Friday, July 2, 2021

House Minority Leader McCarthy Threatens House Republicans Who Want to Investigate the Insurrection

On Wednesday, the United States House voted to establish a select committee to investigate the January 6th insurrection. Remarkably every Republican house member, with the exception of Liz Cheney and Adam Kinzinger, voted against the establishment of the committee.   

That development was followed by House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy announcing that any Republicans who dared to serve on that select committee could be stripped of their committee assignments.  That did not deter Cheney who agreed to accept an assignment to the committee.  

The only reason for McCarthy to take such a position is that he's trying to suppress the truth of what happened.  Most likely though the person who is behind the suppression effort is Donald Trump.  The former President is adamant about wanting to stop any investigation of the attempted insurrection and his role in it.  Why?  No doubt Trump's is concerned his own role in fomenting the insurrection will be exposed. 
House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R-CA)

McCarthy no doubt believes that, by doing Trump's bidding, Trump will support his bid to be Speaker in the likely event the Republicans gain a majority in the 2022 midterm election.  Yet, Trump has demonstrated over and over again that for him, loyalty is a one way street. While he demands loyalty from those around him, no amount of slavish devotion and unquestioned fealty is ever sufficient for Trump.  If it is in Trump's interest to throw McCarthy under the bus and elevate another toady - say Rep. Elise Stefanik - to the speakership, that is what Trump will do.

While McCarthy threatens to crack down on Republicans such as Kinzinger and Cheney, he is looking the other way when it comes to another House Republican, Paul Gosar of Arizona.  Gosar recently announced he will host a joint fundraiser with Nick Fuentes, a white nationalist, anti-Semite who is a Holocaust denier.  It was just two years ago that the House Republican conference, led by McCarthy, took a firm position against Rep. Steve King (R-Iowa), stripping him of committee assignments for continued racist comments.  McCarthy and other establishment Republicans then supported an opponent to King who defeated him in the 2020 primary.  

Ironically, King's remarks pale when compared to Gosar and others Republican House members, most prominent among them, Marjorie Taylor "Jewish Space Lasers" Greene (R-GA).   If King had lasted just a little longer he would have had plenty of like-minded racist colleagues to shield him from sanction.

OOP's short takes:
  • On Thursday, the Supreme Court, in a 6-3 decision, said that provisions in Arizona's election law requiring in-person voters to show up at their correct precinct to vote and limiting ballot collection efforts (sometimes called "ballot harvesting") do not have a sufficient discriminatory effect so as to violate the 1965 Voting Rights Act.
  • This decision highlights what is the likely result as the Biden administration, via the Justice Department, attempts to mount legal changes to Republican state legislatures' post-2020 election efforts to change voting procedures.  While these bills have as their motivation Trump's Big Lie of voter fraud in the 2020 election, most of the changes are actually innocuous and will have a very limited, if any, impact on voter turnout. Yet, the media and the Democrats continue to label these changes as "voter restrictions" or "voter suppression."  
  • I've said this a hundred times, the Democrats need to be less focused on the casting of votes and a lot more concerned on the counting of those votes.  If the next election is stolen, it will be because of the latter, not the former.
  • I can't say I'm surprised that the conviction of comedian Bill Cosby was overturned. The Pennsylvania Supreme Court focused on the fact Cosby was led to believe he had immunity from criminal prosecution when he admitted the facts used to incriminate him.  That was a violation of the 5th Amendment.  Our criminal justice system operates within a system of rules which protects those accused of a crime.  One of those rules is that if a person is granted immunity from prosecution, that immunity bars a subsequent prosecution.  Do I regret that Cosby's victims are left without recourse? Absolutely.  But we can't apply rules selectively, i.e. just against the really bad people who do bad things.  Those rules protect all of us and have be enforced for everyone if they are going to have any validity.
  • The Court did not consider the length of time between the acts and the decision to prosecute him. I'm very concerned with states enacting extremely lengthy statutes of limitation when it comes to filing a civil lawsuit or prosecuting someone for a sexual assault or  similar crimes.  Recently, a civil lawsuit was dismissed against Kevin Spacey for something he supposedly did decades earlier.   The case had to be dropped when the alleged victim insisted on being cloaked in anonymity.  
  • Statutes of limitation exist for a reason.  As the years pass, memories fade, potential evidence gets lost, witnesses die.  While one has to feel extreme compassion for the victims of sexual assault, that doesn't mean we should allow limitless criminal and civil litigation against those accused.  The accused are still entitled to due process and in a case in which the events happened decades earlier, that just doesn't seem possible.


leon said...

Removal of committee assignments is no particular hardship. Removing Liz has more good reasons that the poor ones you postulate. Let's draw up a narrative and then see how many fish will bite? Paul has bitten down on a number of these fabrications.

leon said... I assume you were also taken in along with your running dogs....

leon said... IT WAS A SET UP? SEEMS LIKE 38% (at least) of the 800 were let in by the police. Some insurrection! Time for retractions?