>

Once again the republicans weaponize a good rule for a bad purpose.
So who’s actually going to be on the intelligence committee? >

Just all the people who don't belong there. >

I mean, if Gaetz, or any of his cohort are on it we literally can’t inform the intelligence committee of anything >

Sure you can. Then CIA can see if they can pick up in Moscow what leaks there are. >

Like the CIA has given 1 single fuck about all the treason going on with Republicans.
They're too busy torturing people, selling drugs, and managing international weapons sales. >

Domestic counter-intel (tracking Americans spying for foreign states) is not the CIA's function, I think that falls to the FBI. >

The FBI that just had a former director arrested for ties to a Russian oligarch??
Okay,  I'm reassured. >

Chris Wray, the current FBI director, is solid. He’s like a modern Thomas Becket. He did a 180 from supporting the person who appointed him to being dedicated to doing his work with integrity. I absolutely respect Chris Wray. >

Okay, that is more reassuring. >


House Speaker Kevin McCarthy said Tuesday he will block Reps. Adam Schiff and Eric Swalwell from serving on the House Intelligence Committee, days after House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-N.Y.) formally recommended the California Democrats be reappointed to the panel. >

Wait, can’t the Dems remove McCarthy as Speaker? >

Someone could do the motion to vacate, but it wouldn’t have the votes to pass >

But they'd still have to vote, right?
What a solid-gold delay tactic, if they ever happen to get around to voting for anything. >

I’m curious what happens if they keep an eye out for when a bunch of Rs won’t be present (not exactly uncommon) and then make sure they have everyone there themselves. Spring the motion out of nowhere first thing in the day.
Wouldn’t have been possible previously, but under the new rules it appears to be. >

Check the voting record. It’s damn near 100%. They vote for the ones that are not there. They even have short sticks to help them press the buttons so they don’t have to move very far. 
I don’t think this opportunity will present itself for this. Sadly. >

Thank you! I am not as sad about it anymore! Thank you human(potentially). >

I still have my doubts whether the Dems would have the spine to go through with it, but it absolutely should be considered. The GOP wouldn’t think twice about it. >

I'm not saying our reps aren't intelligent, but SOMEONE should reach out to their rep with this idea. Maybe they could use the help. >

"I cannot put partisan loyalty ahead of national security, and I cannot simply recognize years of service as the sole criteria for membership on this essential committee. Integrity matters more," McCarthy said without a hint of irony, self-awareness, or shame. 
But people like MTG, Paul Gosar and George Santos are ok, though. Can this era of blatant partisan hackery just end already? >

What's the argument for Schiff?  I understand for Swalwell that there was a Chinese intelligence agent that he might have been sleeping with, but the only thing I see with Schiff is that he dared to impeach the God-Emperor twice. >

He said Schiff "lied to the American people" during the first impeachment. Pretty clear TFG wanted some petty revenge and made it a condition of backing Mccarthy for Speaker. >

Schiff said as much. 
And if you look at the replies, it’s a perfect encapsulation of our current political era. >

Damn, Twitter has turned into a fucking cesspool of maga hate. >

Did they change it such that only blue checkmark replies show up?
Because everyone of those maga hats in the replies had that blue check mark paid to Daddy Musk. >

Yes checkmark replies get pushed to the top. “Free speech” >

Man that's insidious as fuck.
Hey you can only talk on twitter if you pay me 8$ a month.
And of course it self selects for Maga Hat conservatives who love elon musk and selects against liberals who hate his guts and don't want to pay him that money.
I hope politicans take their tweets and such elsewhere.  Feels like there's likely to be a major outage on twitter soon anyway. >

Don't want any actual intelligence on that committee, Kev? >

The Stupidity Committee. >

The itty bitty stupidity committee >

The stupidity is actually quite large >

Someone catch me up here.  I know there’s the thing with Swalwell and the Chinese spy that the right wing throws around to disqualify him… is there anything with even a slight pretense of legitimacy they are throwing at Schiff or is it just “this guy led the Impeachment of Dear Leader”? >

They are accusing him of lying at the first impeachment. 
Meanwhile ignoring all the Roe is settled law promises made by multiple justices, the security clearances of the nepotistically appointed Kushners and the 10,000+ lies that the orange goblin made during his time in the Oval office >

Lying about what, and how is it any different than the rest of the impeachment managers? >

They can't get that specific because he didn't actually lie during the impeachment. >

I just want to know why Schiff is being targeted specifically. Both the real reason, and the pretextual one being communicated among the party. Every source or thread I look up mentions accusations that he "lied about Trump" but I still have no idea what the supposed lies are, or how they are any different than all the other accusations made by every Democrat in Congress let alone the other impeachment managers. >

The issue here is that you seem to be under the impression that Mccarthy is acting in good faith as opposed to just throwing red meat to the ravenous base. >

No, I know it's bad faith, like I said I want to know what the pretext is and what the real reason is for targeting Schiff over any of the others. >

He already did. Interestingly, if he wants to block Omar, he will need total support from his caucus. All of this just proves that he is just speaker in name only and can only wield minimal power. >

Different committee. Different rules. He can block whoever he wants from select committees. >

Ya, the Intel and Rules committee have special rules that allow the Speaker to block anyone unilaterally rather than requiring a House or Committee vote. This was done to keep crazies off the committees but it seems McCarthy wants the opposite.