to overturn the election result as a harmful issue for their party at this point. They want to make the 2022 elections about Biden and Democrats, not Trump.
Democrats, meanwhile, have electoral incentives to try and keep the storming of the Capitol in the news however they can. “Democrats should spend every day tying all of it to the Republican Party,” political consultant James Carville recently told my colleague Sean Illing. (McConnell has reportedly been sharing that interview to argue that Democrats are motivated by politics here.)
So if electoral and messaging advantage is the true goal, the commission would still be worthwhile for Democrats. But feel-good bipartisanship isn’t in the cards, and fact-finding would probably be difficult too if the Republican commissioners agree to vote as a bloc against any controversial subpoenas.
Do Democrats have fallback options if the bill doesn’t pass?
In any event, theories of how such a commission would play out are probably moot, unless there’s a surprising sudden shift in Senate Republicans’ thinking.
Currently, there are a few Senate Republicans, like Susan Collins (R-ME) and Mitt Romney (R-UT), who sound open to supporting a changed version of the bill (Collins wants the staff to be bipartisan, and Romney wants to ensure that they’ll finish by their end-of-year deadline). Many others, though, are dug in firmly against the idea and seem immovable. So the current betting is that the 10 GOP votes needed to overcome a filibuster will not materialize.
What, then, can Democrats do instead?
It’s useful again to remember the two main things such a commission can do — fact-finding and narrative-shaping.
As far as formal fact-finding powers go, a congressional committee can do everything a bipartisan commission can do; namely, it can hold hearings and issue subpoenas. One advantage the commission might have is unified focus on one topic — but that could also be achieved by establishing a special “select committee” to investigate January 6, as House Republicans did for Benghazi.
And when it comes to shaping the narrative, it does seem that congressional committees would, more likely, be deemed partisan by the media, as compared to a special bipartisan commission. But the hope to establish one consensus national narrative around the events of January 6 was always a pipe dream.
Most Republican voters now inhabit an information environment dominated by conservative media outlets like Fox and social media similarly designed to tell them what they want to hear. Acknowledging that reality, the most Democrats may be able to do is push on forward, trying to gather facts and make a public case to their best of their ability — on their own.
This is the post quoting me (from nearly 3 mos age), which sucked me back into this thread.
Had I not received a notification telling me I was quoted, I would not even have opened this stupid thread.
I only posted an eye roll because you suggested it. You posted that long diatribe. TL/DR. Lay off the geritrol.
Why are you trolling me now, with a 3 mos old post, which was accurate? There was no bi-partisan commission.
You seem disoriented. Don't cross the street alone.
I made no reference to any commission. I did post an eye roll because you suggested it. You are confused. Could be a UTI.
That post is nearly 3 mos old & unrelated to anything going on now. OBE. You're really falling behind on your trolling.
I saw it today. Wasn’t scrolling through old posts. You ain’t that important. I made a mistake if that wasn’t something you posted today. If necessary, I apologize. You provide plenty of cheddar. I don’t need to go through posts. I suppose it’s possible I landed on that page some how and did realize it wasn’t today.
That's ok. You gave afan a chance to pile on. ...even though he didn't know what he was responding to. Nothing new there.
I haven't had time to post much lately. I know it's been hard on you guys.
And some people still deny that political party as currently constituted isn’t an existential threat to our rule of law.
The principal threat to democracy is the GOP. Not an opinion.
" Not an opinion" then what is it then counselor??? IMO the radical ideologies spewing out of both parties are a threat to democracy. It never ceases to amaze me how ideologues on both sides only see what the other side is up to. The critical analysis is not relavant to your own party, it's the other party that is doing everything wrong. I believe there is more than enough blame for both parties. I have been watching some of the BS campaign propaganda coming from all local candidates. The common theme is the other party is responsible for what is going wrong and their party is responsible for anything that is working. What a surprise.
We don't make mistakes, we have happy accidents.
Bob Ross:
And some people still deny that political party as currently constituted isn’t an existential threat to our rule of law.
The principal threat to democracy is the GOP. Not an opinion.
" Not an opinion" then what is it then counselor??? IMO the radical ideologies spewing out of both parties are a threat to democracy. It never ceases to amaze me how ideologues on both sides only see what the other side is up to. The critical analysis is not relavant to your own party, it's the other party that is doing everything wrong. I believe there is more than enough blame for both parties. I have been watching some of the BS campaign propaganda coming from all local candidates. The common theme is the other party is responsible for what is going wrong and their party is responsible for anything that is working. What a surprise.
Can you tell us the specific conduct resulting from Democrats' "radical ideologues" that threatens democracy?
And some people still deny that political party as currently constituted isn’t an existential threat to our rule of law.
The principal threat to democracy is the GOP. Not an opinion.
" Not an opinion" then what is it then counselor??? IMO the radical ideologies spewing out of both parties are a threat to democracy. It never ceases to amaze me how ideologues on both sides only see what the other side is up to. The critical analysis is not relavant to your own party, it's the other party that is doing everything wrong. I believe there is more than enough blame for both parties. I have been watching some of the BS campaign propaganda coming from all local candidates. The common theme is the other party is responsible for what is going wrong and their party is responsible for anything that is working. What a surprise.
Can you tell us the specific conduct resulting from Democrats' "radical ideologues" that threatens democracy?
Spoken like a true lawyer... move to NYS and enjoy the ride and enjoy the view. Can you explain to us how the GOP is the principal threat to democracy??? Your trying to deflect because you know you can't defend your own asinine statement. I can give you an example from my own state. You ever heard of the SAFE ACT??? Is that specific enough for you? King Andy could have put these ideas up for the residents of NYS to decide. You grouse about "radical ideologues" that threaten democracy. Your party is no different than the republicans. Your side wants what it wants and it wants it right now.. The least you can do counselor is fess up to your parties agenda.
We don't make mistakes, we have happy accidents.
Bob Ross:
And some people still deny that political party as currently constituted isn’t an existential threat to our rule of law.
The principal threat to democracy is the GOP. Not an opinion.
" Not an opinion" then what is it then counselor??? IMO the radical ideologies spewing out of both parties are a threat to democracy. It never ceases to amaze me how ideologues on both sides only see what the other side is up to. The critical analysis is not relavant to your own party, it's the other party that is doing everything wrong. I believe there is more than enough blame for both parties. I have been watching some of the BS campaign propaganda coming from all local candidates. The common theme is the other party is responsible for what is going wrong and their party is responsible for anything that is working. What a surprise.
Can you tell us the specific conduct resulting from Democrats' "radical ideologues" that threatens democracy?
Spoken like a true lawyer... move to NYS and enjoy the ride and enjoy the view. Can you explain to us how the GOP is the principal threat to democracy??? Your trying to deflect because you know you can't defend your own asinine statement. I can give you an example from my own state. You ever heard of the SAFE ACT??? Is that specific enough for you? King Andy could have put these ideas up for the residents of NYS to decide. You grouse about "radical ideologues" that threaten democracy. Your party is no different than the republicans. Your side wants what it wants and it wants it right now.. The least you can do counselor is fess up to your parties agenda.
And some people still deny that political party as currently constituted isn’t an existential threat to our rule of law.
The principal threat to democracy is the GOP. Not an opinion.
" Not an opinion" then what is it then counselor??? IMO the radical ideologies spewing out of both parties are a threat to democracy. It never ceases to amaze me how ideologues on both sides only see what the other side is up to. The critical analysis is not relavant to your own party, it's the other party that is doing everything wrong. I believe there is more than enough blame for both parties. I have been watching some of the BS campaign propaganda coming from all local candidates. The common theme is the other party is responsible for what is going wrong and their party is responsible for anything that is working. What a surprise.
Can you tell us the specific conduct resulting from Democrats' "radical ideologues" that threatens democracy?
Spoken like a true lawyer... move to NYS and enjoy the ride and enjoy the view. Can you explain to us how the GOP is the principal threat to democracy??? Your trying to deflect because you know you can't defend your own asinine statement. I can give you an example from my own state. You ever heard of the SAFE ACT??? Is that specific enough for you? King Andy could have put these ideas up for the residents of NYS to decide. You grouse about "radical ideologues" that threaten democracy. Your party is no different than the republicans. Your side wants what it wants and it wants it right now.. The least you can do counselor is fess up to your parties agenda.
Thanks. This is about what I expected.
203 out of 212 House Republicans voted AGAINST reforming the Electoral Count Act to prevent what occurred in the 2020 election yesterday including the minority leader and whip.
And some people still deny that political party as currently constituted isn’t an existential threat to our rule of law.
The principal threat to democracy is the GOP. Not an opinion.
" Not an opinion" then what is it then counselor??? IMO the radical ideologies spewing out of both parties are a threat to democracy. It never ceases to amaze me how ideologues on both sides only see what the other side is up to. The critical analysis is not relavant to your own party, it's the other party that is doing everything wrong. I believe there is more than enough blame for both parties. I have been watching some of the BS campaign propaganda coming from all local candidates. The common theme is the other party is responsible for what is going wrong and their party is responsible for anything that is working. What a surprise.
Can you tell us the specific conduct resulting from Democrats' "radical ideologues" that threatens democracy?
Spoken like a true lawyer... move to NYS and enjoy the ride and enjoy the view. Can you explain to us how the GOP is the principal threat to democracy??? Your trying to deflect because you know you can't defend your own asinine statement. I can give you an example from my own state. You ever heard of the SAFE ACT??? Is that specific enough for you? King Andy could have put these ideas up for the residents of NYS to decide. You grouse about "radical ideologues" that threaten democracy. Your party is no different than the republicans. Your side wants what it wants and it wants it right now.. The least you can do counselor is fess up to your parties agenda.
Thanks. This is about what I expected.
It is about what I expected as well. You could have expressed a well thought out opinion to beat me down with. Since you can't do that you come up with some vague BS stating my comment is what you expected. What did you expect counselor??? You think I'm going to agree with your half ass logic?? That type of ass kissing you can get from your fellow democRATs on this forum. Explain to me why I should agree with your analogy. Your a freaking lawyer for goodness sake. State your case and be specific. That should not be that difficult for you to do. If you can make a logical argument, I will agree with with you. This is what you were born and trained to do counselor.. state your case and defend your position. I'm sorry I'm not one of the suck asses that mindlessly believes everything you say.
We don't make mistakes, we have happy accidents.
Bob Ross:
And some people still deny that political party as currently constituted isn’t an existential threat to our rule of law.
The principal threat to democracy is the GOP. Not an opinion.
" Not an opinion" then what is it then counselor??? IMO the radical ideologies spewing out of both parties are a threat to democracy. It never ceases to amaze me how ideologues on both sides only see what the other side is up to. The critical analysis is not relavant to your own party, it's the other party that is doing everything wrong. I believe there is more than enough blame for both parties. I have been watching some of the BS campaign propaganda coming from all local candidates. The common theme is the other party is responsible for what is going wrong and their party is responsible for anything that is working. What a surprise.
Can you tell us the specific conduct resulting from Democrats' "radical ideologues" that threatens democracy?
Spoken like a true lawyer... move to NYS and enjoy the ride and enjoy the view. Can you explain to us how the GOP is the principal threat to democracy??? Your trying to deflect because you know you can't defend your own asinine statement. I can give you an example from my own state. You ever heard of the SAFE ACT??? Is that specific enough for you? King Andy could have put these ideas up for the residents of NYS to decide. You grouse about "radical ideologues" that threaten democracy. Your party is no different than the republicans. Your side wants what it wants and it wants it right now.. The least you can do counselor is fess up to your parties agenda.
Thanks. This is about what I expected.
Ditto.... Perfect time for you to explain your "opinion" I'm not the experienced lawyer who just stuck his foot in his mouth. You just declared your opinion to be fact. This is the perfect opportunity to explain what you meant.
Last edited by cradleandshoot on Thu Sep 22, 2022 8:46 am, edited 1 time in total.
We don't make mistakes, we have happy accidents.
Bob Ross:
And some people still deny that political party as currently constituted isn’t an existential threat to our rule of law.
The principal threat to democracy is the GOP. Not an opinion.
" Not an opinion" then what is it then counselor??? IMO the radical ideologies spewing out of both parties are a threat to democracy. It never ceases to amaze me how ideologues on both sides only see what the other side is up to. The critical analysis is not relavant to your own party, it's the other party that is doing everything wrong. I believe there is more than enough blame for both parties. I have been watching some of the BS campaign propaganda coming from all local candidates. The common theme is the other party is responsible for what is going wrong and their party is responsible for anything that is working. What a surprise.
Can you tell us the specific conduct resulting from Democrats' "radical ideologues" that threatens democracy?
Spoken like a true lawyer... move to NYS and enjoy the ride and enjoy the view. Can you explain to us how the GOP is the principal threat to democracy??? Your trying to deflect because you know you can't defend your own asinine statement. I can give you an example from my own state. You ever heard of the SAFE ACT??? Is that specific enough for you? King Andy could have put these ideas up for the residents of NYS to decide. You grouse about "radical ideologues" that threaten democracy. Your party is no different than the republicans. Your side wants what it wants and it wants it right now.. The least you can do counselor is fess up to your parties agenda.
Thanks. This is about what I expected.
It is about what I expected as well. You could have expressed a well thought out opinion to beat me down with. Since you can't do that you come up with some vague BS stating my comment is what you expected. What did you expect counselor??? You think I'm going to agree with your half ass logic?? That type of ass kissing you can get from your fellow democRATs on this forum. Explain to me why I should agree with your analogy. Your a freaking lawyer for goodness sake. State your case and be specific. That should not be that difficult for you to do. If you can make a logical argument, I will agree with with you. This is what you were born and trained to do counselor.. state your case and defend your position. I'm sorry I'm not one of the suck asses that mindlessly believes everything you say.
Candidly, it really isn't worth it with you. You don't read; you don't consider alternatives. You are the hard-silo of a person caught in the mess Republicans have largely created here. If you don't know that the GOP is a threat to democracy, you really aren't just not listening.
And some people still deny that political party as currently constituted isn’t an existential threat to our rule of law.
The principal threat to democracy is the GOP. Not an opinion.
" Not an opinion" then what is it then counselor??? IMO the radical ideologies spewing out of both parties are a threat to democracy. It never ceases to amaze me how ideologues on both sides only see what the other side is up to. The critical analysis is not relavant to your own party, it's the other party that is doing everything wrong. I believe there is more than enough blame for both parties. I have been watching some of the BS campaign propaganda coming from all local candidates. The common theme is the other party is responsible for what is going wrong and their party is responsible for anything that is working. What a surprise.
Can you tell us the specific conduct resulting from Democrats' "radical ideologues" that threatens democracy?
Spoken like a true lawyer... move to NYS and enjoy the ride and enjoy the view. Can you explain to us how the GOP is the principal threat to democracy??? Your trying to deflect because you know you can't defend your own asinine statement. I can give you an example from my own state. You ever heard of the SAFE ACT??? Is that specific enough for you? King Andy could have put these ideas up for the residents of NYS to decide. You grouse about "radical ideologues" that threaten democracy. Your party is no different than the republicans. Your side wants what it wants and it wants it right now.. The least you can do counselor is fess up to your parties agenda.
Thanks. This is about what I expected.
It is about what I expected as well. You could have expressed a well thought out opinion to beat me down with. Since you can't do that you come up with some vague BS stating my comment is what you expected. What did you expect counselor??? You think I'm going to agree with your half ass logic?? That type of ass kissing you can get from your fellow democRATs on this forum. Explain to me why I should agree with your analogy. Your a freaking lawyer for goodness sake. State your case and be specific. That should not be that difficult for you to do. If you can make a logical argument, I will agree with with you. This is what you were born and trained to do counselor.. state your case and defend your position. I'm sorry I'm not one of the suck asses that mindlessly believes everything you say.
Candidly, it really isn't worth it with you. You don't read; you don't consider alternatives. You are the hard-silo of a person caught in the mess Republicans have largely created here. If you don't know that the GOP is a threat to democracy, you really aren't just not listening.
You are not paying attention as well. I live in NYS. I have witnessed and listened to every half ass FLP idea to come down the pike for decades. You want to lecture me about the threat to democracy from the RepubliCONs while ignoring the threat to Democracy from the DemocRATs. You can't have it both ways counselor. You can't excoriate one party while ignoring your own. Check that sentiment, that is exactly what your attempting to do.
In the state of NY the DemocRAT party is the ever going threat to freedom and democracy.
We don't make mistakes, we have happy accidents.
Bob Ross:
Any bipartisan January 6 commission is probably doomed
...the chances for such a commission are imperiled. A bill to establish it passed the House last Wednesday with support from every Democrat and 35 Republicans. But most others in the GOP, including party leaders, have come out strongly against the bill, with the party’s senators planning a filibuster.
Republicans have evidently calculated that such a commission’s findings would likely hurt their party’s electoral prospects.
But even if a deal does somehow come together, there are real reasons to doubt whether such a commission would achieve anything substantial.
There’s nothing magical about this proposed bipartisan commission — it would have the same formal powers as any ordinary congressional committee looking into the matter. In fact, its requirement for bipartisan support to issue subpoenas means it could well be less aggressive at unearthing new information than, say, a Democratic-only House committee investigation could be.
Its hoped-for advantage would instead be in the realm of messaging. The idea is that if such a body is deemed above politics, it could deliver an assessment of what happened that would be viewed as credible by both sides, shaping a national narrative.
This second aim is what supporters of a January 6 commission are really hoping to achieve. The hope is that, if the reasonable Republicans and Democrats could only get together, they could reach consensus and sagely explain how and why the Capitol was stormed, and how the US can stop something like it from happening again.
It’s a doomed hope.
The sunny view of bipartisan commissions is that members of both parties boldly manage to put politics aside and do the right thing for the country. The more cynical and probably more realistic way to look at them is that politics never truly leaves the process — especially when the issue has serious electoral implications for both parties.
The storming of the Capitol is an issue with very different partisan dynamics, and it’s difficult to imagine what a “balanced” report on it could look like. Any broad and serious assessment of what happened only has a realistic chance of making one party — the party of Donald Trump — look bad. And Republicans have been very clear that, for electoral reasons, they don’t want to do this.
In practice, the commission would spotlight an issue that divides the GOP
Even though Republicans would likely be able to prevent a bipartisan 1/6 commission from achieving much of substance, they’d really prefer not to have one at all.
That’s because, as Thune admitted above and as Liz Cheney’s ouster shows, party strategists view any discussion of Trump’s attempt to overturn the election result as a harmful issue for their party at this point. They want to make the 2022 elections about Biden and Democrats, not Trump.
Democrats, meanwhile, have electoral incentives to try and keep the storming of the Capitol in the news however they can. “Democrats should spend every day tying all of it to the Republican Party,” political consultant James Carville recently told my colleague Sean Illing. (McConnell has reportedly been sharing that interview to argue that Democrats are motivated by politics here.)
So if electoral and messaging advantage is the true goal, the commission would still be worthwhile for Democrats. But feel-good bipartisanship isn’t in the cards, and fact-finding would probably be difficult too if the Republican commissioners agree to vote as a bloc against any controversial subpoenas.
Do Democrats have fallback options if the bill doesn’t pass?
In any event, theories of how such a commission would play out are probably moot, unless there’s a surprising sudden shift in Senate Republicans’ thinking.
Currently, there are a few Senate Republicans, like Susan Collins (R-ME) and Mitt Romney (R-UT), who sound open to supporting a changed version of the bill (Collins wants the staff to be bipartisan, and Romney wants to ensure that they’ll finish by their end-of-year deadline). Many others, though, are dug in firmly against the idea and seem immovable. So the current betting is that the 10 GOP votes needed to overcome a filibuster will not materialize.
What, then, can Democrats do instead?
It’s useful again to remember the two main things such a commission can do — fact-finding and narrative-shaping.
As far as formal fact-finding powers go, a congressional committee can do everything a bipartisan commission can do; namely, it can hold hearings and issue subpoenas. One advantage the commission might have is unified focus on one topic — but that could also be achieved by establishing a special “select committee” to investigate January 6, as House Republicans did for Benghazi.
And when it comes to shaping the narrative, it does seem that congressional committees would, more likely, be deemed partisan by the media, as compared to a special bipartisan commission. But the hope to establish one consensus national narrative around the events of January 6 was always a pipe dream.
Most Republican voters now inhabit an information environment dominated by conservative media outlets like Fox and social media similarly designed to tell them what they want to hear. Acknowledging that reality, the most Democrats may be able to do is push on forward, trying to gather facts and make a public case to their best of their ability — on their own.
This is the post quoting me (from nearly 3 mos age), which sucked me back into this thread.
Had I not received a notification telling me I was quoted, I would not even have opened this stupid thread.
I only posted an eye roll because you suggested it. You posted that long diatribe. TL/DR. Lay off the geritrol.
Why are you trolling me now, with a 3 mos old post, which was accurate? There was no bi-partisan commission.
You seem disoriented. Don't cross the street alone.
I made no reference to any commission. I did post an eye roll because you suggested it. You are confused. Could be a UTI.
That post is nearly 3 mos old & unrelated to anything going on now. OBE. You're really falling behind on your trolling.
I saw it today. Wasn’t scrolling through old posts. You ain’t that important. I made a mistake if that wasn’t something you posted today. If necessary, I apologize. You provide plenty of cheddar. I don’t need to go through posts. I suppose it’s possible I landed on that page some how and did realize it wasn’t today.
That's ok. You gave afan a chance to pile on. ...even though he didn't know what he was responding to. Nothing new there.
I haven't had time to post much lately. I know it's been hard on you guys.
old salt wrote: ↑Wed May 26, 2021 12:22 am
Any bipartisan January 6 commission is probably doomed
I don't get it. You seem to be proud that your party has no intention of holding Trump or others responsible for Jan 6th? And to let him waltz into the White House again because Republicans have lost their sense of honor and morals.
A man you called "unfit for office".
How bad do you want Trump to run in 2024? Because that's what you're asking for....you get that, right?
You deduce all that from me pointing out that a select committee is different from a bi-partisan commission ?
Dust off your Magic 8 Ball.
Then stop doing playing this game.
Why the F did you go to all the trouble to diminish what the Committee is doing? If you don't want us to infer stuff? Stop implying stuff, OS. I promise your idea that everyone is putting words in your mouth will go away.
But as you and I both know.....most of the time? You do this on purpose. You're throwing stones at those who are trying to help Americans see what a dangerous POS Trump is.....so don't clutch pearls when we ask you why you keep stumping for Trump.
The appropriate label was applied a while back, which is bad faith.
Then stop doing playing this game.