Quo Vadis GOP?

[Sheilbh]

Weak parties and confused capitalists are not what is driving this.  They may have failed to control or stop it but that isn't what is motivating Republican rank and file.

The argument is, I believe, that because the parties were weak and the capitalists undisciplined, they aided and abetted the culture warriors' take-over of the party.

Yeah - I think it's more that the firewalls don't exist. It's not what's driving it - as he says those are deep forces in American society and political entrepreneurs (or grifters). Rather it's

The reason there are regular fights in the UK over control of the Labour Party is that the party is quite strong - so if you want to run or represent the left in this country that runs through the Labour Party. So the central party can more or less dictate candidates, decide who gets funding/support and - if they think a local party branch has problems like getting taken over by extremists to place it in "special measures" where the centre takes over for a while. The weakness of the party structure in the US - and in particular the importance of fundraising means they're pretty vulnerable.

On the capitalist bit - I just think it's striking that the GOP (which was the party of business for decades), despite the importance of fundraising and money is primarily, from what I can see, the party of MyPillow, The Trump Organization and Hobby Lobby. It opens space for people to, as he says, cultivate a deeply ideological conservatism (which is what's driving that) which, given the party weakness, overrides the interests of business etc.

[The Larch]

Marjorie Taylor Greene is not keen either on telecom companies giving their records for the Jan 6th investigation.

Marjorie Taylor Greene threatened to 'shut down' telecoms companies if they hand over Republicans' phone records to the January 6 commission

The House's January 6 commission asked telecoms companies to preserve Republicans' messages.
Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene claimed they'd be "shut down" if they handed over data to the commission.

Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene claimed on Tuesday that any telecommunications company that complies with a request to hand over Republicans' messages to the January 6 commission would be "shut down."

The House committee is investigating the circumstances surrounding the Capitol riot.

On Friday, the group asked social-media companies to turn over records related to the riot. On Monday, it asked 35 social-media and telecommunications companies to "preserve" records from a list of Republicans in Congress, former President Donald Trump, and Trump's family.

Several Republicans described those requests as a form of authoritarian overreach, a theme that dominated Greene's appearance on Fox News' "Tucker Carlson Tonight" on Tuesday.

The discussion appeared to react to both requests. Though the committee has not named the members of Congress on the list, sources told CNN that several Republicans including Greene were on it.

Fox News reported that the committee was seeking Greene's phone records, though no telecommunications company has been asked to hand anything over.

"If these telecommunications companies, if they go along with this, they will be shut down. And that's a promise," Greene told Carlson, without elaborating on how that would be achieved.

The ultraconservative Georgia Republican has expressed support for the QAnon conspiracy-theory movement, which had a presence at the January 6 riot. She has also suggested that the pro-Trump rioters were not actually Trump supporters.

On Fox News, Greene said the House committee was on a politically motivated "witch hunt."

"If members of Congress can have their personal cellphone data exposed ... just to hurt us politically in the next election, then we are going into a dangerous place in this country," she said.

She predicted the GOP would retake the majority in the House in the 2022 midterm elections and said it "will take this very serious."

When Carlson suggested that companies that hand over records be shut down, Greene agreed. "We will," she said, without elaborating.

Earlier Tuesday, House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy issued a statement heavily criticizing the committee's demands as moves toward a "surveillance state" that violated federal law.

McCarthy did not immediately respond to Insider's request for information about which law the committee was breaking. He has resisted the committee's makeup, saying in July that the GOP would launch its own investigation into the riot.

The committee, whose members were selected by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, has long been a source of contention between the parties. In May, Republicans in the Senate filibustered a proposal for an equally weighted, bicameral commission that would have allowed each party to name its members.

Pelosi pushed ahead with a select committee, which Republicans have criticized as overly political. She rejected two of McCarthy's picks — Reps. Jim Jordan and Jim Banks — on the grounds that they had voted against certifying the results of the 2020 election.

McCarthy then withdrew all five of his nominees, effectively withdrawing much of the GOP support for the effort.

Fox News and Greene did not immediately respond to Insider's request for comment.

[Berkut]

I am not sure I don't agree with her.

I mean, she is obviously a total POS, but I don't think Congress should be in the business of snooping on each other cell phone messages without there being a pretty overwhelming argument that there has been a clear crime committed within those records themselves.

We know for a fact that if those records are turned over, they will be leaked.

[crazy canuck]

I am not sure I don't agree with her.

I mean, she is obviously a total POS, but I don't think Congress should be in the business of snooping on each other cell phone messages without there being a pretty overwhelming argument that there has been a clear crime committed within those records themselves.

We know for a fact that if those records are turned over, they will be leaked.

Presumably, as with all other such disclosures, there is a mechanism in place to identify only relevant communications.

[Berkut]

Is there precedent here?

Are there other cases where Congress has subpoenaed the private messages of other congress members?

[DGuller]

Are there any precedents of Congress members conspiring with insurrectionists?

[PDH]

Are there any precedents of Congress members conspiring with insurrectionists?

Well, yeah, but that was before cell phones.

[Sheilbh]

I agree with Berk.

Plus it feels like you should consider what will happen with a power/precedent if it was in your opponents' hands. We know that the GOP would use this immediately and repeatedly once they're back in control and just end up focusing on the most inconsequential but awkward messages.

It's a bit like the confusion on the right with Texas. We're very concerned with cancel culture. Unrelatedly, great news - you can get around constitutional protections if you ban things you don't like but leave enforcement to vigilante litigation by activists.

[Berkut]

Are there any precedents of Congress members conspiring with insurrectionists?

Probably, but you are putting the cart before the horse. The subpoena of cell records would be to determine if such a conspiracy happened, so assuming that it has happened is not how warrants and subpoenas work.

And like I said, I have zero doubt that the moment you do this, those messages are going to be leaked, whether they are legally material or not.

And once you get to look at one group of politicians private messages as long as you can get the votes to do so, then that means that ALL such messages are going to be subpoenaed.

Politicians have to be able to actually do their jobs. That means they ahve to be able to have private discussions they can reasonabley assume are not going to be public domain.

[Jacob]

The instruction was to preserve the records, right? Not to bring them all to Congress?

I see the issue, for sure. But on the other hand, we're also dealing with a situation where one party has members calling for open insurrection, is massively undermining the ability to vote, is pushing through unconstitutional law with the help of a compliant supreme court, and is actively undermining trust in the democratic system.

Like... I agree that it's potentially a big issue... but is there anything that can be done to push back effectively? I know it's not a compelling argument to say "something must be done, this is something, therefore we must do it".

What's the best strategy? Hope that Covid kills propotionally more GOP voters than Dems in key states to overcome the gerrymandering and voter supression laws being put in place to disenfranchise non GOP voters? Hope that next time the GOP win they'll be less likely to attempt a coup?

[crazy canuck]

Is there precedent here?

Are there other cases where Congress has subpoenaed the private messages of other congress members?

Obtaining disclosure of email is a routine piece of litigation since about when emails started being used.  So yes, lots of precedent and lots of procedural protections built into the process.

[Sheilbh]

Like... I agree that it's potentially a big issue... but is there anything that can be done to push back effectively? I know it's not a compelling argument to say "something must be done, this is something, therefore we must do it".

What's the best strategy? Hope that Covid kills propotionally more GOP voters than Dems in key states to overcome the gerrymandering and voter supression laws being put in place to disenfranchise non GOP voters? Hope that next time the GOP win they'll be less likely to attempt a coup?

Expand democratic rights/entrench the VRA even if that means getting rid of the filibuster and organise politically to beat the GOP especially at the local level. And on a national level don't just strengthen the VRA - pass loads of legislation (that people want). Prove that the state can act and that you can get things done - because voters don't give a shit if you did nothing in a bipartisan way because you couldn't get Mitt Romney onside (I really hope Democrats have learned that from 2008-2010).

And, I'd say, know the opponent you're facing. This isn't just Trump or some thing that's happening on the fringes - this is what the GOP is now (and will be until they lose utterly). I actually quite like a bunch of stuff that Biden's done but I think temperamentally he's probably about the worst person to try that approach though and I doubt it will happen

I think the only way to stop this happening again is political. I don't know if it's possible and I don't know if it's enough to arrest the GOP shift to anti-democratic and minoritarian politics, but I think that's the only way.

I don't think there's going to be some piece of knowledge or fact or evidence that is going to change things and I think that was a big thing on the liberal-left/"resistance" in the US during the Trump years - "this will finally catch him/turn voters off him" etc.

I sort of feel like this is in a similar mindset and it's the same as the, in my view, nonsense argument that you should hold off on impeachment until you can gather evidence etc. None of that would have made any difference whatsoever.

Edit: But the honest full answer is - I don't know. I've no idea how you turn GOP from the path it's on or stop this from happening again.

[Razgovory]

Is there precedent here?

Are there other cases where Congress has subpoenaed the private messages of other congress members?

I don't know.  Congress can investigate individual members of Congress for ethics violations.  It would make sense that they would be able to subpoena documents in the course of such investigation.

[Jacob]

The thing that's unprecedented is attempting to hold individual members of the GOP accountable for their actions.

[The Brain]

Maybe it's good/bad/unusual, maybe it isn't. Finer points of law and governance appear to be fading from the stage at this point, seeing how the US is in a state of crisis. The question now is: is US nationbuilding in America more successful than in Afghanistan?