After the Republicans eliminated one-fifth of committees, it's time for Democrats to take decisive action. We should add the January 6th Capitol attack to this list.
Following numerous national tragedies, an independent, bipartisan commission was established to investigate what transpired and prevent any future occurrences: the Roberts Commission, Warren Commission, 9/11 Commission.
However, this time, patriotism and precedents seem to be disregarded. Thanks to Republican filibuster, the formation of an overarching, bipartisan committee was effectively shut down. The final vote resulted in 54 in favor, 35 against – with six Republicans joining the Democrats in the U.S. Senate, but it fell short of the 60 votes required for continuation. A minority can suppress the majority's will for selfish political reasons.
Many feared that the bipartisan commission would present new information that would harm their party in the next elections. They're being influenced by Trump's supporters, who spread false narratives. This is essentially giving carte blanche to those undercutting the 9/11 Commission's legitimacy – an unthinkable act.
But what can Democrats actually do in response?
I'm glad you asked.
First, Democrats should demand a louder filibuster in the Senate. The idea, initially proposed by author Jonathan Alter, would force the Republicans to defend the indefensible.
Discussing filibusters over stone walls is a nerve-wracking experience. It can last for hours or even days. However, it aligns with the idea that the filibuster should be a conscientious act, and not a hidden stamp of partisan obstruction.
Republicans don't want to discuss the Capitol attack anymore, so they should be forced to do so for an extended period. Moreover, they'll try to minimize the attack's significance while the police force and the nation watches.
Actually, this would delay their Memorial Day pause, which is entirely justified. Instead, they'd be able to double down on their support for amnesia regarding the insurrection. This provides an additional reason to postpone tactical reforms.
Now it's time for Plan B: a House select committee – with a twist.
Democrats could unilaterally convene a committee and invite John Katko, the New York Republican who brokered the deal, as co-chairman.
Think about it: 35 brave Republicans voted in favor of the bipartisan commission, but the minority leader of the House, Kevin McCarthy, is already planning to attack the House committee due to perceived partisanship and possibly deny its findings. Consequently, McCarthy will likely appoint supporters of the "Big Lie" instead, who will follow his wishes, but this also poses the risk that the Republicans will suffer in the subsequent circus.
The committee will have the authority to summon witnesses, including Mark Meadows, Trump's former chief of staff, and Mike Pence, the former vice president. They'll certainly contest these subpoenas in court, but the longer the delaying tactic lasts, the closer we get to the next election – something they'd rather avoid.
The third option was uncharted territory, but then came the insurrectionistic attack on the Capitol. The concept was first proposed by Congressional scholar Norman Ornstein during an interview with Greg Sargent from the Washington Post, and I later reached out to him for more details.
So here's how it works:
Given the Democratic Party of President Joe Biden, the Attorney General could appoint a special prosecutor to investigate rebellions and riots.
The special task force would enable attorneys from the Public Integrity Unit of the Department of Justice to submit digital records related to the Capitol attack.
Enrichment Data:
Democrats' response to the Republicans' blocking of an independent, bipartisan commission to investigate the Capitol attack has sparked polarized views:
Democratic Perspective
Support for the Select Committee:
- Investigative Need: Democrats believed that an independent bipartisan commission was essential for a thorough, unbiased, and transparent investigation into the events leading up to the attack and ensuring accountability[2][3].
- Legislative Action: House Resolution 503, which established the select committee, passed on a bi-partisan basis with 222 voting in favor (213 Democrats and 9 Republicans), and 190 voting against, mainly Republicans. This indicated broad support among Dems for the investigation[3].
Republican Perspective
Opposition to the Select Committee:
- Partisan Concerns: Republicans generally opposed the formation of the select committee, viewing it as a partisan effort. Many believed the composition of the committee bypassed the traditional legislative process, and that it was not truly bipartisan[3].
Public Opinion
Public Reaction:
- Accountability: The public appreciated the need for accountability and transparency regarding the events leading to the attack[2][3].
- Polarizing Response: The response to the select committee was polarized along party lines, reflecting the broader political divide in the United States. While some saw it as an important step towards accountability, others viewed it as a partisan witch hunt[3].
In conclusion, Democrats generally saw the need for an independent investigation to ensure transparency and accountability, while Republicans opposed the select committee due to concerns about partisanship and the composition of the committee. The public reaction was divided, reflecting the broader political divide in the United States.
