Opinion by
Greg Sargent
Columnist
May 26, 2021 at 3:55 p.m. CDT
As you know, Senate Republicans are preparing to filibuster the bill creating a commission to examine the Jan. 6 assault on the Capitol. But a few GOP Senators seem to want to support some sort of commission, partly to preclude any drive among Democrats toward reforming the filibuster.
After all, a GOP filibuster of a bill examining a violent mob attack on lawmakers from both parties in the Capitol — all to protect the Republican president who singularly incited that attack from accountability for it — will make the case for reforming or ending the filibuster stronger.
One of the Senators in that ostensibly conciliatory camp is Susan Collins. The Maine Republican just made a new offer for tweaks to the bill creating the commission that recently passed the House. These could presumably win her support.
But for numerous reasons, Collins’ offer, which was first reported by Politico’s Burgess Everett, only makes it clear why filibuster reform is growing more imperative.
First, her proposed amendment is bad.
The current makeup gives the Democratic-appointed chair the power to appoint staff. But it requires the chair to consult with the GOP-appointed vice chair and requires the chair to make these appointments in accordance with commission rules agreed upon by a majority of its membership.
So the current makeup gives the chair some control over staff — who will influence its investigative direction — but circumscribes that control with input from Republican appointees. And since the membership itself is evenly divided between the two parties, that means Republicans help shape the circumscribing rules.
Collins’s amendment would require that the GOP-appointed vice chair has equal control with the chair in picking staff. And in the event that they cannot agree on staff, the chair and vice chair would both pick separate staffs.
The problem here, of course, is that the vice chair is picked by Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) and House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.). Both fiercely oppose the very mission of the commission, precisely because it would focus on the causes and factors leading up to the attack, which is to say it would implicate Trump and Republicans in helping create the conditions for it with their lies about the 2020 election.
Ryan Goodman, a law professor at New York University, points out that this would be a recipe for Republicans to be able to scuttle the proceedings by creating chaos.
“We are already in uncharted territory,” Goodman points out, noting that McConnell’s and McCarthy’s control over the vice chair could be used to pick a big fight over the staff, embroiling the commission in “partisan controversy from the start.”
And then, if that can’t be resolved, Goodman noted, the provision allowing each to appoint a separate staff would then threaten to “undermine the commission” by “splintering the staff into two competing camps.”
To be clear, it appears Collins is really trying to win over more Republicans. She will reportedly vote for the commission and is offering this for that purposes.
But here’s the problem. It’s unavoidable that the Democratic-appointed chair does have to have a measure of reasonable control over investigative direction, precisely because giving Republicans veto power over it all but ensures disaster. The current proposal handles this reasonably, by giving Republicans a fair amount of input into those staffing decisions, and requiring agreement on rules shaping how that control is exercised.
Indeed, the very fact that Republicans are rejecting the current proposal itself shows how unreachable any kind of “bipartisan” accounting really is. Underscoring the point, even if this amendment were adopted, it’s all but certain that 10 Republicans wouldn’t support the commission anyway.
And if somehow they did, it’s only because the amendment would badly mar hopes for a real accounting. That’s their precondition for supporting it.
All of which highlights what the fundamental problem has been from the start. It’s not really possible to have a serious commission on this matter that Republicans would ever permit to count as “bipartisan.” They simply cannot be entrusted with veto power over the direction of the investigation, because they themselves are implicated in the crime against democracy.
That gives them too strong an incentive to try to muddy up the direction so it doesn’t focus on the crime and its causes.
If the commission were to pass in its current form, I think it would be worth trying. But that is all but certain not to happen. And it should be obvious by now that a full accounting on this matter will be undertaken on a partisan basis, by the Democratic Party alone, or it won’t happen at all.
Greg Sargent
Columnist
May 26, 2021 at 3:55 p.m. CDT
As you know, Senate Republicans are preparing to filibuster the bill creating a commission to examine the Jan. 6 assault on the Capitol. But a few GOP Senators seem to want to support some sort of commission, partly to preclude any drive among Democrats toward reforming the filibuster.
After all, a GOP filibuster of a bill examining a violent mob attack on lawmakers from both parties in the Capitol — all to protect the Republican president who singularly incited that attack from accountability for it — will make the case for reforming or ending the filibuster stronger.
One of the Senators in that ostensibly conciliatory camp is Susan Collins. The Maine Republican just made a new offer for tweaks to the bill creating the commission that recently passed the House. These could presumably win her support.
But for numerous reasons, Collins’ offer, which was first reported by Politico’s Burgess Everett, only makes it clear why filibuster reform is growing more imperative.
First, her proposed amendment is bad.
The current makeup gives the Democratic-appointed chair the power to appoint staff. But it requires the chair to consult with the GOP-appointed vice chair and requires the chair to make these appointments in accordance with commission rules agreed upon by a majority of its membership.
So the current makeup gives the chair some control over staff — who will influence its investigative direction — but circumscribes that control with input from Republican appointees. And since the membership itself is evenly divided between the two parties, that means Republicans help shape the circumscribing rules.
Collins’s amendment would require that the GOP-appointed vice chair has equal control with the chair in picking staff. And in the event that they cannot agree on staff, the chair and vice chair would both pick separate staffs.
The problem here, of course, is that the vice chair is picked by Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) and House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.). Both fiercely oppose the very mission of the commission, precisely because it would focus on the causes and factors leading up to the attack, which is to say it would implicate Trump and Republicans in helping create the conditions for it with their lies about the 2020 election.
Ryan Goodman, a law professor at New York University, points out that this would be a recipe for Republicans to be able to scuttle the proceedings by creating chaos.
“We are already in uncharted territory,” Goodman points out, noting that McConnell’s and McCarthy’s control over the vice chair could be used to pick a big fight over the staff, embroiling the commission in “partisan controversy from the start.”
And then, if that can’t be resolved, Goodman noted, the provision allowing each to appoint a separate staff would then threaten to “undermine the commission” by “splintering the staff into two competing camps.”
To be clear, it appears Collins is really trying to win over more Republicans. She will reportedly vote for the commission and is offering this for that purposes.
But here’s the problem. It’s unavoidable that the Democratic-appointed chair does have to have a measure of reasonable control over investigative direction, precisely because giving Republicans veto power over it all but ensures disaster. The current proposal handles this reasonably, by giving Republicans a fair amount of input into those staffing decisions, and requiring agreement on rules shaping how that control is exercised.
Indeed, the very fact that Republicans are rejecting the current proposal itself shows how unreachable any kind of “bipartisan” accounting really is. Underscoring the point, even if this amendment were adopted, it’s all but certain that 10 Republicans wouldn’t support the commission anyway.
And if somehow they did, it’s only because the amendment would badly mar hopes for a real accounting. That’s their precondition for supporting it.
All of which highlights what the fundamental problem has been from the start. It’s not really possible to have a serious commission on this matter that Republicans would ever permit to count as “bipartisan.” They simply cannot be entrusted with veto power over the direction of the investigation, because they themselves are implicated in the crime against democracy.
That gives them too strong an incentive to try to muddy up the direction so it doesn’t focus on the crime and its causes.
If the commission were to pass in its current form, I think it would be worth trying. But that is all but certain not to happen. And it should be obvious by now that a full accounting on this matter will be undertaken on a partisan basis, by the Democratic Party alone, or it won’t happen at all.
