Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Top Stories

Partisanship likely to derail insurrection commission

Capitol insurrection

The Senate is expected to vote Thursday on whether to create a commission investigating the Jan. 6 attack at the Capitol.

Brent Stirton/Getty Images

Nearly five months ago, insurrectionists stormed the Capitol, threatened the lives of lawmakers and attempted to subvert American democracy. But GOP opposition is likely to stonewall an investigation into this attack.

Failure to approve a commission investigating the events of Jan. 6 would signal significant dysfunction and polarization in Congress, further eroding the public's faith in the political system.


Following the House's bipartisan vote to approve an investigation commission last week, the Senate is anticipated to bring the legislation to the chamber floor Thursday. But ahead of the vote, many Republicans remained opposed or undecided, casting uncertainty on the prospects of meeting the 60-vote threshold needed to overcome a procedural test.

Co-sponsored by Democratic Rep. Bennie Thompson of Mississippi and GOP Rep. John Katko of New York, the bill would establish a commission consisting of 10 members, evenly appointed by the two parties' leadership in the House and Senate. Modeled after the commission that investigated the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, this body would have the power to receive evidence and issue subpoenas.

The commission would be required to hold public hearings and submit a final report to Congress and President Biden by the end of the year.

Despite opposition from GOP House leaders including Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy, 35 Republicans joined Democrats in approving the commission last Wednesday. Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell has also come out against the probe, putting pressure on Republicans to fall in line with party leadership.

Failing to receive support from both major parties would be a noteworthy departure from historical precedent. Following both Watergate and 9/11, Congress overwhelmingly supported establishing investigative committees.

Ambassador Tim Roemer, a Democrat and former member of Congress who served on the Sept. 11 commission, emphasized during a press call Thursday morning that the creation of a Jan. 6 commission should not be a partisan issue.

"This is not about left or right. It's about right and wrong. It was wrong for people to violently attack and assault our police officers, our legislators and custodians and staff, to disrupt a peaceful transfer of power, plain wrong," Roemer said during the call, which was organized by the nonpartisan reform group Issue One. "It's not about Democrats and Republicans. It's about the constitution and our Capitol, and the sanctity of that Capitol."

Republican Chuck Hagel, a former senator and secretary of defense during President Barack Obama's first term, also participated in the call and echoed Roemer's remarks. Hagel said all senators should vote according to their oath of office, not political party or whomever the president is at the time.

"In representative government, if you stay close to your oath of office and don't get things confused, that's your North Star," he said. "It's not a Republican or Democratic vote, it's an American vote."

If the Jan. 6 commission does receive enough votes to pass, it could be thanks to a last-minute amendment pushed by Sen. Susan Collins. The Maine Republican's primary sticking point is making sure the chair and vice chair of the commission jointly appoint the staff, rather than do so separately. If the bill is approved with Collins' amendment, it would be sent back to the House for reconciliation.

But the more likely scenario is that the vote will be subject to the first Republican filibuster of this legislative session. Utilizing the procedural move, which was conceived as a way to ensure the majority doesn't run roughshod over the minority, would give progressive Democrats fodder to reignite their efforts to eliminate what has become merely a blocking tactic rather than a tool for forcing compromise.

Notably, Sens. Kyrsten Sinema of Arizona and Joe Manchin of West Virginia, the two Democrats largely responsible for the filibuster remaining intact, issued a joint statement Tuesday in support of the Jan. 6 commission. They called it "a critical step to ensuring our nation never has to endure an attack at the hands of our countrymen again."

"We implore our Senate Republican colleagues to work with us to find a path forward on a commission to examine the events of January 6th," Sinema and Manchin said.

Whatever the Senate decides Thursday, Hagel said, "history is going to reflect on this day pretty clearly." Not having Congress involved in investigating the insurrection would be "a terrible blackmark" on the institution, he added.


Read More

Members of a women's softball team cheerfully join hands during practice on a sunny day, showcasing team spirit, cooperation, and enthusiasm for the sport.

Do trans women have a strength advantage? A look at studies on hormone therapy, muscle mass, and why it should determine eligibility in women's sports.

luza studios/Getty Images

Trans Females Are Not Biological Males - Let Them Play on Female Teams

Most Americans, Democrats as well as Republicans—many following the lead of President Trump—feel that it is not right for trans females to participate in women's sports. But the trans community, supported by those on the left wing of the Democratic Party, insists that this is part of ensuring the rights of trans people. The issue has been divisive among Democrats.

This is a complex issue. On the one hand, boys are boys, and girls are girls. That's the basic fact behind male and female sports, other than some intramural school sports that have boys and girls on the same team. Because boys are biologically stronger and faster than girls, separate leagues have been developed for both. This has nothing to do with gender identity; it is just a reflection of biological fact.

Keep ReadingShow less
An aerial view of a Flock camera

An aerial view of a Flock camera in Burbank, California. U.S. President Donald Trump expressed support for Flock cameras, saying he likes the AI-powered surveillance technology because of its use by law enforcement, despite concerns that it infringes on privacy.

(Photo by Justin Sullivan/Getty Images)

Flock Cameras Are Coming Down – but We Need More To Dismantle the Surveillance State

Chances are, you’ve seen one in your neighborhood. Flock cameras have become a major flashpoint for voters in the leadup to the midterms. The concept sounds straight out of 1984 — a network of government-owned cameras that track your movements — it’s no wonder that Americans across party lines are demanding their states and towns sever ties with the controversial company. Surveillance fears are only getting stronger as we enter the AI era.

But the problem isn’t just Flock. These cameras, Automated License Plate Readers or ALPRs to be exact, are a symptom of a larger “surveil first, ask questions later” attitude that has been adopted by local and federal government for decades. In recent years, the federal government has been dramatically expanding the nation’s surveillance infrastructure. This has taken many forms, from facial recognition technology at the airport, to law enforcement monitoring your mail, to the government watching what you’re posting on your personal social media pages. Since April, many Democrats and Republicans in Congress have united to stop what would effectively be a blank check for surveillance via FISA reauthorization, demanding surveillance reforms such as closing the “data broker loophole”, which allows the government to buy Americans’ personal data without a warrant.

Keep ReadingShow less