Jan. 6 Commission

And Also:  I appreciate that Secular Coalition of America had a productive meeting with the White House Office of Faith-Based and Neighborhood Partnership.  Any effort by the White House to involve religious groups should take into consideration everyone, including those whose "religious" like beliefs are of a non-theistic nature.  On this, they should be Unitarian. 

Judge Posner was dismissive on the results of the 9/11 Commission, which I on this blog found unconvincing. Moving past how that was nearly 17 years ago [the timing might be compared to the criticism that the December 2021 deadline here is too soon], my opening paragraph is relevent here given the comparison to the proposed 1/6 Commission:

I was impressed by the 9/11 Commission Report, though realizing that there were various limitations, and that the reforms suggested might be problematic in various aspects. All the same, it was well written, provided good background material, had striking "you are there" reporting of the day itself, and provided some important thoughts on how a successful policy might be carried forth.

The Lawfare analysis linked above, which I will referenced at times, cites possible benefits that overlaps with why I found the 9/11 Commission attractive:

The success of the 9/11 Commission—which both issued a compelling narrative history of the events leading up to Sept. 11 and issued a set of bold policy recommendations for Congress and the administration in response—shows that the structure the bipartisan bill embraces is at least consistent with effective investigative work product.

There is an argument being made that current congressional investigations would be satisfactory. Those sympathetic to the goals of the commission, as compared to those fearing it will hurt their political chances, are complicit in some fashion and/or supportive of the insurrectionists, have questioned it as well. A major concern is the Republicans will in effect be "fifth columnists" here. But, such people also think some sort of select committee or perhaps special investigation in the Justice Department would anyway advance the goals just as well.

This is why such an inquiry needs to be removed from the hyper-polarized environment that is Congress and instead be established as a well-resourced independent commission with a clear and specific mandate focused squarely on Jan. 6 and overseen by commissioners who aren’t focused on their next reelection campaign.

There to me appears to be various arguments in support of a commission outside of Congress, which has more independence than a normal select committee. The legislation provides a method for those experienced in various things relevant to the investigation in a way not as likely in Congress. Concerns about the possibility of bipartisan commissions, especially given how one side is more self-interested than in the 9/11 context, are quite valid. It looked like even the Minority Leader would see some common ground. After all, during the impeachment, Trump's lawyer said such a commission was the right way to go. It might not seem like it, but thirty-five House Republicans in this environment voting for the measure is also significant.

And, contra let's say a comment made by Charlie Pierce on Twitter, there does seem to be public support and value to some united effort. We might think it stupid, but continual pushing for that on policy underlines that the median voter very well trusts something more when it does not seem one-sided. And, here, it also is important, noting that there will be some passionate minority that won't trust anything of that sort. 

The Lawfare piece as noted is concerned about the end date, which might be a legitimate concern -- I'm not sure about needing to release it after the 2022 elections, though there is a message of neutrality advanced there.  It also suggests a mechanism to break possible ties (ties as well lack of quorums have made regulating federal elections, the FEC split by party picks, a continual problem), which might also be useful. As noted there, what will be key is who is picked.  The 9/11 Commission Republican chair was Tom "former Drew University head" Kean, an establishment Republican type.  Justice Sandra Day O'Connor was also on the Commission. Query if Souter or Kennedy would be ideal here. 

As noted above, the bill to form the Commission passed the House with thirty-five Republican votes.  That is still rather bad, especially after real effort (not that they want to admit it) was made to find middle ground.  By the way, it is not clear to me why articles on the passage cannot simply clearly provide a damn link to the bill -- I repeatedly have to search for thing (the same thing popped up during the impeachments).  The current chances in the Senate are a bit dim, which means ten Republican senators do not want to join in.  Graveyard Mitch grave yard-ed it.  

This is one somewhat cynical partisan argument for pushing this thing.  There is (again contra to Charlie Pierce) apparent strong public support for this sort of thing.  As with other things, the weight of such support is not necessarily so compelling that another path won't work out in the end.  Still, there is partisan value in tarring the Republicans here (other than it being patently legitimate on the merits).  And, then Democrats can have a select committee or whatever, saying "we tried, man." 

I'm open to all arguments here, but do think there is some good arguments on the merits.  A separate commission independent of Congress provides a means to examine the situation over a span of time, focused on one thing, in a more organized and expert fashion.  A report, with narrative and proposed reforms, can also be useful as in the previous situation.  It also provides a chance to show that government works, which even can give Republicans a chance to show some good faith.  On this subject, the party surely needs that.  With around 1/6 (how apt) of them voting for it, this is sort of a free riding exercise on their part, but so be it.  

The complaints of Republicans that this is redundant given their past actions (BENGHAZI!) are as believable as senators at this point saying they didn't read a nineteen page bill that has big margins so can't comment on it.  And, also wrong on the merits -- the bill even instructs the commission to try not be too redundant with what was already done. The insurrection occurred in January and the prosecution process is still ongoing, with we still getting news of arrests.  New knowledge and judgments are quite possible, especially with different types of people involved.  As with the Supreme Court commission, time will be helpful.

So, in conclusion, I recognize the concerns and find them reasonable ones. Nonetheless, especially before we see who is chosen to be on the Commission (including as minority co-leader), I am guardedly optimistic about the enterprise. And, even if I was less so, the effort is probably in the Democrats' self-interest. I generally trust Pelosi and Schumer's basic political judgment in that regard as well.  Finally, the impeachment trial here was a useful prologue, including McConnell saying Trump is clearly not not guilty.  His intransigence now is unsurprising but his words then are still on the record.  

Can we have a 14A, sec. 3 enforcement bill too?