Mediaboss Marketing

As recently as May 2019, just two years ago, Texas Republicans and their allies were not at all eager to approve a sweeping abortion ban. It wasn't because they preferred moderation on reproductive rights, but rather, because they didn't think it would work out well -- legally or politically.

Republican Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick (R) said at the time that he considered Texas "clearly the most pro-life state in the country," but added that major abortion restrictions simply weren't "the highest priority" for GOP officials. Patrick concluded that other states could take the lead.

A lot can change in two years.

Texas became the largest state Wednesday with a law that bans abortions before many women even know they are pregnant, but with a unique provision that essentially leaves enforcement to private citizens through lawsuits against doctors or anyone who helps a woman get an abortion.

As abortion bans go, this one's a doozy. Texas has approved a so-called "heartbeat" bill, which bans abortions after roughly six weeks of pregnancy. As the Associated Press' report noted, there are real, practical problems with such a timeline: many Texas women, at least those who can't afford to travel to Democratic-led states to terminate unwanted pregnancies, will be required to seek abortions before they know they're pregnant.

But while other Republican-led states have approved related measures, the new abortion ban in the Lone Star State goes a little further.

The Texas Tribune reported, "Instead of having the government enforce the law, the bill turns the reins over to private citizens who are newly empowered to sue abortion providers or anyone who helps someone get an abortion after a fetal heartbeat has been detected. The person would not have to be connected to someone who had an abortion or to a provider to sue."

In other words, if a Texan learns that a neighbor had an abortion seven weeks after getting pregnant, he could file suit against the physician who performed the procedure. And the nurse who was in the room. And the friend who drove the neighbor to the health clinic.

Whether that litigious Texan has anything to do with the neighbor or her family is, under the state's new law, irrelevant. The AP report added, "Critics say that provision would allow abortion opponents to flood the courts with lawsuits to harass doctors, patients, nurses, domestic violence counselors, a friend who drove a woman to a clinic, or even a parent who paid for a procedure."

Critics say that, of course, because it's true.

MSNBC's Laura Bassett noted an ironic twist: Texas Gov. Greg Abbott (R) signed the abortion ban just one day after the Republican governor signed a measure banning local government entities, including public schools, from enforcing COVID-19 mask mandates.

After signing the executive order, Abbott wrote on twitter, "Texans, not [government], should decide their best health practices."

So much for that idea.

Ordinarily, the state's new abortion ban would face immediate trouble in the courts, but let's not forget that the U.S. Supreme Court announced this week that it will hear a Mississippi case that threatens to undo Roe v. Wade protections, and perhaps even allow the kind of abortion ban signed into law in Texas yesterday. Watch this space.

Read more:
Why Texas Republicans' new abortion ban is different than most - MSNBC

Some of the 175 Republicans who voted against establishing an independent commission to investigate the Capitol riot supported a commission in January.

In the days after the Jan. 6 attack, 30 Republicans co-sponsored a commission bill introduced by Rep. Rodney Davis (R-Ill.). This week, even more Republicans endorsed the idea Davis was one of the 35 Republicans who broke with party leaders and voted in favor of a commission on Wednesday.

After all, it is common for Congress to establish an advisory commission in the wake of a disaster or to help with some complicated policy problem. Congress has established dozens and dozens of commissions in recent decades.

But 16 of the Republicans who co-sponsored the Davis bill in January voted against the newer bill to establish a commission, which was written by House Homeland Security Chair Bennie Thompson (D-Miss.) and the committees top Republican, Rep. John Katko (R-N.Y.).

One of them, Rep. Jim Banks (R-Ind.), had such a strong change of heart that he urged his colleagues to vote against the commission bill Wednesday during a Republican Study Committee meeting before the vote. Banks refused to speak to HuffPost about the commission.

The Davis bill from January envisioned a similar commission to the one in the Thompson-Katko bill, with five expert members appointed by each party, the same power to issue subpoenas, and a final report with recommendations for corrective measures. Both bills are modeled on the legislation that established the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks commission.

Tom Williams via Getty ImagesRep. Ralph Norman (R-S.C.) co-sponsored a Republican bill to establish a Jan. 6 commission soon after the Capitol attack, but voted against the bipartisan bill passed by the House this week.

Rep. Ralph Norman (R-S.C.), who co-sponsored the Davis bill but voted against the Thompson-Katko bill, insisted the two measures are very different.

Its a whole different situation, Norman told HuffPost. Their intent is just to keep the spotlight on Trump, and thats not right.

The biggest difference about the situation is that when Republicans introduced their commission bill in January, House Democrats had just introduced an impeachment resolution against Donald Trump. At the time, House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.) suggested a fact-finding commission and a censure resolution as an impeachment alternative.

But Norman said its more than just a different situation today: Its two different bills, two different commissions, two different setups.

There are some small differences between the bills. The one Norman supported would give the commission 18 months to write its report, while the one that passed the House sets a Dec. 31, 2021, deadline. But the shorter deadline is probably advantageous for Republicans, since it means a big commission report wouldnt drop right before the midterm elections next year.

The House-passed bill disallows current officeholders from serving on the panel, but, in a break from the 9/11 commission model, the Republican bill would allow the appointment of two members of Congress, giving Republicans an opportunity for sabotage.

Before Thompson and Katko announced their agreement last week, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) had her own proposal for a commission, one with more Democratic than Republican appointees and unilateral subpoena powers.

But even after she conceded to an even party split, Republican leaders complained that the commission wouldnt also look at Black Lives Matter protests that had no relevance to the Capitol attack.

And this week Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) griped that a commission would duplicate ongoing congressional and criminal investigations, even though the same was true of the 9/11 commission. The House bill faces uncertain odds in the Senate.

Normans complaint that a commission would keep the spotlight on Trump points to the real reason most Republicans oppose a special investigation. The events of Jan. 6 reflect poorly on the Republican Party because its leader, Donald Trump, incited the attack on the Capitol with his lies about the election, and most Republicans joined him in telling those lies.

The 16 Republicans who signed on to the Davis bill but voted against the Thompson-Katko bill are: Banks, Norman, James Comer (Ky.), Ashley Hinson (Iowa), Ted Budd (N.C.), Michael McCaul (Texas), Doug LaMalfa (Calif.), Michelle Steel (Calif.), August Pfluger (Texas), Kat Cammack (Fla.), Jake LaTurner (Kan.), Jeff Van Drew (N.J.), Diana Harshbarger (Tenn.), Beth Van Duyne (Texas), Clay Higgins (La.) and Jackie Walorski (Ind.).

Calling all HuffPost superfans!

Sign up for membership to become a founding member and help shape HuffPost's next chapter

Read more:
Some Republicans Opposed To Capitol Riot Commission Supported One In January - HuffPost

Caroline BrehmanGetty Images

The It-Didnt-Start-With-Trump element of the Republican recalcitrance on a proposed bipartisan (Gawd!) commission to investigate the January 6 insurrection is to recall that George W. Bush did all he could to derail the 9/11 commission that everyone now pretends to adore, and that C-Plus Augustus refused to testify under oath to that commission, and wouldnt even sit for an unrecorded interview except in the White House with Dick Cheney, father of St. Liz of the Holy Soundbite, sitting next to him working the levers. And lets not even get into the government-wide stonewalling of the Iran-Contra investigations before that, and lets also remember that there were 33 investigations into Benghazi, BENGHAZI, BENGHAZI!

However, when Mitch McConnell came out on Tuesday as the devious reptile hes always been, and announced that he was joining House Republican honcho Kevin McCarthy over in Cowards Corner, the difference was an order of magnitude. These guys were shirking their constitutional obligation and abandoning their moral compasses because a) they lead a party that is very likely complicit in the events, and b) theyre doing so to cover for a crook and a liar whos in so many crosshairs he looks like Bonnie and Clyde at the end of that movie.

Mitch, my dude, this isnt a job for grown-ups. And let us all wave farewell to Rep. John Katko, the Republican co-sponsor of the bipartisan commission proposal, as he disappears forever under a bus.

Later Wednesday afternoon, debate in the House began on the resolution establishing the commission. The overarching impressions were that, in the debate, the Democrats led with age and the Republicans led with crazy. The first three speakers in defense of the resolutionNancy Pelosi, Bennie Thompson, and Steny Hoyerare a combined 235 years old. The Republican side led off with Marjorie Taylor Greene, Louis Gohmert, and some guy from North Carolina named Sam Bishop, who wanted to make sure everybody knew that what happened on January 6.

Personally, I think the passel of elderly Communist inebriates who tried to overthrow future Pizza Hut spokesman Mikhail Gorbachev back in August of 1991 are still the gold standard for insurrectionist clownery. (They got faced down by Boris Yeltsin, reportedly because, against all possible odds, some of them were drunker than Yeltsin was.) That, however, is beside the point. I would draw your attention to that last sentence in which John Katko returns to his place under the wheels.

Kent NishimuraGetty Images

Watching Katko straddle the crazy to get the resolution he co-sponsored passed made you fear for every hamstring the man owns. Speaker after speaker tried to find polite ways to call Katko either a rube or a sucker. Meanwhile, the Democrats, in the person of co-sponsor Thompson, seem convinced that the fact that the resolution is bipartisan has some ultimate legislative salience in the Congress, and some ultimate political salience in the country, which is something I doubt profoundly. People dont give a fck about bipartisanship. Its neither a dealmaker nor a dealbreaker. Its a green-room amenity, like sodas and a crudit plate. Thankfully, Rep. Tim Ryan showed up to inveigh against the futility of it all.

To which Katko responded in his best hall-monitor voice that things were getting impermissibly partisan and emotional. Because, when you come right down to it, John Katko is a Republican, too. At loose moments, he let that slip through. For example, the regular GOP stance on the commission is that it ought to investigate the disturbances last summer following the murder of George Floyd. (Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene ranted about them in her one minute of debate time.) But Katko tried another tack.

This is a matter of comparing apples and salamanders. The 2017 episode was the work of one man, James Hodgkinson, and he was killed by the officers at the scene. There was a Secret Service investigation almost immediately after the shooting. As far as I know, there havent even been rumors of other people involved in the shooting. Hodgkinson was vocal in his dislike of Republicans and clearly came to the ballfield to attack them that morning, but he did it all on his own. An awful event, certainly, but if Katko thinks a 1/6 commission should examine it, then hes as invested in delay and deflection as Greene is.

And, unless Mitch McConnell is taken off to glory and replaced by Zombie Paul Douglas, this thing is as dead as Kelseys nuts in the Senate anyway. Ten Republicans would have to vote for it and, well, no. Its time for Democrats simply to put together a select committee of their own, issue subpoenas, and let the chips fall.

This content is created and maintained by a third party, and imported onto this page to help users provide their email addresses. You may be able to find more information about this and similar content at piano.io

Go here to read the rest:
Republicans Threw Their Own Guy Deep Under the Bus to Avoid a January 6 Commission - Esquire

The U.S. House of Representatives has approved a bill that would establish an independent, bipartisan commission to investigate the deadly insurrection at the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6.

The House voted 252-175 on the bill, with 35 Republicans breaking with their party to support the legislation. None of those 35 Republicans were among Minnesota's Congressional delegation.

Republican U.S. Reps. Jim Hagedorn (MN-01), Tom Emmer (MN-03), Michelle Fischbach (MN-07) and Pete Stauber (MN-08) all voted against the commission.

All four Minnesota Democrats in Congress Reps. Angie Craig, Betty McCollum, Ilhan Omar, and Dean Phillips voted in favor of the measure.

The commission, which would have an equal number of Democrats and Republicans, is aimed at investigating the insurrection,which involved a mob of people storming into the Capitol while Congress certified the election in favor of President Joe Biden

During the ordeal, numerous protesters violently attacked Capitol police officers (the family of one officer who killed himself after the insurrection is in support of the commission) and it led to the House impeaching President Donald Trump (who was ultimately not convicted in the Senate as the vote fell three short of the 60 senators required).

Phillips, represents Minnesota's 3rd Congressional District, tweeted about the lack of support from some Republicans on Wednesday, saying he "never imagined a single member of Congress would vote against a bipartisan commission to investigate" the bloody incident.

Emmer in a statement, according to the Star Tribune, cited three ongoing congressional committees that are investigating the insurrection and adding another one "does nothing to help the American people move forward or bridge the current political divide in our country."

It doesn't appear the other Republican members of Minnesota's Congressional delegation have released public statements about their decision. That being said, Hagedorn and Fischbach were among the Republicans who objected to certifying Biden's win as Trump, without evidence, claimed the election was stolen. While Stauber and Emmer joined efforts to overturn the election by supporting a lawsuit seeking to overturn results in several key swing states.

Emmer's objections to the bill mirror what other Republicans have said, like that this proposed commission would be counterproductive, citing the other commissions and federal agencies' investigation, Axios explains. Another reason GOPers have said they're against the legislation is because they're concerned the bill would be used to subpoena and alienate members of the party and Trump.

Among the criticisms from Democrats that have emerged in recent days is noting that while in control of Congress, Republicans approved 10 investigations into the Benghazi attack while Hillary Clinton was Secretary of State, which House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy has previously admitted was partly motivated by hurting Clinton's election chances.

Others have tried to downplay the violence that occurred on Jan. 6 even after a deal on the scope and focus of the proposed commission had been reached, CNN said. Some Republicans pushed for the commission to also investigate protests and unrest last summer following George Floyd's murder, as well as other incidents.

Minnesota DFL Party Chairman Ken Martin released a statement slamming Republicans for voting against the commission, saying they propped up the "Big Lie" that the election was stolen, which helped inspire the insurrection at the Capitol and now they're blocking efforts to learn the truth behind what happened.

"Republicans are ready to move on in a hypocritical bid to bury their complicity in that storming," Martin said, adding: When Representatives Hagedorn, Emmer, Fischbach, and Stauber were given the opportunity to defend American democracy, they chose to defend Donald Trump, the Republican Party, a violent, lawless mob instead."

After the House's approval, the bill heads to the Senate, where Republican leader Mitch McConnell has voiced his opposition to the bill, calling it a "slanted and unbalanced proposal"and GOP leaders are pushing for other Republicans to vote it down.

See original here:
All 4 MN Republicans vote against bipartisan commission into Jan. 6 insurrection - Bring Me The News

Support for Rep. Liz Cheney, seen here on April 20, is crumbling as the second-ranking House Republican is publicly supporting her ousting from GOP leadership. Sarah Silbiger/Getty Images hide caption

Support for Rep. Liz Cheney, seen here on April 20, is crumbling as the second-ranking House Republican is publicly supporting her ousting from GOP leadership.

Steve Scalise, the second-ranking House Republican, is publicly backing Rep. Liz Cheney's removal from GOP leadership, adding to the growing momentum to remove the Wyoming Republican after months of backlash over her continued criticism of former President Trump's efforts to undermine the 2020 election and his role in inciting the Jan. 6 U.S. Capitol riot.

In a statement given to NPR, Scalise calls for New York Rep. Elise Stefanik, a Trump loyalist, to replace Cheney as House Republican Conference Chair.

"House Republicans need to be solely focused on taking back the House in 2022 and fighting against Speaker Pelosi and President Biden's radical socialist agenda, and Elise Stefanik is strongly committed to doing that, which is why Whip Scalise has pledged to support her for Conference Chair," said Scalise's communications director, Lauren Fine.

Trump also endorsed Stefanik. "We want leaders who believe in the Make America Great Again movement, and prioritize the values of America First," Trump said in a statement Wednesday. "Elise Stefanik is a far superior choice, and she has my COMPLETE and TOTAL Endorsement for GOP Conference Chair. Elise is a tough and smart communicator!"

The House is currently on recess and so any official vote to remove Cheney from her leadership role, or elect Stefanik, would happen next week at the earliest.

On Tuesday, House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy told Fox & Friends he's had members share concerns with him over Cheney's ability to carry out GOP messaging and pushed back that the fallout against the Wyoming lawmaker stems from her vote to impeach former President Donald Trump.

"I haven't heard members concerned about her vote on impeachment, it's more concerned about the job ability to do and what's our best step forward, that we can all work together instead of attacking one another," he said.

But as Axios reported following the interview, McCarthy put it more bluntly in a moment captured on a hot mic.

"I've had it with her. I've lost confidence," he said.

Tensions between McCarthy and Cheney have been simmering for months, as Cheney refuses to let up on rebuking Trump for undermining the 2020 election and inciting the Capitol insurrection on Jan. 6.

But many Republicans see her fierce criticism of the former president as at odds with her role of carrying out party messaging, especially as leaders like McCarthy and Scalise are actively working with Trump for his campaign support in the next midterm elections.

Scalise previously told Axios that Cheney's views on Trump are out of step with most Republicans.

"This idea that you just disregard President Trump is not where we are, and frankly he has a lot to offer still and has offered a lot. He wants to help us win the House back," he said.

House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer, D-Md., said Wednesday that Cheney's "greatest offense apparently is she is principled and she believes in the truth."

"If you're not 1,000% for Donald Trump, somehow you're not a good Republican, you're not worthy of being in the leadership," Hoyer told The Washington Post's Karen Tumulty on Post Live.

"I think it's a real weakness in the Republican party that they have. jettison their principles, jettison adherence to the truth, and simply pandered to one individual: Donald Trump."

Stefanik, 36, was first elected to the House in 2014. At the time, she was the youngest woman ever elected to Congress. A Harvard graduate who worked in the George W. Bush White House, Stefanik's political alliances have shifted from being closely aligned to the establishment wing of the GOP she was a close political ally and one time adviser to former Speaker Paul Ryan to a vocal Trump loyalist who earned attention and praise from the former president for her role in defending him during his first impeachment trial.

Stefanik has worked for years to recruit and support more Republican women to run for Congress, a constituency in which she now enjoys a strong level of support. She has not faced a serious challenge for her upstate New York House seat since she won in 2014 and as the area has trended towards Republicans.

View original post here:
No. 2 House Republican Supports Ousting Cheney From GOP Leadership - NPR