Quo Vadis GOP?

[Razgovory]

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

There are many things unprecedented in this thing, but holding individual members accountable is not one of them.  Congress has expelled members of Congress before.  Several were expelled during the Civil War.  Of course, we haven't had a civil war recently...

[The Minsky Moment]

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

Correct.  They've only been asked to preserve records. Which puts the threats in a rather sinister light.

[The Minsky Moment]

Is there precedent here?

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

Legally it comes down to the scope of the Speech and Debate Clause, and whether the members' conversations with Trump were "legislative acts"

Closest precedent is Gravel v. United States - Senator Gravel's aide was forced to testify about the circumstances under which the Senator's office acquired copies of the Pentagon Papers.  In US v. Helstoski, a sitting US Congressman was indicated for bribery; the Court ruled that evidence of legislative acts - bill introductions, votes, etc. - could not be be introduced into evidence, but that declarations of intentions about future legislative actions could be.

[The Minsky Moment]

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.

That's a good point and I also agree with sheilbh's concerns over factions of Congress issuing harassing subpoenas to one another the moment they get 50.1% voting power. We can probably guess what the GOP would do with such precedent, although it's not like they need precedent to misbehave.

The other side of this coin is that executive oversight is a core Congressional function.  These communications are not of interest because they include members of Congress, they are of interest because they include Trump.  This problem has arose because certain members put themselves in questionable positions as to the President, going well beyond political support and carrying legislative water.  What Trump was hearing from people in Congress that day and what he was telling them is of  great relevance  to an inquiry of great significance.

[Jacob]

I'm sure the GOP is going to pull all kinds of bullshit with this the moment they control the House, whether or not the Democrats get access in this case. It's not like they've demonstrated any kind of respect for precedence or the rule of law recently.

[Tonitrus]

If the GOP wins the House in '22, I will be impressed if Biden is not impeached at least three times.

[Sheilbh]

Lots of reports that Trump is planning to announce his election campaign and do a trip to Iowa shortly - so we've got that to look forward to for the next three years

Incidentally on abortion I slightly wonder if the Texas law (which Florida Republicans have announced they plan to copy) and SCOTUS generally may now become liabilities for the GOP. I think polling has always shown quite strong 60%+ opposition to this type of law, running on being pro-life when it can't happen and it's mainly a tool to get out the base is great. Having to defend this actual law with real consequence might not be. Similarly I feel like Republicans ran on the Warren/Burger court being radical activists and pushing too far for decades - I feel Democrats may be able to do the same (of course the first thing that should happen is any liberal judge over 75 should retire now) if this court keeps going (and I think Roberts can see that). Of course the downside of that is that it has taken the GOP 40 years of erosion to achieve their goals - it may take 40 years for Democrats to undo them.

[Admiral Yi]

Undo what?  Which have been the country changing pro Republican court decisions?  Maybe Citizens United?  I don't see that much to undo.

[The Minsky Moment]

Undo what?  Which have been the country changing pro Republican court decisions?  Maybe Citizens United?  I don't see that much to undo.

Shelby County v Holder (VRA case) is looking very significant now.

[Neil]

Lots of reports that Trump is planning to announce his election campaign and do a trip to Iowa shortly - so we've got that to look forward to for the next three years

Incidentally on abortion I slightly wonder if the Texas law (which Florida Republicans have announced they plan to copy) and SCOTUS generally may now become liabilities for the GOP. I think polling has always shown quite strong 60%+ opposition to this type of law, running on being pro-life when it can't happen and it's mainly a tool to get out the base is great. Having to defend this actual law with real consequence might not be. Similarly I feel like Republicans ran on the Warren/Burger court being radical activists and pushing too far for decades - I feel Democrats may be able to do the same (of course the first thing that should happen is any liberal judge over 75 should retire now) if this court keeps going (and I think Roberts can see that). Of course the downside of that is that it has taken the GOP 40 years of erosion to achieve their goals - it may take 40 years for Democrats to undo them.

Can't the Democrats just pack the court?

[Sheilbh]

Undo what?  Which have been the country changing pro Republican court decisions?  Maybe Citizens United?  I don't see that much to undo.

Well that's why I said if this court keeps going

Comey Barrett's only been on the court for for 11 months, but I think there are indicators they will probably substantially overturn Roe. I think the VRA case MM mentioned is important too. We'll see what else comes down the courts for them to rule on - but I think if you're a conservative donor, or campaign group now is the time to start funding those perhaps slightly speculative cases.

Of course if Breyer doesn't resign in the next few years then there is a not insignificant risk that the court could get even more conservative.

[Josquius]

Lots of reports that Trump is planning to announce his election campaign and do a trip to Iowa shortly - so we've got that to look forward to for the next three years

This would be a good thing no?
We've seen the limits of the Trump vote. And that was before the attempted coup.
The Republicans becoming even more firmly smeared with the Trump label will really provide a bit of a push back to all those moderate conservatives who loaned their vote to Biden in November.

I guess though this is the problem with fighting the abortion nonsense, packing the court, etc... it'll provide a counter push to those people....but failure to do this could reduce turnout with the left.

[Tonitrus]

If it is Trump vs. Harris in '24, I think Trump will win it.

Harris has been an almost non-entity so far (I know, most VPs are), and where she has, not very impressive.  And VPs don't have a good POTUS electoral track record as it is.

[jimmy olsen]

This would be a good thing no?
We've seen the limits of the Trump vote. And that was before the attempted coup.
The Republicans becoming even more firmly smeared with the Trump label will really provide a bit of a push back to all those moderate conservatives who loaned their vote to Biden in November.

I guess though this is the problem with fighting the abortion nonsense, packing the court, etc... it'll provide a counter push to those people....but failure to do this could reduce turnout with the left.

I could see GOP state legislators overturning the results of elections in swing states to throw the election to their candidate (skeptical that Trump will be alive in 24). This would either result in autocracy or civil war.

[The Brain]

I think autocracy is very unlikely in the US. It's certainly not impossible, but I don't see a credible candidate among the current Republicans.