McCarthy Chooses 5 House Republicans to Serve on Jan 6 Select Committee

[TLK Valentine]

Thanks for another explanation of something that hasn't been in question.

So how about answering something that has been in question: What rule did Speaker Pelosi break?

 

[ThatRobGuy]

While I have no desire to hear any more of Jim Jordan Jabbering, I'd appreciate the participation of some of these folks with their words on the record.

Strategically speaking, it would be smart to let them be a part of it...expose them.

Why wouldn't you want to debate against the political equivalent of a flat earther?

Not to mention, declining to include them into the process is just going to feed the conspiracy theories even more.

 

[Albion]

Because those alternate courses of action--which, as you point out ought to be attractive to Pelosi--have not been considered, the logical explanation for it can only be that she knows there is plenty that she needs to keep hidden as it probably would not continue to be...if the investigation were above board.

 

[LiberalChristian1980]

Yes, she is. Was there ever a Speaker before who routinely counted alleged votes of members who were not present and voting?

Proxy voting is new to the House due to the pandemic, but these aren't "alleged" votes. In order to vote by proxy a member must submit a signed letter stating who they are designating as their proxy and the dates that said person may vote for them. Then they must communicate in writing their position on the votes held that day, and the member voting by proxy must retain those records as proof that they cast an accurate proxy vote.

When was the last time that NO amendments from the floor prior to voting on a bill were allowed, ever?

All the time. Numerically, most bills that pass the House are suspension bills which pass without any debate. This has been the case for decades.

For larger, more substantive bills, the 2017-18 Republican majority set a record of roughly 90 "closed rule" bills that allowed no amendments at all to be considered on the floor. That beat by roughly 10 the previous record, set by the 2003-04 Republican majority. The number of "closed rule" bills in the last Congress and this one have been comparable to most other recent Congresses.

Very, very few bills are ever considered in the House under a pure "open rule" that allows members to offer amendments from the floor. Over the last several decades pretty much only appropriations bills ever come to the floor under open rules. Most bills come to the floor under "modified open rules" wherein members submit potential floor amendments to the Rules Committee, which then chooses which amendments will be debated on the floor and for how long and throws out the rest. The number of "modified rule" bills in this Congress and the last have been in line with past precedent.

 

[mark46]

Oh, well that's a proposal, not what the Republicans or the Minority Leader would necessarily accept. Or the Speaker, for that matter.

The Republicans negotiated a deal with Democrats. McCarthy vetoed that idea.

This will happen much more often in the Senate where McConnell will overrule deals made, as he has done since the day Obama took office. The current deal being trashed is the infrastructure deal. In the end, it doesn't matter. If McConnell vetoes the infrastructure deal, Manchin can decide what portion he will accept in the reconciliation deal, if any. .

 

[mark46]

Oh, well that's a proposal, not what the Republicans or the Minority Leader would necessarily accept. Or the Speaker, for that matter.

You have perfectly stated the Republican approach to negotiation. There are negotiations for weeks coming to an agreement. The the leadership gets almost everyone to vote against. This has been Republican strategy since Obama.

Biden has to give Manchin some time to appreciate this. Once Manchin understands, there will be more legislation passed with Republican votes.

 

[Albion]

Proxy voting is new to the House....

And just like that, it's settled.

 

[Albion]

The Republicans negotiated a deal with Democrats. McCarthy vetoed that idea.

Mark, "the Republicans" didn't negotiate a deal. It was what a committee came up with for "the Republicans" and their leadership to accept...or not.

The same obviously applies also to the Democrats on the committee as Pelosi has changed her demands and requirements, how many Republican members will be allowed by her, who they will be, whether McCarthy should make the appointments or she herself instead, etc. etc. and this on almost a daily basis now!

 

[mark46]

Mark, "the Republicans" didn't negotiate a deal. It was what a committee came up with for "the Republicans" and their leadership to accept...or not.

The same obviously applies also to the Democrats on the committee as Pelosi has changed her demands and requirements, how many Republican members will be allowed by her, who they will be, whether McCarthy should make the appointments or she herself instead, etc. etc. and this on almost a daily basis now!

Fair enough. All is for show.

In the end, all that will matter is the film and transcripts that will continue to come out, and the prison terms for the tourists vacationing at the Capitol on January 6th. None of this will matter to the Trump base, who will also ignore all the appointees and employees that will continue to be indicted each week.

.

 

[Albion]

You have perfectly stated the Republican approach to negotiation. There are negotiations for weeks coming to an agreement. The the leadership gets almost everyone to vote against. This has been Republican strategy since Obama.

That might be preferable in this democratic republic of ours to having the Speaker of the House rule like a dictator, don't you really think?

 

[mark46]

That might be preferable in this democratic republic of ours to having the Speaker of the House rule like a dictator, don't you really think?

She learned a lot from how McConnell ruled the Senate.

It seems that "elections have consequences" only when Republicans win and are in control.

 

[Albion]

Fair enough. All is for show.

Why would you say that?

In Congress, there are all sorts of committees, amendments, procedural votes, filibusters, reconsiderations, and so on, all in the name of making sure that whatever it is gets done carefully.

Sure, certain things are done for show, but this that you're referring to is not an example of it.

 

[mark46]

Why would you say that?

In Congress, there are all sorts of committees, amendments, procedural votes, filibusters, reconsiderations, and so on, all in the name of making sure that whatever it is gets done carefully.

Sure, certain things are done for show, but this that you're referring to is not an example of it.

So you are serious suggesting that McCarthy had any, any, any intention of supporting a Pelosi inquiry into the events of January 6th? He ALLOWED the show of the committee negotiations.

But no matter, McCarthy can speak for himself when he testifies before the committee, and perhaps in other proceedings.

 

[cow451]

Holy Cow! A majority on the committee is there to prosecute Donald Trump...but at the same time there's a chance that someone might get appointed to the committee who thinks that the prosecution will actually have to prove the case they intend to bring against him before he's imprisoned. How worrisome is that?

Thanks for calling me “holy”, but it’s not necessary. “Sir” is fine. Yes, Ex President Trump was the big wolf-wolf stirring up a bunch of mouth-breathing militia nuts. So, he does not get a freebie for his dereliction of duty.

 

[cow451]

Will Donald ever get tired of people weeping on his behalf?

Never!

 

[TLK Valentine]

And just like that, it's settled.

Pretty much. Proxy voting is allowed by the House. Why shouldn't they follow their own rules?

 

[LiberalChristian1980]

And just like that, it's settled.

I know that your disingenuous manner of "debating" involves moving goal posts, but let's be clear: you have said repeatedly that Pelosi isn't allowing amendments on the floor in some breach of traditional House protocol, but that isn't true. And you asserted that proxy votes were questionable (using the word "alleged") when in fact a verification paper trail exists both for proxy appointments and the actual votes.

You are misrepresenting how the House works, and how Pelosi's stewardship of it differs from some of her predecessors, either out of ignorance or malice.

 

[KCfromNC]

Strategically speaking, it would be smart to let them be a part of it...expose them.

Why wouldn't you want to debate against the political equivalent of a flat earther?

Not to mention, declining to include them into the process is just going to feed the conspiracy theories even more.

Maybe Jim and similar co-conspirators can just be called as witnesses?

 

[TLK Valentine]

I know that your disingenuous manner of "debating" involves moving goal posts, but let's be clear: you have said repeatedly that Pelosi isn't allowing amendments on the floor in some breach of traditional House protocol, but that isn't true. And you asserted that proxy votes were questionable (using the word "alleged") when in fact a verification paper trail exists both for proxy appointments and the actual votes.

You are misrepresenting how the House works, and how Pelosi's stewardship of it differs from some of her predecessors, either out of ignorance or malice.

The only way to defend The Big Lie is with a legion of small ones.

 

[TLK Valentine]

Maybe Jim and similar co-conspirators can just be called as witnesses?

Or accomplices?