Why Pelosi Won't Tolerate Dissent on Her 'Insurrection' Committee | Opinion
By: Jonathan Tobin (MSN)
Opinion...........and a damned spot on one at that.
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
Perhaps some naive souls believed House Speaker Nancy Pelosi's decision to convene a special committee to investigate the January 6 Capitol riot would afford the country some closure on the traumatic events of that day.
© Alex Wong/Getty Images WASHINGTON, DC - JULY 28: U.S. Speaker of the House Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) speaks during a weekly news conference at the U.S. Capitol July 28, 2021 in Washington, DC. Speaker Pelosi discussed various topics including the new House facial mask mandate for members and staff after new guidance issued by CDC.
It appears that Pelosi has other motives. She and her party have latched onto the disgraceful events of January 6 not merely as a talking point to deploy against former president Donald Trump but as a club with which to beat all Republicans who express concern about election security. Six months after Trump's second impeachment, and following the Senate's failure to approve a 9-11 type commission, Pelosi's dogged insistence on re-litigating the riot was sure to invite debate about a host of issues—including some that don't fit neatly into the Democrats' preferred narrative about an "insurrection."
As the riot recedes further into the past, it is becoming clear that if Pelosi's committee was going to amount to anything more than fuel for a CNN or MSNBC retrospective, the House speaker was going to have to allow Trump supporters the right to take part in its proceedings and make any points they felt necessary.
That would have meant allowing House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy to name the Republicans who would be on the committee. But Pelosi did not grant him that right. Her response to McCarthy could not have been better calculated to inflame GOP opinion and widen the partisan divide about the riot. It is certain to convince conservatives—whether ardent Trump loyalists or those who are wary of his continued involvement in politics—that the committee's goal is nothing more than political messaging.
By rejecting two of McCarthy's choices—Representatives Jim Jordan (R-Ohio) and Jim Banks (R-Ind.)—and naming two dissident GOP members who have aligned themselves with the Democrats on the "insurrection"—Representatives Liz Cheney (R-Wyo.) and Adam Kinzinger (R-Ill.)—Pelosi has removed any doubt about what will follow.
It is conventional practice for the majority to give deference to the minority to name its own members, as they will have no influence over the committee's ultimate decisions apart from the right to contradict the majority's claims and raise inconvenient questions. By trashing this convention, Pelosi left McCarthy and the GOP no choice but to refuse to take any part in the committee.
With two tame GOP mascots—aptly dubbed "Pelosi Republicans" by McCarthy—along for the ride, the Democratic majority has effectively convinced conservatives that its only goal is one more show trial of Trump and the political right.
Jordan and Banks would have done their best to derail the committee's focus on the former president. They would have resisted efforts to treat the riot as a seditious conspiracy rather than the disorganized yet violent aftermath of a "Stop the Steal" rally in which a few hundred rally attendees subsequently stormed the Capitol.
The disruption of Congress' joint session accepting the Electoral College results was a shameful challenge to the rule of law. That's true even if the alleged insurrection amounted to nothing more than trespassing and the sort of disorderly conduct and fisticuffs with police that were a staple of the hundreds of "mostly peaceful" riots that took place the previous summer. Trump's initial refusal to rein in his supporters or immediately condemn them once they ran amok was wrong, and indicated a lack of respect for democratic norms.
But Pelosi and the Democrats were intent on transforming Jan. 6 into something more—something that would continue to be politically useful even after Trump exited the White House. Though talk of insurrection was hyperbolic, it allowed Democrats to construct a political universe in which opinions about the former administration matter more than those about the current one, or about the narrow Democratic congressional majorities.
Had Pelosi accepted the presence of Republicans like Jordan and Banks on her committee, it would have allowed GOP members a chance to raise questions about elements of Jan. 6 that don't fit the insurrection narrative.
Jordan and Banks may have inquired about what Pelosi knew of the refusal to reinforce Capitol security, about what caused some of the police to let protesters enter while others fought to keep them out and whether the possible presence of government informants among the crowd meant anything. The decision of a still-unnamed law enforcement official to fatally shoot one trespasser—a military veteran named Ashli Babbitt—despite her appearing to pose no clear threats in video of the incident, might have been investigated rather than swept under the rug in a manner that would have been unimaginable had Babbitt been a Black Lives Matter demonstrator killed by police.
Republican committee members could also have asked why those rioters who have since been arrested were subjected to harsh treatment and overcharging not inflicted on BLM rioters.
Allowing McCarthy's appointed Republicans onto the committee would have also offered Democrats the opportunity to debunk conspiracy theories and to place unimportant details in proper context. It would have legitimized the committee and lent at least some weight to its conclusions, even if GOP members dissented from them.
But if Pelosi's goal was to depict all Republicans as part of a conspiracy against democracy, treating the presence of anyone other than opponents of the former president on the committee as unacceptable serves the speaker's political purpose. What Pelosi wants is a television show that will remind liberal viewers and voters of the awfulness of their opponents.
This Congress has, by comparison, no interest in probing the origins of the far more extensive and deadly riots that followed the death of George Floyd last year. At least one poll shows that more people want such an investigation more than another rehashing of Jan. 6.
Nor has Pelosi expressed interest in a commission to investigate the origins of the coronavirus pandemic—an issue both parties ought to consider a priority. Democrats don't seem to want to find out whether what happened in Wuhan, China, was the result of a lab leak, and they oppose any discussion about COVID-19 other than one blaming it all on Trump's handling of the pandemic.
A Jan. 6 kangaroo court may help reinforce the Democrats' efforts to paint their opponents as fascists, rather than merely people with whom they disagree. Yet for democracy to succeed, both sides must respect each other and be willing to abide by elections—something that Pelosi's party, which spent years promoting the Trump-Russian collusion hoax, seems no more capable of doing than Trump. By opting to demonize opponents over making even the appearance of bipartisanship, Pelosi is doing as much damage to democracy as the rioters her party seeks to tie to the GOP.
Jonathan S. Tobin is editor in chief of JNS.org, a senior contributor to the Federalist and a columnist for the New York Post. Follow him on Twitter at: @jonathans_tobin.
The views expressed in this article are the writer's own.
Underlining and italics are mine..................
I'm sure the majority of decent and patriotic Americans will see thru the subterfuge and tear jerking political theater, and vote the scummy lefty rascals out.
Okay, I'll bite.
Please cite the 'elements on Jan. 6 that don't fit the insurrection narrative.'
Please consider reviewing the definition of 'insurrection' before you reply.
You and Tobin are intentionally ignoring the FACT that TWO Senate Committees have ALREADY investigated and released a 128 page report entitled "Examining the U.S. Capitol Attack, A review of the Security, Planning and Response Failures on January 6"
Once you have watched the Joint Committee hearings and READ the report you should understand that neither Jordan or Banks have anything to 'inquire' about that topic. Those 'questions' have ALREADY been answered.
I note that neither you or Tobin make any mention of Banks' and Jordan's 'demonization of opponents' or their failure to 'appear bipartisan'.
Hypocrisy.
You and Tobin also intentionally ignoring the FACT that in MAY the House passed a Bill to seat a bipartisan Committee, with EQUAL representation, made up of NONGOVERNMENTAL APPOINTEES, chosen by BOTH Party's leadership.
The Senate GOP filibustered that Bill.
Based on that FACT, any attempt to blame Pelosi for the makeup of the Select Committee lack all credibility.
How did the government end the insurrection? The insurrectionists attacked, occupied, and held the Capitol. Yet the Senate performed its ceremonial political function the same day. So, the insurrection had to be stopped somehow. The question is how did the government stop the insurrection?
Insurrectionists don't just get bored and walk away if they are trying to take over the government or attempt a coup.
Perhaps you can explain why you believe that question is relevant Nerm.
There are a plethora of media accounts, including HOURS of video online. A Joint Senate Committee report was also published. I suggest you do your own research to satisfy your curiosity.
BTFW, by definition, insurrectionists need not be perpetrating a 'take over the government or attempt a coup' to qualify as insurrectionists.
Oh and one more thing, the certification of the electoral college votes from the states is NOT merely a 'ceremonial political function', it IS Constitutionally MANDATED.
A big, beautiful illustration of Democrats trying to smear blue lipstick on their own protest pig. Distrusting the law enforcement apparatchik is now a Qanon conspiracy and no longer associated with BLM activists. Democrats now trust the police.
Democrats hated cops before they learned to love the police.
Answer the question, which you didn't. How did the Government stop it? And the key point, basically, is right here..................
In other words, there was no coup attempt planned OR executed. They didn't have the backing necessary (in most cases the military is involved) to do so FFS.
.
I'm still trying to figure out how she got those conspiracy theory thingies from your post?
A 10 min event filmed by 1,000 people provides 166 hours of video. The HOURS of video doesn't prove anything other than the event was filmed by a number of people.
If a Joint Senate Committee report has been published then what needs to be investigated? The claim is that the Joint Senate Committee report answers all the questions, so what's the point of a House Committee?
Then any riot would qualify as insurrection. Democrats own many similar pigs. Obviously Democrats need to smear blue lipstick on their own insurrection pigs.
With LEO and Military FORCE.
Next?
WHAT 'key point' is that Jim? Be specific.
Presence maybe. Force? I think not.
Read it again. It may have been an insurrection but the liberal wet dream of a coup was NEVER in the cards.
It was not an insurrection by any stretch of the imagination.
Endlessly repeating a lie will not make it true
insurrection
Definition of insurrection
There are multiple REAL TIME videos of the WHOLE event online Nerm. Why try to pretend that the events didn't occur LIVE, on TV, over more than 4 HOURS?
Instead of asking ME to hold your hand, why not do your own research Nerm? I posted to title of the report. The title clearly cites what they investigated and what they did NOT investigate.
If you are implying that was MY claim, that's false Nerm.
My comment was about what the seed claimed what Banks and Jordan would inquire about and I stated that the Joint Senate Committee report answers THOSE questions. Do try to keep up.
False. It may behoove you to review the definition of insurrection AGAIN.
Your false equivalencies are noted.
Are you seriously claiming that LEOs did NOT use force to repel the attack on Jan. 6th Jim?
Try.
Perhaps you should TRY to understand Nerm's use of the word "or" in his comment.
It WAS and insurrection Jim.
You may want to do the same. Ms. Veronica posted a very nice one above..............which includes.......
Careful now, that describes many of the "protests" from the summer of 2020
One need not 'stretch the imagination' Greg, one need only READ and understand the definition.
Insurrection:
Endlessly repeating a lie does not make it true.
Did say it wasn't now did I.
And yes they put up a fight as well as they could but once the insurrectionists were inside, what did they do (save one cop who shot Ms. Babbit) to end it? Looked like to me there was a lot of milling around for some time in there.
Again, you are having an issue with the grammatical use of the word "or" Jim.
Which means every last BLM/Antifa riot qualifies.
Off topic
How so? Insurrection or coup. 'Splain please. I mean I know your MO and how picky you can be over the slightest interpretation (usually your own) misread.
Exactly. Multiple videos doesn't change the duration of the event or what transpired. The HOURS of video doesn't prove anything.
So, you are only reading the headlines?
What will the House committee accomplish that the Senate committee failed to accomplish?
What other questions need answers? The House already investigated Trump's involvement and issued articles of impeachment. The House already reviewed security and fired those responsible for failures. What purpose does the House committee serve other than a political purpose?
in·sur·rec·tion -- a violent uprising against an authority or government.
Violent protest against police authority would seem to fit that definition. The police are part of government, after all. Unfortunately for Democrats' support for the anti-police activism there is another definition.
ter·ror·ism -- the unlawful use of violence and intimidation, especially against civilians, in the pursuit of political aims.
Which pig do you want to beautify with blue lipstick? The year of 'peaceful protest' really does prove that Democrats hated copes before they learned to love the police.
Pelosi is using January 6 to smear blue lipstick on Democrats' pigs. Obviously Jim Jordan and Jim Banks would have messed up the makeover.
What don't you understand about the definition of the word "or" Jim. It links ALTERNATIVES.
I thought that our PN discussion concluded with you acknowledging that YOU are the one that misreads Jim.
Which also includes both alternatives. If what happened was an insurrection, how did the government stop the insurrection? If what happened was a coup, how did the government stop the coup?
The fact is that the Senate performed its ceremonial political function in the Senate chamber the same day. So, the insurrection or coup attempt had to be stopped somehow. The word 'or' doesn't allow flipping the narrative since the alternatives are included in the fundamental question. How did the government stop the attack and occupation of the Capitol?
And, yes, the use of the Senate chamber is ceremonial. The Constitution does not require the Senate to perform its function in the Senate chamber. The Senate could have performed its Constitutional function in a parking garage or in Lafayette Park. Occupying the Capitol won't stop the Senate from performing its Constitutional function. Performing that Constitutional function in the Senate chamber is ceremonial.
Actually, the LAST hour or so of video sure as fuck would prove how the government ended the insurrection. THAT'S the information you seek isn't it Nerm?
Actually, it's a TITLE and I unlike you and yours, when I cite a report, you can be assured that I read MORE than the title.
I can't predict what they will 'accomplish' Nerm.
For just ONE, WTF did Trump after he returned to the WH?
That's a false equivalency.
The police have NO authority to violate peoples rights or murder them.
Which it seems why the Capitol attackers think they should get a pass for attacking Capitol and Metro Police.
What 'anti-police activism are you talking about?
Your comment about terrorism is just deflection.
If the seeder considers off topic he can remove it.
Considering it was mentioned in posts 2.1.3, 2.1.6, and 2.1.14. I really don't have anything to worry about.
Maybe reality set in after one of the insurgents was shot and killed.
You may be right.
AGAIN, there is video evidence of just about every moment of the over 4 hour event Jim. If you really want answers, which I doubt, invest the time to WATCH it. I've already suggested that you READ the Joint Senate report which contains a timeline of the events yet I doubt you'll do that either.
Perhaps you can explain why I should invest MY time to hold your hand posting information when you refuse to invest the time to take advantage of the information readily available to you?
I suppose that it's easier for you and yours to demand facts and then deny them as long as you avoid confirming those facts with your OWN research. It's a juvenile mentality.
I have already addressed you questions Nerm. Rinsing and repeating them doesn't make them more relevant.
GO watch and READ.
Lyndon Johnson appointed the Warren Commission. Franklin Roosevelt appointed the commission to investigate Pearl Harbor.
Joe Biden can appoint a commission to investigate Jan 6. In fact, if what happened on Jan 6 was an insurrection then Biden could remove politics from the investigation by appointing a commission. There is precedent. Why doesn't Biden do what FDR did?
BOTH the Warren and Pearl Harbor Commission were authorized by Joint Resolutions of Congress.
The House passed a Bill to form such a Commission in MAY.
The Senate filibustered that Bill.
Next?
You don't get to write your own history to fit your version of facts.
Then why doesn't Joe Biden appoint a commission by executive order? Franklin Roosevelt and Lyndon Johnson provide the precedents.
Nor do YOU Nerm.
Executive Order 8983 was signed on December 18, 1941. The 'Roberts' Committee limited it's investigation to the actions of the MILITARY.
So are you advocating that Biden seat a Commission to limited to investigate the LEO and Military actions on 1/6?
BTFW, a Joint Resolution of Congress authorized the Joint Committee on the Investigation of the Pearl Harbor Attack on September 11, 1945. It's mandate was to conduct a 'full and complete investigation of the facts relating to the events and circumstances leading up to or following the attack made by Japanese armed forces upon Pearl Harbor.'
THAT's the kind of Commission mandate that I prefer and the Capitol Attack Commission has just that kind of mandate.
WHY would you want to limit the scope Nerm?
Executive Order 11130 of November 29, 1963 was authorized by a Joint Resolution of Congress on Dec 13, 1963. That Joint Resolution is what codified the subpoena power of the Warren Commission.
Then the question remains, why doesn't Joe Biden issue an executive order forming a Presidential commission?
Since the kind of commission mandate you prefer has been balked by Congressional partisan bickering, it would seem that Joe Biden has the power to break the impasse with an executive order. And the President has the authority to give a commission an expansive scope using the same authority as for special counsels.
Joe Biden may prefer to snipe from the peanut gallery. But that isn't Presidential leadership.
Which addresses the FACT that you and Tobin ignored the bill passed by the House HOW?
Right, because the right wouldn't claim that Biden's choices were political. /s
There is NO 'impasse' Nerm. A House Select Committee has been seated and has started to hold hearings.
So your rant is moot.
The House panel (whatever it's called) is only important inside the beltway. Outside Washington D.C. even Democrats have better things to do.
The House investigation is a political show to cleanse the Democratic Party (at least superficially) of anti-police activism that Democrats have acquiesced to if not actively supported. The Jan 6 investigation is, first and foremost, law & order political theater. The thin blue line is back in Democrats' lexicon.
Pelosi doesn't want anyone reminding voters of the Democrats' own protest and riot problem. Republicans, as usual, are falling all over themselves to accede to Pelosi's political maneuvering to put lipstick on Democrats' protest pig.
The fools and idiots are fighting each other in Washington D.C. Or are they? It could just be dinner and a show.
The house has become a complete goat rodeo.
No reason to respect any of their decisions with Pelosi at the helm.
None..