Connect with us

Politics

House Approves Commission To Investigate Jan. 6 Insurrection

Published

on

The proposed legislation is all but certain to fail in the Senate.


Jan. 6 Commission Proposal

The U.S. House of Representatives passed a bill Wednesday that would create an independent commission to investigate the Jan. 6 insurrection outside the walls of Congress and then report its findings to “prevent future attacks.”

The proposed bipartisan commission, which was modeled after a similar body formed following the 9/11 attacks, would be composed of 10 people. Democratic and Republican leaders would each be allowed to choose five.

The legislation was approved in a 252-to-175 vote, but only 35 Republicans supported the measure after top GOP leaders in both chambers voiced their opposition at the last minute.

Just one day before the vote was set to take place, House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R-Ca.) announced that he would not support the commission because it would not look into unrelated violence on the left.

McCarthy also accused Democrats of negotiating in bad faith, despite the fact that the legislation was crafted by both the Democrat and Republican on the House Homeland Security body in bipartisan negotiations that he himself sanctioned.

His response immediately drew backlash. Democrats slammed McCarthy because they had made concessions to him under the assumption he would support the proposal if they did so. Republicans who backed the commission also reportedly accused the minority leader of throwing them under the bus after for greenlighting their negotiations.

Members of both sides also speculated he made this decision to prevent damaging information from coming to light because the commission would almost certainly call on him to testify about his conversations with former President Donald Trump in and around Jan. 6.

Over the weekend, Rep. Liz Cheney (R-Wy.) who was ousted from her leadership position in the party last week for her continued condemnation of Trump, hinted in interviews that McCarthy was withholding information from conversations he had with the then-president as the insurrection was unfolding.

Continued Republican Opposition

Despite McCarthy’s objections, there was still hope for the commission after Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) said Tuesday that his members were open to voting for it.

But then Trump issued a statement calling the proposal a “Democrat trap” and urging McConnell, along with other GOP leaders, to start “listening.” Just hours before the House vote was set to take place, McConnell announced his opposition to the bill, calling it a “slanted and unbalanced proposal.”

“It’s not at all clear what new facts or additional investigation yet another commission could actually lay on top of existing efforts by law enforcement and Congress,” he said.

However, there are still several questions that remain about the attack, like how far in advance it was coordinated and details about what Trump was doing while it was underway. 

As a result, many lawmakers on both sides of the aisle argued McConnell’s decision to reverse his position following Trump’s comments is just the latest example of the party’s continued loyalty to the embattled former president, which they view as an essential strategy to regain the House and Senate in 2022.

In recent weeks, numerous Republican lawmakers have walked back their criticisms of Trump and previous statements holding him responsible for the insurrection. According to reports, there has also been a growing trend of Republicans trying to re-write history by downplaying or even outright denying violence that occurred during the insurrection.

Many have repeatedly questioned how anyone can be sure the rioters were Trump supporters, while a growing number of others have tried to cast the events as peaceful. 

Rep. Andrew Clyde (R-Ga.) even recently suggested that images from inside the Capitol resembled a “normal tourist visit,” despite footage showing him barricading the House chamber doors against insurrectionists. 

Given McConnell’s objections, it seems as though the legislation for the commission is all but guaranteed to fail. However, Democratic leaders had previously threatened to pursue a more partisan probe through existing committees or by making a new select committee if the proposal failed, potentially paving the way for another opportunity.

See what others are saying: (The Washington Post) (The New York Times) (Politico)

Politics

Gov. Abbott Says Texas Will Build Border Wall With Mexico

Published

on

The announcement follows months of growing tension between the Texas governor and President Biden over immigration policies.


Texas Border Wall 

Texas Gov. Greg Abbott (R) announced during a press conference Thursday that the state would build a border wall with Mexico, extending the signature campaign promise of former President Donald Trump.

Abbott provided very few details for the border wall plans, and it is unclear if he has the authority to build it.

While some of the land is state-owned, much of it belongs to the federal government or falls on private property.

Even if the state were able to build on federal ground, private landowners who fought the Trump administration’s attempts to take their land through eminent domain would still remain an obstacle for any renewed efforts.

During his term, Trump built over 450 miles of new wall, but most of it covered areas where deteriorating barriers already existed, and thus had previously been approved for the federal project.

The majority of the construction also took place in Arizona, meaning Abbott would have much ground to cover. It is also unclear how the governor plans to pay for the wall.

Trump had repeatedly said Mexico would fund the wall, but that promise remained unfulfilled, and the president instead redirected billions of taxpayer dollars from Defense Department reserves.

While Abbott did say he would announce more details about the wall next week, his plan was condemned as ill-planned by immigration activists, who also threatened legal challenges.

“There is no substantive plan,” said Edna Yang, the co-executive director of the Texas-based immigration legal aid and advocacy group American Gateways. “It’s not going to make any border community or county safer.”

Ongoing Feud

Abbott’s announcement comes amid escalating tensions between the governor and the administration of President Joe Biden.

Biden issued a proclamation that stopped border wall construction on his first day of office, and has since undone multiple Trump-era immigration policies. Abbott, for his part, has blamed Biden’s rollback of Trump’s rules for the influx of migrants at the border in recent months. 

Two weeks ago, the governor deployed over 1,000 National Guard members and troopers from the Texas Department of Public Safety to the border as part of an initiative launched in March to ramp up border security dubbed Operation Lone Star.

Last week, Abbott issued a disaster declaration which, among other measures, directed the Texas Health and Human Services Commission to strip the state licenses of all shelters that house migrant children and have contracts with the federal government.

The move, which federal officials have already threatened to take legal action against, could effectively force the 52 state-licensed shelters housing around 8,600 children to move the minors elsewhere.

During Thursday’s press conference, Abbott also outlined a variety of other border initiatives, including appropriating $1 billion for border security, creating a task force on border security, and increasing arrests for migrants who enter the country illegally.

“While securing the border is the federal government’s responsibility, Texas will not sit idly by as this crisis grows,” he said. “Our efforts will only be effective if we work together to secure the border, make criminal arrests, protect landowners, rid our communities of dangerous drugs and provide Texans with the support they need and deserve.”

See what others are saying: (The Texas Tribune) (The New York Times) (CNN)

Continue Reading

Politics

Biden Ends Infrastructure Talks With Republicans

Published

on

The president is now looking at other paths forward, including a plan being drafted by a bipartisan group of senators or the possibility of passing his proposal without Republican support.


Biden Looks to Bipartisan Group as Negotiations Collapse

After weeks of negotiations, President Joe Biden ended his efforts to reach an infrastructure deal with a group of Senate Republicans Tuesday.

Hopes for the centerpiece of Biden’s domestic agenda, however, are not dead. Lawmakers have already moved quickly to craft contingencies, outlining three main pathways for the next steps forward.

First, while an agreement between Biden and Republican senators is no longer an option, a joint deal is not off the table. Amid the ongoing negotiations, a bipartisan group of centrist senators have been quietly crafting an alternative plan in case the talks collapsed.

Currently, very few details of that plan are public, but the moderates have made it clear that their biggest division right now is the same sticking point that hung up Biden and the GOP group: how to fund the plan.

Negotiations on that front could prove very difficult, but they could also yield more votes. As a result, Biden indicated this path is his first choice, calling three members of the group Tuesday evening to cheer on their efforts.

Even if the group can come up with a deal that appeases Biden, the possibility still exists that not enough members would embrace it. In addition to funding questions, there are still disputes between Democrats and Republicans in regards to what constitutes “infrastructure.”

The president wants to expand the definition to more broad, economic terms. Republicans, however, have repeatedly rejected that, instead opting for more traditional conceptions of infrastructure.

As a result, while GOP lawmakers are worried that any proposal from the moderates would be too expansive, Democrats are concern that key provisions would be cut.

Other Alternatives

If a joint agreement cannot be reached, Biden’s second option for his infrastructure plan would be to forge ahead to pass a deal with just Democratic support in the Senate through budget reconciliation, the same procedure used to get the stimulus bill through.

Biden, for his part, does appear to at least be considering this option. In addition to calling the bipartisan group moderates Tuesday evening, he also spoke to Senate Majority Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) about drafting a new budget outline Democrats could use for the reconciliation process.

That path, however, also faces hurdles. In order for Democrats to even approve legislation through this process, they need all 50 members to vote in favor — something that is not guaranteed, given that some moderate senators have voiced their opposition to passing bills without bipartisan support.

While Schumer did say that he would still start work on a reconciliation package, he also outlined the third possible option: two separate bills.

“It may well be part of the bill that’ll pass will be bipartisan, and part of it will be through reconciliation,” he said Tuesday. “But we’re not going to sacrifice the bigness and boldness in this bill.”

See what others are saying: (The Washington Post) (The New York Times) (NBC News)

Continue Reading

Politics

Senate Committees Release Most Detailed Report on Insurrection to Date

Published

on

The first congressional report on the Jan. 6 attack shows that Capitol Police had additional intelligence about the threat earlier than previously known to the public.


Senate Inquiry Published

Two bipartisan Senate committees released the first congressional report on the Jan. 6 insurrection on Tuesday, marking the most comprehensive, detailed account to date of the numerous security failures and miscommunications.

The probe shows that U.S. Capitol Police (USCP) and other agencies had collected much more intelligence — and much earlier intelligence — than previously known.

Perhaps most significantly, the 127-page report revealed that the authorities had specific intelligence as early as Dec. 21 that supporters of former President Donald Trump planned an armed insurrection of the Capitol on Jan. 6.

That included information from the Capitol Police intelligence unit that pro-Trump demonstrators planned to “bring guns” and other weapons to the Stop the Steal rally, which precluded the attack, and use them against law enforcement officers.

Some of those individuals also shared maps of the Capitol complex and tunnels online, discussing the best ways to enter and seal lawmakers inside, the Senate report stated.

Despite those alarming indications, USCP failed to widely circulate its own internal intelligence. In fact, two separate security assessments from Dec. 23 and Dec. 30 made no mention of the findings.

The USCP was not alone in its failure to take key intelligence seriously. An F.B.I. memo from the day before the insurrection that warned there were people traveling to D.C. for “war” at the Capitol also never made its way up to top law enforcement officials.

Unclear Path Forward

The report also stated that the failure of law enforcement officials to take the threats seriously was coupled with a dysfunctional Capitol police force that lacked the resources, capacity, and training to properly deal with the attack.

As part of their findings, the two committees outlined 20 recommendations for the Capitol Police, including calling for better planning, training, and intelligence gathering.

In a statement Tuesday, the agency that it welcomed the Senate analysis, but defended its response and claimed there was a lack of information regarding a threat.

“The USCP consumes intelligence from every federal agency,” the statement read. “At no point prior to the 6th did it receive actionable intelligence about a large-scale attack.”

While the new report comes from three months of interviews, reviews, and testimonies, it was limited in scope because Republicans refused to ask questions about Jan. 6 that could result in the publication of unflattering information about Trump or other members of the party .

Notably, the committees did not outline any of Trump’s actions, motivations, or make any conclusions about if he was responsible for the insurrection. In fact, it does not even describe the event as an “insurrection,” despite the general use of the term by Republicans in the months following the attack.

This report, however, is likely the closest Congress will get to a bipartisan effort to study the insurrection. Previously, key committee leaders in both parties had drafted legislation for an independent commission to study the events of Jan. 6 and make recommendations to prevent future attacks.

While that proposal had been crafted jointly with Republican lawmakers, top GOP leaders who had previously sanctioned the deal voiced last-minute opposition, and hopes for the commission were ultimately struck down in the Senate.

See what others are saying: (The New York Times) (The Washington Post) (NPR)

Continue Reading