A rundown of the bizarre Republican responses to Kevin McCarthy’s ouster

The House of Representatives is without an active speaker after Kevin McCarthy was ousted from that position on Tuesday—by his fellow Republicans. Petty interim gavel-banger Rep. Patrick McHenry tried to set the tone by blaming Democrats for not fixing the Republican Party’s dysfunction.

McCarthy, for his part, held a press conference after his public humiliation and blamed former Speaker Nancy Pelosi, who was away at Sen. Dianne Feinstein’s funeral, for his abject failure. Now conservatives everywhere are pointing fingers and spinning the news, alternating between blaming the Democratic Party for McCarthy’s failed tenure as speaker and saying it's super fantastic that McCarthy is no longer speaker and everything is going to be A-okay.

Go figure.

First things first. Traditional media outlets have been giving a lot of credence to the idea that somehow, McCarthy’s terrible track record as speaker isn’t to blame for his inability to retain his position.

Just a little journalism note: Look at the people trying to turn the "Kevin McCarthy refused to make a deal with the only people who could help him, the Democrats" story into a "Democrats screwed up by not saving the guy who lied to them" story. Those are the bad people.

— Elie Mystal (@ElieNYC) October 4, 2023

Moderate Republican” Rep. Nancy Mace, along with Rep. Matt Gaetz, ran to Steve Bannon’s radio show thingy to talk about how great they were and how without McCarthy as speaker, they can really begin doing more oversight of Hunter Biden’s penis pictures.

Steve Bannon tells Nancy Mace that the only clip that Jack Posobiec and Charlie Kirk played from the impeachment inquiry hearing was hers. Mace: "I'm gonna take that as a compliment." She then starts talking about going after Hunter Biden for sex trafficking. pic.twitter.com/Na6lHbVUaM

— Justin Baragona (@justinbaragona) October 4, 2023

Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene wants Trump to become the next speaker of the House because he’s doing well in the polls and “he has a proven four-year record as president,” which is … true? I mean, he was technically president (if twice-impeached) for four whole years.

I’m supporting President Donald J. Trump to be the next Speaker of the House! He has a proven four year record of putting America First and implementing the policies the American people want. President Trump is the man for the job! pic.twitter.com/KFOIb64XMe

— Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene🇺🇸 (@RepMTG) October 4, 2023

What does the vice chair of the Republican National Committee believe?

You’ve got to start to wonder out loud if George Soros or some other liberal dark money is behind the idiotic move to derail the House Republican Majority and this pathetic Motion to Vacate effort.

— Nick Langworthy (@NickLangworthy) October 3, 2023

Wowsers. Didn’t see that one coming. Here’s a solid response summing up the theory:

pic.twitter.com/gLFuHZ93En

— memes (@OrganizerMemes) October 3, 2023

Fox News’ Brian Kilmeade wasn’t happy and had a fight with Rep. Tim Burchett of Tennessee about praying.

A little while later, Burchett went on CNN and claimed he had a recording of his conversation with McCarthy—a conversation that “went on in a belittling tone.”

We have two summations of the Republican Party’s talking points the last couple of days.

GOP (Sunday): “Dems are pedophiles!” GOP (Monday): “Dems are Communists!” GOP (Tuesday): “Dems are fascists!” GOP (Today): “Why didn’t Dems help us?”

— Tea Pain (@TeaPainUSA) October 4, 2023

Kevin McCarthy: *agrees to far-right Speaker demands* *gives January 6 footage to Tucker Carlson* *holds debt ceiling hostage* *blocks Ukraine $ for border wishlist* *launches impeachment of Biden* *blames govt shutdown drama on Dems* Media: “Why won’t Democrats save McCarthy?!”

— Sawyer Hackett (@SawyerHackett) October 4, 2023

After wringing his hands about how badly McCarthy was being treated, Politico reports that Rep. Jim Jordan has thrown his name into the ring to become the next speaker.

Jim Jordan's detractors say his involvement with a sex abuse scandal at Ohio State should disqualify the Congressman from holding GOP leadership positions. His supporters say he could be a fine Speaker in the mold of Dennis Hastert.

— New York Times Pitchbot (@DougJBalloon) October 4, 2023

C'est la vie!

The “Speaker Kevin McCarthy” sign above the Capitol Speaker office is being removed now 👀 ⁦@CNNpic.twitter.com/omRFncVfnE

— Haley Talbot (@haleytalbotcnn) October 4, 2023

Enough with the weak leadership and MAGA circus. Sign the petition: Hakeem Jeffries for speaker!

Hot takes pour in after McCarthy announces impeachment inquiry

House Speaker Kevin McCarthy’s announcement of an impeachment inquiry into President Joe Biden isn’t surprising so much as it is depressingly predictable. The Republican Party’s inability to generate the tiniest shreds of evidence of wrongdoing on the part of the then-vice president regarding his son Hunter Biden’s business dealings has been a pathetic spectacle of political theater for just under a year. McCarthy’s impeachment inquiry was him bowing to the pressures from the “Freedom Caucus” wing of his party, but just a short while after his announcement, he was still roundly excoriated on the House floor by Rep. Matt Gaetz, who called McCarthy’s move a “baby step.”

Ian Sams, a White House spokesman, released a statement saying McCarthy’s new political move amounted to an “evidence-free goose chase.” That was the diplomatic reaction to what is clearly the naked abuse of government by conservative lawmakers. “The House Republicans’ investigations for the past 9 months have proved that — as their own witnesses testify the President hasn’t done anything wrong, and their own documents show no ties to the President.”

There are a lot of reactions, but first, let’s hear from legal scholar Elie Mystal:

Why would I write about House GOP's impeachment inquiry? I write about law and law adjacent issues. Not the inevitable result of Unfrozen Caveman Congresswoman having her hand so far up Kevin McCarthy's ass that she controls his vocal chords.

— Elie Mystal (@ElieNYC) September 12, 2023

RELATED STORY: McCarthy thinks impeachment inquiry rules should apply to everyone but him

Let us start with some criteria.

Any news organization that reports the news about McCarthy endorsing an impeachment inquiry without CLEARLY and AT THE TOP stating that there is no meaningful reason for such an inquiry is doing journalism wrong. Too many orgs already jumping into the gamesmanship.

— Garrett M. Graff (@vermontgmg) September 12, 2023

Pennsylvania Sen. John Fetterman gave this Halloween-style response to the news.

.@SenFettermanPA reacts to Speaker McCarthy moving forward with a House impeachment inquiry into POTUS… (Just watch) pic.twitter.com/jg3aeyDW7F

— Liz Brown-Kaiser (@lizbrownkaiser) September 12, 2023

Rep. Ayanna Pressley called out the chaos of the Republican Party.

From sham impeachment inquiries to threats of government shutdown. Republicans continue to govern with chaos, cruelty, and callousness—and they are wasting our damn time. https://t.co/3rfxMLic0l

— Ayanna Pressley (@AyannaPressley) September 12, 2023

As some people pointed out, McCarthy, like every single Republican in office, is an enormous hypocrite when it comes to just about anything he says or does.

Kevin McCarthy literally authored a resolution condemning Pelosi for launching impeachment without a vote. “this decision represents an abuse of power and brings discredit to the House” pic.twitter.com/aXkZ31t5jz

— Sawyer Hackett (@SawyerHackett) September 12, 2023

Rep. Ted Lieu decided to give people some context.

Here are the three pieces of evidence that Speaker McCarthy has to open an impeachment inquiry on President Biden: 1. “ “ 2. “ “ 3. “ “ https://t.co/w5xc1y7kpv

— Ted Lieu (@tedlieu) September 12, 2023

What about the leader of the Senate Republicans, Mitch McConnell? Can you say, duck and run?

Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell reacts to possible Biden impeachment inquiry: “I don’t have any advice to give to the House. They’ve got a totally different set of challenges … So I think the best advice for the Senate is to do our job and we’ll see how this plays out.” pic.twitter.com/lBzmvy6Yum

— The Recount (@therecount) September 12, 2023

Sen. Majority Leader Chuck Schumer gave some advice to McCarthy on leadership.

“I have sympathy with Speaker McCarthy. He’s in a difficult position. But sometimes you’ve got to tell these people who are way off the deep end… that they can’t go forward with it.” — Senate Majority Leader Schumer reacts to “absurd” impeachment inquiry against President Biden pic.twitter.com/EIjoGGGikx

— The Recount (@therecount) September 12, 2023

Rep. Adam Schiff had some important constitutional information to impart.

McCarthy’s reading of the Impeachment Clause: The President shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or … when the Speaker, lacking moral authority or control over his members, can’t remain speaker or fund the government without it.

— Adam Schiff (@RepAdamSchiff) September 12, 2023

At least McCarthy can hang his hat on the idea that now that he’s given the so-called Freedom Caucus what they claim to have wanted, they will totally not try and shut down the government for no discernible reason.

McCarthy’s impeachment inquiry hasn’t swayed the Freedom Caucus towards funding the government pic.twitter.com/sLink7n70S

— Acyn (@Acyn) September 12, 2023

Yikes.

Why you never negotiate with terrorists, Exhibit 37,548

— Raymond J. Mollica (@RaymondMollica) September 12, 2023

Sign the petition: Denounce MAGA GOP's baseless impeachment inquiry against Biden

Gaetz attacks McCarthy in wild House speech

On Monday, Rep. Matt Gaetz announced plans to give a fiery speech on the House floor Tuesday to denounce the lack of political will to impeach President Joe Biden on zero evidence. The Florida man’s promised speech came after a week of public attacks on Republican Speaker of the House Kevin McCarthy. But just hours before Gaetz’s speech, McCarthy announced that he was calling for an impeachment inquiry into the president.

Some might assume Gaetz was sufficiently undercut by McCarthy’s brief press conference. Some might be wrong. The political theater-loving looney toon took to the floor of the House and began by chastising the speaker for being “out of compliance with the agreement that allowed you to assume this role,” and threatening his party leader with expulsion from his leadership position.

I’m no Sherlock Holmes or anything, but it sounds a lot like the rumored “three-page deal”—the one between McCarthy and wackadoos like Gaetz in the Freedom Caucus that the Republican Party denied existed—might actually exist? But that was all preamble, as Gaetz proceeded to give a speech about the terrible job McCarthy is doing. It included him calling McCarthy’s press conference announcing the impeachment inquiry a “rushed” and “somewhat rattled performance.” Grab some popcorn!

RELATED STORY: GOP denials over ‘three-page addendum’ with McCarthy’s Freedom Caucus deals ring hollow

A couple of quick notes on Gaetz’s speech:

  • He said that his agenda is “the last, best hope for tens of millions of Republicans.” There were more than 158 million votes cast in the 2022 election. Just sayin’

  • Gaetz also said, “Mr. Speaker, dust off our written January agreement. You have a copy.” Paging Sherlock Holmes!

  • He accused the speaker of trying to build a “Biden/McCarthy/Jeffries” government. Teehee!

  • When Gaetz was done filling the House chamber with hot air, the chair made an announcement reminding representatives to “direct your remarks to the chair and not to a perceived viewing audience.”

Transcript has been lightly edited for clarity:

REP. MATT GAETZ: On this very floor in January, the whole world witnessed a historic contest for House Speaker. I rise today to serve notice, Mr. Speaker, you are out of compliance with the agreement that allowed you to assume this role. The path forward for the House of Representatives is to either bring you into immediate, total compliance or remove you pursuant to a motion to vacate the chair.

We have had no vote on term limits or on balanced budgets as the agreement demanded and required. There has been no full release of the January 6 tapes, as you promised. There has been insufficient accountability for the Biden crime family, and instead of cutting spending to raise the debt limit, you relied on budgetary gimmicks and rescissions, so that you ultimately ended up serving as the valet to underwrite Biden's debt and advance his spending agenda.

Mr. Speaker, you boasted in January that we would use “the power of the subpoena and the power of the purse,” but here we are eight months later, and we haven't even sent the first subpoena to Hunter Biden. That's how you know that the rushed and, you know, somewhat rattled performance you just saw from the speaker isn't real at this point.

During Democratic control over the House of Representatives, they had already brought in Don Junior three times, and we haven't even sent the first subpoena to Hunter Biden. Power of the subpoena and power of the purse. Only thing the 118th Congress is known for at this point is electing Kevin McCarthy speaker and underwriting Biden's debt, and unfortunately there's only one of those things we can remediate at this time.

Power of the purse. Our leadership right now is asking us to vote for a continuing resolution. A vote for a continuing resolution is a vote to continue the Green New Deal. A vote to continue inflationary spending. And in the most troubling of fashions, a vote for a continuing resolution is a vote to continue the election interference of Jack Smith.

Mr. Speaker, we told you how to use the power of the purse. Individual single-subject spending bills that would allow us to have specific review, programmatic analysis, and it would allow us to zero out the salaries of the bureaucrats who have broken bad, targeted President Trump, or cut sweetheart deals for Hunter Biden. September 30th is rapidly approaching, and you have not put us in a position to succeed.

There is no way to pass all the individual appropriations bills now. And it's not like we didn't know when September 30th was going to show up on the calendar. I must be better. You must be better and this House must be better, for it is the last, best hope for tens of millions of Republicans. We demand real oversight against this weaponized government.

Just look at the bribery. If tens of millions of dollars flowing from foreign corrupt people into the bank accounts of the Biden family wasn't enough for actual impeachment, why were we even looking? Joe Biden deserves impeachment for converting the vice presidency into an ATM machine for virtually his entire family. We all see it. We all know it. Now, moments ago, Speaker McCarthy endorsed an impeachment inquiry.

This is a baby step following weeks of pressure from House conservatives to do more. We must move faster. Now, I will concede that the votes I have called for will likely fail. Term limits, balanced budgets, maybe even impeachment. I am prepared for that eventuality because at least if we take votes, the American people get to see who's fighting for them and who's willing to tolerate more corruption and business as usual.

Mr. Speaker, dust off our written January agreement. You have a copy. Reflect on the spirit of that agreement and build on the start that we had moments ago began to comply. No continuing resolutions, individual spending bills or bust, votes on balanced budgets and term limits. Subpoenas for Hunter Biden and the members of the Biden family who've been grifting off of this country, and the impeachment for Joe Biden that he so richly deserves.

Do these things or face a motion to vacate the chair. And let me alert the country: A motion to vacate might not pass at first, but it might before the 15th vote. And if Democrats bail out McCarthy, as they may do, then I will lead the resistance to this uni-party and the Biden/McCarthy/Jeffries government that they are attempting to build.

I know that Washington isn't a town where people are known for keeping their word. Well, Speaker McCarthy, I'm here to hold you to yours. I yield back.

Those on the other side of the aisle are understandably baffled.

So let me get this straight: Republicans are threatening to remove their own Speaker, impeach the President, and shut down the government on September 30th - disrupting everyday people’s paychecks and general public operations. For what? I don’t think even they know. Chaos vibes https://t.co/qJyR3e4JWk

— Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (@AOC) September 12, 2023

Why does it seem like Republicans have such a hard time recruiting Senate candidates who actually live in the states they want to run in? We're discussing this strange but persistent phenomenon on this week's edition of "The Downballot." The latest example is former Michigan Rep. Mike Rogers, who's been spending his time in Florida since leaving the House in 2015, but he's not the only one. Republican Senate hopefuls in Pennsylvania, Nevada, Montana, and Wisconsin all have questionable ties to their home states—a problem that Democrats have gleefully exploited in recent years. (Remember Dr. Oz? Of course you do.)

The GOP ‘once saw their roles as legislators first and Republicans second.’ Trump has destroyed that

One of the many characteristics of The First Former President to be Indicted (Twice Thrice, Four Freaking Times, for now) is that he sucks all the oxygen out of the room of our national public discourse (not to mention that he just sucks in general). Another is that he’s a fascist who’d destroy our democracy without a second thought in order to save his own skin, but we’ll leave that aside for a moment. This chaos agent’s actions reverberate throughout our politics in a way no American figure has before—not even Richard Nixon, who resigned from the presidency in disgrace in the aftermath of Watergate.

That scandal brings to mind another comparison between then and now, namely how differently leading Republicans, in particular those in Congress, have reacted to the leader of their party facing investigation and accountability for his behavior. Let me start with a little hint: The Trumpist Republicans of today don’t come out of this comparison looking very good.

RELATED STORY: House Republicans swiftly act to obstruct on Trump’s behalf

After The Man Who Lost an Election and Tried to Steal it made his first court appearance and entered a plea in response to the deadly serious national security-related charges brought by special counsel Jack Smith in the classified documents case, we saw responses from a broad array of Republican officials. Overall, it ain’t pretty. The same goes for the responses to the Jan. 6-related Trump indictments as well as to the indictments in Georgia offered by most of the Republicans running, in theory at least, against Trump for the GQP presidential nomination, along with other top members of the Trumpist party.

who is speaking out?

There are some exceptions, no doubt, including Sens. Lisa Murkowski, Bill Cassidy, and Mitt Romney, Rep. Don Bacon, and Gov. Chris Sununu. Within the Republican presidential field only several have spoken out strongly, but none of them exactly qualify as a frontrunner. Chris Christie said Trump “has been a one-man crime wave. Look, he’s earned every one of [the indictments]. If you look at it, every one of these is self-inflicted.” Will Hurd shared, “Donald Trump is running to stay out of prison.” Asa Hutchinson said, “I have said from the beginning that Donald Trump’s actions on January 6 should disqualify him from ever being president again.” The other candidates have been fairly mealy-mouthed at best (even after the fourth indictment, which caused little change in how they talked about the erstwhile frontrunner), with the Nikki Haley versus Nikki Haley debate being particularly pathetic. Meanwhile, a number of them have stated they’d even pardon the insurrectionist-in-chief.

Given his slavish loyalty along with the completely false presentations in support of his boss he made prior to the 2020 election, the assessments former U.S. Attorney General Bill Barr offered on the documents case as well as on the Jan. 6 indictments carry perhaps the most weight. However, as Daily Kos’ Laura Clawson so helpfully reminds us, he remains a “sleazeball.”

But for the most part, the sycophantic (not to mention dangerous to our democracy) behavior of congressional Republicans is both awful and yet exactly what you’d expect, in particular from the MAGA caucus over in the House. It doesn’t get much more moronic than Barely Speaker Kevin McCarthy, who was asked whether it was perhaps problematic that the disgraced former president was knowingly storing national security secrets next to the toilet. He replied that “a bathroom door locks.” (Hey, Kev, you know it only locks from the inside, right?) Looks like he’s locked the remnants of his integrity behind such a door and has thrown away the key. Additionally, his comments regarding the Jan. 6 indictments were less laughable, but if anything more cynical.

Regarding the attempt by McCarthy and the other Trump stooges to attack the indictment by drawing false parallels to investigations of President Joe Biden or Hillary Clinton, Jesse Wegman of The New York Times thoroughly dismantled that malarkey one bald-faced lie at a time. What’s so harmful is that Trump—the most prodigious liar in American history—has set a precedent that Republicans who lie will never be punished by their own party. Would there have been a George Santos or a shady grifter like Vivek Ramaswamy in our politics if there hadn’t already been a Donald Trump, who has led with lies and deceit right from the start of his public career?

Moving forward, will we see more members of what remains of the Party of Trump actually reject their pro-crime, anti-law enforcement stance and turn on their leader as more evidence comes into public view? That’s a key question for the present.

looking to the past

But how about the past? Specifically, how did Republicans measure up on that very question a half-century ago, the last time a president from their party behaved criminally and put our constitutional democracy at risk? To start with, it's not as simple as saying that Republicans back then immediately turned on Nixon once reporting made clear by spring 1973 that the White House was engaged in a cover-up. However, during the following year, two profoundly important developments took place.

First, Republicans in the House backed the impeachment inquiry's subpoena efforts. Nixon had claimed that executive privilege gave him the right to withhold recordings of Oval Office conversations along with other relevant evidence. Michigan Republican Rep. Edward Hutchinson, the ranking member of his party on the House Judiciary Committee that ultimately voted to impeach Nixon, utterly rejected such a claim, stating that “executive privilege, in the face of an impeachment inquiry, must fail.”

Rep. Edward Hutchinson said “executive privilege, in the face of an impeachment inquiry, must fail.”

The House agreed overwhelmingly, and in a vote of 410-4 (!) gave the committee the authority to subpoena whatever it felt necessary. The four no votes were all Republican. Those subpoenas resulted in the production of the tapes that ultimately brought down a president. Second, when that overwhelming evidence came out, House and Senate Republicans assessed it fairly and told Nixon he had to go.

Garrett Graff, who wrote the recent book “Watergate: A New History,” offered the following summary to The New York Times: “In 1972 to 1974, the Republicans participated as good-faith members of the process. They saw their roles as legislators first and Republicans second.” Regarding the charges leveled against a president from their own party, “they definitely were skeptical” at first; however, ultimately “they followed the facts where they led.”

One separate but related point of comparison concerns the media. During Watergate, most Americans got their information from outlets that reported, well, the news. Now a good chunk of Republican voters soak up propaganda from sources like Fox, which just this June shamelessly and without any factual basis for doing so characterized the elected president of the United States as a “wannabe dictator.” (At least the producer who was responsible resigned three days later, but the damage was done.) That’s not good for our democracy.

Getting back to the politicians, Garrett further explained that when Nixon’s own second-in-command, then-Vice President Spiro Agnew, went after his boss’ enemies, he focused his ire “mainly against the press, not the F.B.I. or the special prosecutor.” Trump, on the other hand, has assailed our entire system of justice. He called Jack Smith a “deranged lunatic” and a “psycho;” referred to “the ‘Thugs’ from the Department of Injustice;” slandered Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis, who filed the charges against him in Georgia, by calling her a racist; and attacked Judge Tanya Chutkan, who is overseeing the Jan. 6 case, as “highly partisan” and “VERY BIASED AND UNFAIR.” Ohio State law professor Joshua Dressler stated, “This could be interpreted as an attempt to intimidate Judge Chutkan.” Not even the Nixon White House went that far. Trump’s allies have shown themselves to be equally erratic—he sets the example and others follow it blindly—with Rep. Andy Biggs of Arizona going all the way to no sense left at all.

Defund and dismantle the FBI.

— Rep Andy Biggs (@RepAndyBiggsAZ) May 15, 2023

Beyond Biggs, we’ve already seen violent rhetoric spewing forth from Trump supporters, along with threats of violence credible enough to lead to criminal charges. Unfortunately we can expect more of this as his trials move forward. Fuck a L’Orange himself has already incited one violent insurrection, and that was just to keep his day job. Do we really think he’ll hold back when the stakes are a prison sentence? That’s one punishment he won’t be able to buy his way out of.

but what about the democrats?

Because we’ve discussed Republicans acting in a bipartisan fashion during Watergate and contrasted that against the overwhelming majority of Republicans in the Trump era, it’s important to also address how Democrats acted during the investigation and impeachment trial of President Bill Clinton. First, yes, Democrats were unified in opposing Clinton’s impeachment and removal from office, but there are fundamental differences between what happened then and what Trump has done over the past few years.

Most importantly, Clinton was investigated for private behavior. Trump (and Nixon), on the other hand, were investigated and, in the Tangerine Palpatine’s case, impeached for abuses of office that rendered them unfit to serve (though Trump obviously has some private behavior he’s on the hook for as well). Both demonstrated themselves to be threats to the rule of law.

Second, Robert Fiske, the initial, nonpartisan special counsel assigned to investigate Clinton, was unjustly removed by a panel of Republican judges and replaced by hyper-partisan Ken Starr. Fiske had at that point already concluded that there was no criminality in the Whitewater or Vince Foster cases, which happened to be the matters he was charged with investigating. Republicans in the House ultimately impeached Clinton over wrongdoing that would never have occurred without Starr coming in and forcing him to testify under oath.

Democrats were right to vote against impeachment and conviction there because not only did Clinton’s behavior, wrong though it was, not rise to the level of necessitating the overturning of the will of the people, the Starr process was partisan from the start. And the American public consistently agreed with the Democrats’ stance. In other words, just as Republicans acted on the side of our Constitution by working with Democrats during Watergate, Democrats did likewise by opposing Republicans during the Starr/Clinton business.

Getting back to the current cast of characters, Jackie Calmes wrote a year ago that Trump-era Republicans—as well as the Republican voters who keep rewarding them in primary elections—had already failed the American people by letting Trump off the hook for the unconscionable crimes he committed while in office. Will they, as a party, take this final opportunity provided by Smith and Willis to redeem themselves? Don’t hold your breath.

Here’s one thing we can say about how leading Republicans acted in Nixon’s time—a time when, as Calmes pointed out, “the truth had a common meaning to both parties.” Back then they knew when the game was up, and they made sure Nixon wouldn’t end up being able to raise $7 million for another White House run off a mugshot.

RELATED STORY: Here's what you need to know ahead of a historic mugshot

putting democracy over partisanship

Were Watergate-era Republicans in Congress reading the political tea leaves? They couldn’t ignore them, that’s for sure (and neither will the Republicans of 2023, many of whom will only turn on Trump if and when it suits them politically). But beyond the polls, enough Nixon-era Republicans at least recognized the gravity of what their leader, the president of the United States, had done. They were prepared to join with Democrats in Congress to remove him from office. They sealed his political fate. They put democracy over partisanship. Country over party.

On the other hand, when Putin’s puppet got impeached the first time, Mitt Romney was the only Republican senator to vote for conviction. The second time around, he was joined by six others. I guess that represents progress? On the other hand, of the 10 House Republicans who voted to impeach Trump over Jan. 6, only a paltry two made it back into the next Congress. (Four retired, including Liz Cheney and Adam Kinzinger, while four were defeated in GQP primaries.) Either way, I have not a single doubt that in the unimaginable hypothetical circumstance where a Democratic president had behaved exactly as Trump did, every single Republican member of the House would have voted to impeach, and every single Senate Republican would have voted to convict. Oh, and so would have every Democrat in their respective chambers. That’s another pretty damn important point of comparison to make here.

As it stands right now, congressional Republicans have no official responsibility for what becomes of Donald Trump, either criminally or politically. His criminal fate rests in the hands of the folks serving on various juries in Florida, New York, Georgia, D.C., and who knows where else, while his political fate, at least at first, is in the hands of Republican primary voters.

When it comes to moral responsibility, congressional Republicans as a whole showed absolutely none of it when they were charged with assessing whether Fuck a L’Orange should have been impeached and removed from the presidency. If they had acted responsibly, maybe our country wouldn’t be stuck where we are now: in a room without any oxygen.

RELATED STORIES:

 'A dark moment' for the Republican Party

Trump's enablers are turning on each other. Will they turn on him next?

Ian Reifowitz is the author of The Tribalization of Politics: How Rush Limbaugh's Race-Baiting Rhetoric on the Obama Presidency Paved the Way for Trump (Foreword by Markos Moulitsas)

Six pledges McCarthy has made for a GOP House as he aims for Speakership

House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.) is escalating and doubling down on several pledges about how he would run the lower chamber next year as he tries to beat back opposition from a handful of House Republicans who threaten to derail his Speakership bid.

Over the weekend, he warned that any delay in Republicans taking the gavel would put GOP priorities and his plans for his conference on hold.

“Right now, it’s actually delaying our ability to govern as we go,” McCarthy, who won the House GOP nomination for Speaker, said on Fox News’s “Sunday Morning Futures.” “So I’m hopeful that everybody comes together, finds a way to govern together. This is what the American people want. Otherwise, we will be squandering this majority.”

Five House Republicans — Reps. Andy Biggs (Ariz.), Matt Gaetz (Fla.), Bob Good (Va.), Matt Rosendale (Mont.) and Ralph Norman (S.C.) — have said or strongly indicated that they will not vote for McCarty for Speaker on Jan. 3, when he needs support from a majority of those voting for a Speaker candidate. With Republicans heading toward a narrow majority of 222 seats to Democrats' 212 in January, the opposition threatens to keep him from the post.

McCarthy’s argument did not land with his fiercest critics, whose issues with McCarthy range from not committing to pass a slashed federal budget to calling on him to do more to empower rank-and-file members.

“‘Squandering this majority’ would be allowing a guy that the conservative movement has lambasted for years to take the reins as House Speaker,” Biggs responded in a tweet. “Leaders who lead from behind aren’t leaders.”

Here are six pledges McCarthy has made in a bid to win the Speakership:

Try to roll back IRS funding boost

The first bill from House Republicans, McCarthy announced in September, would be to “repeal 87,000 IRS agents” — a reference to an $80 billion funding boost to the IRS included in Democrats’ tax, climate and health care package signed into law earlier this year.

A 2021 Treasury Department estimate said the IRS could hire nearly 87,000 employees over a decade with the new funding, a figure that includes support staff, auditors and replacements for those who leave the agency. Republicans have repeatedly falsely said that all the 87,000 IRS hires would be “agents” and sought to use the threat to fire up midterm voters.

Such a bill would likely be dead on arrival in the Democratic-controlled Senate.

Remove certain Democrats from committee assignments

McCarthy says he will remove Reps. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.) and Eric Swalwell (D-Calif.) from the House Intelligence Committee and Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-Minn.) from the House Foreign Affairs Committee.

The move is in part a response to GOP Reps. Marjorie Taylor Greene (Ga.) and Paul Gosar (Ariz.) being removed from their committee posts last year over social media posts and interactions involving violence against other members. It is also a response to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) vetoing two of McCarthy’s picks for the Jan. 6 committee, after which McCarthy pulled his other three selections.

The GOP leader accused Schiff, the current chair of the House Intelligence Committee, of lying to the public about investigations into former President Trump. Schiff fired back, saying that McCarthy will “misrepresent my record” and will do “whatever he needs to do to get the votes of the QAnon caucus within his conference.”

Swalwell, McCarthy said, should not sit on the House Intelligence Committee due to his relationship with an alleged Chinese spy who reportedly helped fundraise for his 2014 campaign and helped place an intern in his office. Swalwell’s office has said he provided information about the individual to the FBI.

And McCarthy has accused Omar of making antisemitic comments. Omar said in a statement that McCarthy’s threat is a “continuation of a sustained campaign against Muslim and African voices.” 

Removing a member from a standing committee requires a vote of the full House.

Investigate Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas

Hard-line House conservatives are hungry for impeachments of Biden administration officials, and Mayorkas, whom they blame for the crisis at the southern border, is at the top of their list. But McCarthy has not explicitly promised to do so, saying that Republicans will not use impeachment for “political purposes.”

Instead, on a border trip just before Thanksgiving, McCarthy called on Mayorkas to resign or face House GOP investigations and a potential impeachment inquiry — his strongest comments on the topic to date.

That escalation, though, has not satisfied McCarthy's opponents. 

“He had plenty of time to support impeachment articles against Mayorkas and was radio silent,” Biggs said in a tweet.

Create a House Select Committee on China

McCarthy has pledged to create a House Select Committee on China, an effort that Republicans hope can produce meaningful bipartisan agreement on both economic and military matters.

McCarthy tried to work with Democrats to create a China select committee in 2020. But Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), Republicans say, pulled Democrats out of the plan around the start of the COVID-19 pandemic. The Washington Post reported at the time that Democrats had concerns about the China issue being too politicized.

Dealings with China are thought to be one of the few areas where the two parties can come to some agreement in the next Congress.

End proxy voting

The pandemic-era practice of allowing House members to designate another member to vote by proxy for them will come to an end, McCarthy has said, charging that it “allows Members of Congress to get paid without ever needing to show up for work.”

Members of both parties have utilized proxy voting — which requires a letter saying the members is unable to attend in person “due to the ongoing public health emergency” — in ways that appeared to be for convenience rather than health reasons.

McCarthy took a lawsuit challenging proxy voting up to the Supreme Court, but the court in January declined to hear the case.

Pass culture war–related bills

McCarthy and House Republicans have promised to advance the "Parents Bill of Rights,” a bill crafted last year in response to frustrations about “woke” curriculum and COVID-19–related school closures that spilled over into heated school board meetings.

The bill would require school districts to post curriculum publicly, have teachers offer two in-person meetings with parents a year, have parents give consent before any medical exam at school and provide notice of any violence at school.

McCarthy has also said he would bring up a bill to define sex “solely on a person’s reproductive biology and genetics at birth” for purposes of Title IX in athletics, taking aim at transgender athletes.

Like a bill to repeal the IRS funding boost, though, it is unlikely it would be taken up in the Senate.

McCarthy calls on DHS Secretary Mayorkas to resign, threatens impeachment inquiry

House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.) called on Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas to resign over his handling of the U.S.-Mexico border, saying that GOP lawmakers will consider impeachment next year if he does not step down.

“If Secretary Mayorkas does not resign, House Republicans will investigate, every order, every action and every failure will determine whether we can begin impeachment inquiry,” McCarthy said at a press conference in El Paso, Texas, on Tuesday.

McCarthy cited the Department of Homeland Security head's statements to Congress that the border is under control, record border crossing numbers and his ending of the "Remain in Mexico" asylum policy instituted during the Trump administration as reasons for resignation.

“Our country may never recover from Secretary Mayorkas’s dereliction of duty,” McCarthy said.

The comments from the minority leader are his strongest words on impeachment to date, but they fall short of a promise to bring up articles against Mayorkas.

McCarthy was nominated by House Republicans to serve as Speaker in the next Congress last week during a closed-door vote.

But he still faces opposition from hard-line conservatives, who called on him to be more aggressive on topics including the impeachment of Biden administration officials and President Biden himself.

Rep. Andy Biggs (R-Ariz.), the former chairman of the House Freedom Caucus, mounted a last-minute protest challenge to McCarthy for Speaker, citing the minority leader's lack of commitment to impeach Mayorkas. Biggs has previously introduced articles of impeachment against the administration official. He won 31 votes in the secret-ballot House Republican Conference meeting, while McCarthy received 188.

McCarthy needs support from a majority of those voting for a Speaker candidate on the House floor on Jan. 3 in order to be elected to the post.

But Republicans won a narrow majority in the 2022 midterms, and McCarthy has little wiggle room for error on that vote. A few Republicans, including Biggs, have indicated that they will not vote for him.

The press conference with other House GOP members came after a day of touring the U.S.-Mexico border and meeting with border officials.

McCarthy said that Republican Reps. Jim Jordan (Ohio) and James Comer (Ky.), the likely chairs of the House Judiciary and Oversight Committees next year, “have my complete support to investigate the collapse of our border, and the shutdown of ICE enforcement.”

“Leader McCarthy is right. Americans deserve accountability for the unprecedented crisis on the southwest border. Republicans will hold Secretary Mayorkas accountable for his failure to enforce immigration law and secure the border through all means necessary,” Jordan, who would oversee impeachment proceedings if they occurred, said in a statement distributed during the press conference.

Republicans made a pledge to investigate the Biden administration’s border and migration policies a key part of their midterm campaign message, and Comer has long said he will hold hearings about the border. House Minority Whip Steve Scalise (R-La.) joked in September that the House GOP would give Mayorkas a reserved parking spot because he would be testifying so often.

Mayorkas, who has no plans to resign, pushed back on Congress in a statement issued shortly after McCarthy's speech.

“Secretary Mayorkas is proud to advance the noble mission of this Department, support its extraordinary workforce, and serve the American people. The Department will continue our work to enforce our laws and secure our border, while building a safe, orderly, and humane immigration system,” the Department of Homeland Security said in a statement.

“Members of Congress can do better than point the finger at someone else; they should come to the table and work on solutions for our broken system and outdated laws, which have not been overhauled in over 40 years,” the statement continued. 

In appearances before Congress last week, Mayorkas maintained that the border is under control, but he acknowledged that the fiscal year ending in September showed that a record 1.7 million migrants attempted to cross the Southwest border.

“The entire hemisphere is suffering a migration crisis. We are seeing unprecedented movement of people from country to country,” he said.

He also pledged to look for new ways to restrict immigration now that a federal court has struck down Title 42, which allowed the agency to quickly expel migrants without seeking asylum due to public health concerns.

Mayorkas said the department is currently evaluating how to expel Venezuelans at the border, a group that makes up a large part of migrants coming to America given the political and economic instability there.

The latest calls for Mayorkas to resign come shortly after U.S. Customs and Border Protection Commissioner Chris Magnus resigned from his position after being asked to do so by President Biden.

McCarthy first appeared to open the door to impeachment of Mayorkas at another press conference in April. 

“This is his moment in time to do his job. But at any time if someone is derelict in their job, there is always the option of impeaching somebody,” McCarthy said at an April press conference in Eagle Pass, Texas.

But he later tamped down expectations for impeachment, saying that he does not want the procedure to be political as he claimed Democrats' impeachment of former President Trump was. McCarthy reiterated that sentiment on Tuesday in El Paso.

“We never do impeachment for political purposes. We’re having investigation,” McCarthy said. 

“We know exactly what Secretary Mayorkas has done. We've watched across this nation, something that’s never happened before. We watched him time and again before committee say this border is secure, and we can't find one border agent who agrees with him,” McCarthy said. “So we will investigate. If investigation leads to impeachment inquiry, we will follow through.”

Rebecca Beitsch contributed.

Audio: McCarthy weighed 25th Amendment for Trump in private after Jan. 6

A new audio recording of House Republican leader Kevin McCarthy has reportedly captured him weighing whether to invoke the 25th Amendment to remove then-President Donald Trump from the White House two days after the assault on the Capitol.

With much attention largely trained right now on the Supreme Court after the leak of a draft opinion poised to overturn Roe v. Wade, McCarthy has managed a slight reprieve from the headlines. 

It was just over a week ago that a different series of audio recordings featuring the House GOP leader went public and he was heard, in his own words, telling members of his party that he was prepared to call for then-President Donald Trump’s resignation. 

In those recordings, and now in this new set, McCarthy’s private agony is yet again starkly contrasted against the public support—and cover—that he has ceaselessly heaped upon Trump. 

Related story: Jan. 6 committee may have another ‘invitation’ for Kevin McCarthy

The latest audio recordings—obtained by New York Times reporters Jonathan Martin and Alexander Burns as a part of their book, This Too Shall Not Pass and shared with CNN—reportedly have McCarthy considering invoking the 25th Amendment to remove Trump as he listened to an aide go over deliberations then underway by House Democrats. 

Christine Pelosi talks about the Supreme Court's leaked decision on Roe v. Wade, and what Democrats are doing now, on Daily Kos’ The Brief podcast

When the aide said that the 25th Amendment would “not exactly” be an “elegant solution” to removing Trump, McCarthy is reportedly heard interrupting as he attempts to get a sense of his options.  

The process of invoking the 25th Amendment is one not taken lightly and would require majority approval from members of Trump’s Cabinet as well as from the vice president.

“That takes too long,” McCarthy said after an aide walked him through the steps. “And it could go back to the House, right?”

Indeed, it wasn’t an easy prospect.

Trump would not only have to submit a letter overruling the Cabinet and Pence, but a two-thirds majority would have to be achieved in the House and Senate to overrule Trump. 

“So, it’s kind of an armful,” the aide said. 

On Jan. 7, 2021, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi called on the president’s allies to divorce themselves from Trump after he loosed his mob on them, Capitol Hill staff, and police. 

“While there are only 13 days left, any day could be a horror show,” Pelosi said at a press conference where she called for the 25th Amendment to be put in motion.

Publicly, McCarthy would not budge.

The House voted 232-197 to approve a resolution that would activate the amendment on Jan. 13.  McCarthy called for censure instead of impeachment through the 25th Amendment. Then, from the floor of the House, McCarthy denounced Trump. 

“The president bears responsibility for Wednesday’s attack on Congress by mob rioters. He should have immediately denounced the mob when he saw what was unfolding,” McCarthy said. 

During the Jan. 8 call, the House GOP leader lamented that impeachment could further divide the nation. He worried it might also inspire new conflicts. He also told the aide he wanted to have Trump and Biden meet before the inauguration.

It would help with a smooth transition, he said. 

In another moment in the recording after discussing a sit-down with Biden where they could talk about ways to publicly smooth tensions over the transition, McCarthy can be heard saying that “he’s trying to do it not from the basis of Republicans” but rather, “of a basis of, hey, it’s not healthy for the nation” to continue with such uncertainty. 

Yet within the scant week that passed from the time McCarthy said Trump bore some responsibility for the attack and the impeachment vote, McCarthy switched gears again. 

He didn’t believe Trump “provoked” the mob, he said on Jan. 21. 

Not if people “listened to what [Trump] said at the rally,” McCarthy said. 

McCarthy met with Trump at the 45th president’s property in Mar-a-Lago, Florida, a week after Biden was inaugurated. Once he was back in Washington, the House leader issued a statement saying Trump had “committed to helping elect Republicans in the House and Senate in 2022.” 

They had founded a “united conservative movement,” he said. 

Jan. 6 committee may have another ‘invitation’ for Kevin McCarthy

The Jan. 6 committee is not done with Kevin McCarthy. 

The leader of Republicans in the House of Representatives and longtime ally to former President Donald Trump will soon find himself on the receiving end of another request to appear before the panel investigating the attack on the U.S. Capitol.

McCarthy was never formally subpoenaed by the committee, but investigators asked that he cooperate voluntarily this January. His refusal to come forward has simmered as options have been explored by the committee behind the scenes on how to go about navigating the legal thicket that is demanding another member of Congress testify under subpoena. 

“We’ve invited him to come earlier before the latest revelation that was reported on tapes. So in all probability, he will be issued another invitation to come just like some other members,” Jan. 6 committee Chairman Bennie Thompson told reporters Tuesday. 

That decision will be made “soon,” Thompson added.

RELATED STORY: The Jan. 6 committee wants you, Kevin McCarthy

Audio recordings of McCarthy obtained by The New York Times over this week have exposed the Republican as a leader on edge, fearful, and prepared to call on Trump to resign after Jan. 6 because he believed the president had some responsibility for the attack. McCarthy has denied making the comments.

Markos and Kerry talk Ukraine and speak with Wisconsin Democratic Party chair Ben Wikler on how hitting back at Republicans helps win elections

But in a phone call four days after the insurrection, McCarthy is reportedly heard openly worrying to GOP leadership about the inflammatory remarks pouring out from fellow lawmakers like Reps. Mo Brooks of Alabama and Matt Gaetz of Florida—among others—who supported Trump’s push to overturn the election. 

Brooks took the stage at the Ellipse on Jan. 6 and called on the president’s supporters to “fight like hell” before they descended on the Capitol. Gaetz used the aftermath of the attack to lash out at fellow Republicans critical of Trump, including Liz Cheney, who is now the Jan. 6 committee vice chair. 

“The other thing I want to bring up and I’m making some phone calls to some members, I just got something sent now about … Matt Gaetz where he’s calling peoples names out … this is serious stuff people are doing that has to stop,” McCarthy said.

“I’m calling Gaetz, I’m explaining to him, I don't know necessarily what to say but I’m going to have some other people call him too … This is serious shit, to cut this out,” McCarthy said.

When Rep. Steve Scalise of Louisiana pointed out to McCarthy that Gaetz’s remarks bordered on illegality, the House leader acknowledged again the severity of the situation. 

“Well, he’s putting people in jeopardy, he doesn't need to be doing this. we saw what people would do in the Capitol and these people came prepared well with everything else,” McCarthy said.

Gaetz has retreated from McCarthy since the recordings were published. In a statement posted on Twitter, the congressman—who is currently under investigation by the Department of Justice—defended his comments and called McCarthy and Scalise “weak men.”

Gaetz said he was “protecting President Trump from impeachment” while the House GOP leader was defending Rep. Adam Kinzinger and “protecting Liz Cheney from criticism.”

Gaetz has not yet been asked to appear before the Jan. 6 committee thus far—at least not publicly. A spokesman for the committee did not immediately return a request for comment Wednesday. Gaetz also did not immediately return a request for comment to Daily Kos.

Besides McCarthy, the committee has previously issued requests for records and deposition to Reps. Jim Jordan of Ohio and Scott Perry of Pennsylvania. Both Republicans have refused to appear voluntarily. 

Details about Jordan and Perry’s conduct in the runup to Jan. 6 have been made more transparent with the recent publication of text messages sent to Trump’s chief of staff at the time, Mark Meadows. 

More than a month after the 2020 election, Perry texted Meadows frantically in search of guidance as the administration sought a path to overturn the election results. 

“Mark, just checking in as time continues to count down. 11 days to 1/6 and 25 days to inauguration. We gotta get going!” Perry wrote on Dec. 26. 

Perry wasn’t just looking for guidance, however—he was also offering some of his own.

It was Perry who spurred Meadows to meet with Jeffrey Clark, an assistant attorney general at the Department of Justice on board with Trump’s claims of rampant election fraud.

According to the testimony that former Acting Attorney General Jeffrey Rosen provided to the Senate Judiciary Committee last year, Trump not only pushed the Department of Justice to discredit the election results, but it was Clark who led a charge to have him ousted so the scheme could be better controlled.

Clark pleaded the Fifth Amendment over 100 times when he finally sat with members of the committee in February following weeks of delays. 

The texts show Perrry also spewed conspiracy theories to Meadows about rigged voting machines and accused the CIA of a cover-up. 

As for Jordan, White House call logs show the Ohio Republican spoke with Trump for roughly 10 minutes on Jan. 6. A text message obtained by the committee and made public in December also appeared to show Jordan sharing legal arguments in support of an unconstitutional pressure campaign leveled at then-Vice President Mike Pence to stop the count.

Jordan said the text was a forward from former Pentagon Inspector General Joseph Schmitz, but it is not clear whether the text was in fact a forward or why it was sent at all, based on what the committee released.

Jordan has been notoriously inconsistent when fielding questions about his engagement with Trump on Jan. 6. 

Both he and Perry voted against the formation of the select committee investigating the attempted overthrow. Both now sit on a shadow committee purporting to analyze the events of Jan. 6.

RELATED STORY: White House Jan. 6 call log confirms what Jim Jordan couldn’t—or wouldn’t

When Thompson told reporters Tuesday that another invitation was due soon for McCarthy, the Mississippi Democrat also did not rule out issuing “invites” to other members of Congress. 

“We’ll make a decision on any others before the week is out,” Thompson told The Hill

When asked if he would skip the second invite for McCarthy and move straight to a subpoena, Thompson said it was “a consideration.” 

According to the Times, in the Jan. 10 GOP leadership call where McCarthy lamented the remarks from Gaetz and Brooks, Cheney was on the line too and raised concerns about Rep. Lauren Boebert of Colorado publicly tweeting about the movement of lawmakers as they were under siege. 

In other clips, McCarthy is heard asking about whether Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene of Georgia was involved in any remarks at the Ellipse on Jan. 6. She did not speak at the rally that morning but had spent weeks advocating for Trump and promoting the lie that the election was stolen by Democrats.  

McCarthy is gunning to become speaker of the House should Republicans take the majority. It has been a long-awaited goal for the legislator and may explain the increasingly light touch he has employed with some of the most extreme members in the House and in particular those on the uber conservative House Freedom Caucus. 

When Rep. Paul Gosar was censured and removed from his committees for posting an animated video depicting the murder of Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, McCarthy called it an “abuse of power” inflicted by “one-party rule.” 

A month after the insurrection, when Greene posted a sign outside of her Capitol Hill office targeting a fellow lawmaker who is the parent of a transgender child, McCarthy was quiet. 

A few months later in May 2021, when Greene was reportedly stalking Ocasio-Cortez through the halls of Congress and harassing her, McCarthy was quiet.

When Greene spewed conspiracy theories on social media about everything from “staged” school shootings to questioning whether a plane actually hit the Pentagon on Sept. 11, 2001 to antisemitic rhetoric, she was booted off her committee assignments. 

McCarthy said he was opposed to Greene’s remarks but said in the same breath that her ouster was a Democrat “power grab” and called it “dangerous.” 

When both Gosar and Greene attended a conference organized by white nationalists this February, McCarthy said he spoke to both lawmakers but wouldn’t divulge what, if any, the repercussions might be.  

According to CNN, during a House GOP conference meeting Wednesday morning, McCarthy said his remarks on the calls were merely him “floating scenarios about Trump’s future after Jan. 6.”

He reportedly received a standing ovation.

NEW: Kevin McCarthy just gave a full throated defense of the Nyt tapes during a House GOP conference this morning, saying he was just floating scenarios about Trump’s future after Jan 6, and received a standing ovation, per multiple sources in the room.

— Melanie Zanona (@MZanona) April 27, 2022

McCarthy did not respond to multiple requests for comment by Daily Kos.

Likely no subpoenas from Jan. 6 probe for sitting lawmakers

Anonymous sources cited in a report published by ABC Wednesday have cast new doubt that the Jan. 6 committee will pursue enforcement of subpoenas it has issued to a handful of sitting Republican lawmakers with alleged ties to the Capitol attack. 

Reports of a similar nature have circulated for months as investigators have continued taking deposition and records from over 500 witnesses, including high- and low-level aides and Trump White House staff, election officials, and many others.  

Related: Who’s who: A rolling guide to the targets of the Jan. 6 committee

According to ABC, GOP House Leader Kevin McCarthy and Reps. Jim Jordan of Ohio and Scott Perry of Pennsylvania have had “no follow-up discussions” about their cooperation since receiving their respective subpoenas.

The decision to drop the pursuit of the Republican legislators' records and testimony has “not been formalized” and ABC said their “sources caution that the committee's plans could change,” but “the emerging consensus is to proceed without taking this step.”

A representative for the Jan. 6 committee did not immediately respond to a request for comment to Daily Kos on Wednesday.

Forcing compliance with sitting lawmakers is tricky for the panel both politically and legally. Committee Chair Bennie Thompson has said since late last year that if those lawmakers targeted do not come forward, he was uncertain what tools the probe might have in its chest to force their testimony. 

Committee members have been outwardly devoted to pursuing the investigation regardless of the political toll it exacts—Liz Cheney was ousted from her leadership role in the GOP after joining the committee. But the fact remains that political retribution could be swift if Republicans take back the House and Senate in the coming elections. 

Rep. Jim Jordan, for example, is among Trump’s most fierce lapdogs in Congress and has been spurned by the Jan. 6 committee already when Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi rejected his nomination to the panel by McCarthy.

Jordan has made it clear since Trump’s first impeachment when he defended the former president unflaggingly that he would relish a chance to drag Biden White House officials through public hearings should the GOP retake Congress. 

Jordan is a member of the powerful House Judiciary Committee and is also a member of a Jan. 6 shadow committee. That committee has no subpoena power, but it has been running a parallel investigation to the official probe for months, largely relying on U.S. Capitol Police testimony to support its contention that security and intelligence failures were solely to blame for the rioting. 

Related: A Jan. 6 shadow committee sets its sights on U.S. Capitol Police

Investigators allege Jordan spoke to Trump on Jan. 6. They have based this on Trump White House call logs received from the National Archives in February. 

Jordan has flip-flopped on his account of the day, regularly buckling under scrutiny in interviews. But with or without his testimony, Trump’s former White House chief of staff, Mark Meadows, has already given the probe text messages illuminating how Jordan was campaigning for then-Vice President Mike Pence to stop the certification. 

Related: White House call logs confirms what Jim Jordan couldn’t—or wouldn’t

Constitutionally, Pence did not have that authority. 

As for Perry, the committee asked him to voluntarily comply in December. Thompson alleges that Perry was the engine behind a scheme to install a Trump-friendly lawyer Jeffrey Clark at the Department of Justice as the nation’s attorney general. 

Scott Perry Letter by Daily Kos

Politico reported on March 2 that committee investigators “have repeatedly asked witnesses to describe contacts with Perry.”

The panel has already conducted over 550 interviews. Frustrating it may be for watchers of the probe, the lack of participation by certain lawmakers does not preclude the reams of evidence and other materials the committee has already amassed.

Before eventually turning his back on the committee following extensive cooperation, Meadows turned over heaps of text messages and other correspondence, only some of which has been made public.

Meadows has since been held in contempt of Congress. It is up to the Justice Department to decide whether it will bring a criminal indictment for his obstruction.

The Meadows messages alone painted a frantic picture of the White House and Washington both before and after the attack.

Related: Texts show Fox hosts and Trump Jr. begging Mark Meadows to get Trump to stop the insurgency

@Liz_Cheney reads texts sent by Sean Hannity, Laura Ingraham, Brian Kilmeade, and Donald Trump Jr. to Mark Meadows during the insurrection, imploring him to get Trump to do something. pic.twitter.com/mgzFeHiHsy

— Oliver Darcy (@oliverdarcy) December 14, 2021

The committee itself does not have the ability to indict anyone. It has taken pains to reiterate this as Republicans like Meadows, Jordan, and several others already subpoenaed actively claim the probe acts beyond the scope of its authority.

They argue the select committee moves as a law enforcement arm, not a legislative arm. 

But the committee has underlined, time and again, it does not need to indict.

It needs only to amass information and investigate all of the different avenues in which the attempted overthrow of the 2020 election was undertaken. 

If it finds criminality or evidence of criminality, it will be up to the Department of Justice to act next. 

Kevin ‘Who the F— Do You Think You Are Talking To’ McCarthy may be next on Jan. 6 request list

When rioters were ransacking the Capitol and Rep. Kevin McCarthy was presumably somewhere hiding from the mob former President Donald Trump incited, he and Trump had a rather tense chat.

Full transparency on the content, timing, and length of that discussion is information that would be undeniably vital to the Jan. 6 committee’s probe of the assault.

In an interview Wednesday with ABC News, the chair of the committee, Rep. Bennie Thompson, a Mississippi Democrat, said that while McCarthy has not yet received a formal request from the panel asking for his voluntary compliance—which is different than a subpoena—an informal invitation still stands.

“If he has information he wants to share with us, and is willing to voluntarily come in, I’m not taking the invitation off the table,” Thompson said. Thompson also emphasized: “If Leader McCarthy has nothing to hide, he can voluntarily come before the committee.”

If McCarthy won’t, then things could start to get a bit more official.

So far, the committee has issued formal requests for voluntary compliance to two lawmakers: Rep. Jim Jordan of Ohio and Rep. Scott Perry of Pennsylvania. Both have said they would not comply with the request. The next move goes to the committee.

Perry, investigators say, may have been involved directly with a scheme to install a Trump ally, Jeffrey Clark, at the Department of Justice. As for Jordan, it was his contact with Trump and, potentially, members of Trump’s inner circle on Jan. 6 that piqued the committee’s interest.

A representative for McCarthy’s office did not return a request for comment Thursday.

Back in April, however, the Republican congressman told Fox News: “I was the first person to contact [Trump] when the riots were going on. He didn’t see it. What he ended the call with saying was telling me he’ll put something out to make sure to stop this.”

Guardedly, McCarthy also said at the time: "My conversations with the president are my conversations with the president."

McCarthy’s claim that Trump “didn’t see” the riot is not yet supported by any public evidence. 

In any event, one of those conversations with Trump was a key feature cited in Trump’s second impeachment this January.

Sometime in the middle of the afternoon of Jan. 6—the exact timing is not entirely clear— according to a public statement made by fellow Republican Rep. Jamie Beutler-Herrera, McCarthy called Trump to report on the violence playing out at the Capitol.

McCarthy was also calling to ask Trump for help—namely demanding that the president release a public statement immediately to quell the riot.

McCarthy said he asked Trump to “publicly and forcefully” call off his supporters, but his request fell on deaf ears.

Despite the sea of Trump flags fluttering in the wind just outside, the spray of “Trump for 2020” T-shirts, banners, hats, bumper stickers, posters, signs, and other ephemera in bright blue, red, or white display, Trump insisted it wasn’t his supporters mobbing the building and viciously beating police amid calls for the head of his second-in-command, then-Vice President Mike Pence.

Trump told McCarthy it was “antifa.”

McCarthy, according to Beutler-Herrera’s official statement, then went on to reject the president’s assertion, urging Trump to accept that, no, it was his supporters scaling the walls.

“Well, Kevin,” Trump said. “I guess these people are more upset about the election than you are.”

That reportedly set off a powder keg. McCarthy, the House GOP leader, exploded at Trump, the president of the United States.

“Who the fuck do you think you are talking to?” McCarthy said.

Several Republican members confirmed the conversation to reporters at various outlets in February. McCarthy has also publicly discussed the exchange.

Though McCarthy has long taken a position against the current investigation of the attack, a week after the assault from the House floor, he laid the blame squarely on Trump.

“The president bears responsibility for Wednesday's attack on Congress by mob rioters,” McCarthy said. “He should have immediately denounced the mob when he saw what was unfolding. These facts require immediate action by President Trump."

McCarthy called the attack “criminal” and “undemocratic,” and openly proclaimed that the suggestion it was “antifa” at the gates on Jan. 6 was false.

Despite this, he would not vote to impeach Trump for his conduct. That would be too divisive, he argued.

Public hearings hosted by the House select committee on the issue will begin in the new year. Lawmakers will hear testimony and parse evidence openly about the Trump administration’s efforts to overturn the 2020 election. They will likely also call on state and local election officials to testify about the president’s pressure campaign to overturn electoral results.

There will be assessments on the state of national security and intelligence gathering failures in the runup to the assault. Thompson has also stressed that the role of extremist organizations like the Proud Boys and Oath Keepers will come into focus.

The committee will use the information it gleans to inform a variety of legislative decisions, including those they make about possible amendments or revisions to the Electoral Count Act of 1887. The committee also has not ruled out the possibility of issuing criminal referrals, if necessary.

Only 24 hours ago, Trump filed a motion with the Supreme Court resisting the idea of the committee weighing criminal referrals. He’s currently in a tug of war with Thompson over a trove of presidential records that investigators requested from the National Archives back in August. Trump tried to shield the records, citing executive privilege, but President Joe Biden overrode him, saying that the documents were more vital to the public interest than Trump’s.

A lower court and an appeals court have ruled against Trump, and now it will be the Supreme Court that decides whether it will even hear Trump’s appeal. The Jan. 6 committee recently narrowed its request on some of the records, underlining that it only needs documents that are relevant to its probe.

The investigation was never designed to be a catch-all of Trump’s entire presidential archive, and the decision to narrow the request was strategic as it might very well chip away at Trump’s claims of abuse of the executive branch by members of Congress. 

Thompson told ABC News on Wednesday that the committee’s focus would not be deterred as the anniversary of the attack looms. 

“What we will do in our hearings is put the pieces of the puzzle together so the average man and woman on the street will understand how close we came to losing our democracy,” he said.