US Politics

The New York mayoral candidate Andrew Yang, who has drawn fire for not voting in city elections and for having a second home upstate, was mocked as a “tourist” by some on Monday after naming Times Square as his favorite subway station.One political cartoon published by the New York Daily News showed Yang emerging from the station while a bystander quipped “the tourists are back”. Evelyn Yang, the candidate’s wife, was outraged.“I can’t believe my eyes,” she said on Twitter. “To publish this racist disfiguration of Andrew Yang as a tourist, in NYC where I was born, where Andrew has lived for 25 years, where our boys were born, where 16% of us are Asian and anti-Asian hate is up 900%.”She also posted a racist cartoon next to the cartoon from the Daily News and asked: “Which one is from 2021?”I can’t believe my eyes. To publish this racist disfiguration of @AndrewYang as a tourist, in NYC where I was born, where Andrew has lived for 25 years, where our boys were born, where 16% of us are Asian and anti-Asian hate is up 900%. #StopAsianHate https://t.co/pJ7JqxCUec— Evelyn Yang (@EvelynYang) May 24, 2021
Yang’s campaign also fired back.“It’s hard to tell what offends [his critics] more – that his family has lived near that subway stop for 25 years or that he’s an Asian American,” said Yang’s communications director, Alyssa Cass.To Yang, the choice was a simple one. That’s the stop closest to his Manhattan home.“It’s my stop, so Times Square,” he told the comedian Ziwe on her Showtime program.The comic reacted with disbelief.Yang replied: “It’s big. It’s cavernous. There are entertainers there. Sure, what’s not to like?”Some on social media questioned how much of a New Yorker Yang could really be. Real New Yorkers, they said, stay away from tourist-choked Times Square if they can.The tech entrepreneur and former presidential candidate is among the leading candidates in the Democratic primary. Voting ends on 22 June. Unlike most of the other leading contenders, Yang has never held a job in city government and isn’t part of the city’s political establishment.That status as an outsider has helped Yang with some voters but he has also been criticised for his lack of experience, for spending time at his house in the Hudson River Valley village of New Paltz after the pandemic struck, and for failing to vote in the last four mayoral elections.Being a native New Yorker hasn’t counted for much in those elections. Huge numbers of voters weren’t born in the city. The most recent holders of the job, Bill de Blasio and Michael Bloomberg, grew up in the Boston area. More

On 25 May 2020, a man died after a “medical incident during police interaction” in Minneapolis, Minnesota. The man was suspected of forgery and “believed to be in his 40s”. He “physically resisted officers” and, after being handcuffed, “appeared to be suffering medical distress”. He was taken to the hospital “where he died a short time later”.It is not difficult to imagine a version of reality where this, the first police account of George Floyd’s brutal death beneath the knee of an implacable police officer, remained the official narrative of what took place in Minneapolis one year ago. That version of reality unfolds every day. Police lies are accepted and endorsed by the press; press accounts are accepted and believed by the public.That something else happened – that it is now possible for a news organization to say without caveat or qualification that Derek Chauvin murdered George Floyd – required herculean effort and extraordinary bravery on the part of millions of people.The laborious project of establishing truth in the face of official lies is one that Americans embraced during the racial reckoning of the summer of 2020, whether it was individuals speaking out about their experiences of racism at work, or institutions acknowledging their own complicity in racial injustice. For a time, it seemed that America was finally ready to tell a more honest, nuanced story of itself, one that acknowledged the blood at the root.But alongside this reassessment, another American tradition re-emerged: a reactionary movement bent on reasserting a whitewashed American myth. These reactionary forces have taken aim at efforts to tell an honest version of American history and speak openly about racism by proposing laws in statehouses across the country that would ban the teaching of “critical race theory”, the New York Times’s 1619 Project, and, euphemistically, “divisive concepts”.The movement is characterized by a childish insistence that children should be taught a false version of the founding of the United States that better resembles a mythic virgin birth than the bloody, painful reality. It would shred the constitution’s first amendment in order to defend the honor of those who drafted its three-fifths clause.“When you start re-examining the founding myth in light of evidence that’s been discovered in the last 20 years by historians, then that starts to make people doubt the founding myth,” said Christopher S Parker, a professor of political science at the University of Washington who studies reactionary movements. “There’s no room for racism in this myth. Anything that threatens to interrogate the myth is seen as a threat.”Legislation seeking to limit how teachers talk about race has been considered by at least 15 states, according to an analysis by Education Week.In Idaho, Governor Brad Little signed into law a measure banning public schools from teaching critical race theory, which it claimed will “exacerbate and inflame divisions on the basis of sex, race, ethnicity, religion, color, national origin, or other criteria in ways contrary to the unity of the nation and the wellbeing of the state of Idaho and its citizens”. The state’s lieutenant governor, Janice McGeachin, also established a taskforce to “examine indoctrination in Idaho education and to protect our young people from the scourge of critical race theory, socialism, communism, and Marxism”.In Tennessee, the legislature has approved a bill that would bar public schools from using instructional materials that promote certain concepts, including the idea that, “This state or the United States is fundamentally or irredeemably racist or sexist.”The Texas house of representatives has passed a flurry of legislation related to teaching history, including a bill that would ban any course that would “require an understanding of the 1619 Project” and a bill that would establish an “1836 Project” (a reference to the date of the founding of the Republic of Texas) to “promote patriotic education”.Mitch McConnell, the Senate minority leader, in April came out in opposition to a small federal grant program (just $5.25m out of the department of education’s $73.5bn budget) supporting American history and civics education projects that, among other criteria, “incorporate racially, ethnically, culturally, and linguistically diverse perspectives”.“Families did not ask for this divisive nonsense,” McConnell wrote in a letter to the secretary of education, Miguel Cardona. “Voters did not vote for it. Americans never decided our children should be taught that our country is inherently evil.”Unsurprisingly, McConnell left out a few pertinent adjectives.“Whose children are we talking about?” asked LaGarrett King, a professor at the University of Missouri School of Education who has developed a new framework for teaching Black history. “Black parents talk to their kids about racism. Asian American parents talk to their kids about racism. Just say that you don’t want white kids to learn about racism.”“If we understand the systemic nature of racism, then that will help us really understand our society, and hopefully improve it,” King added. “Laws like this – it’s simply that people do not want to improve society. History is about power, and these people want to continue in a system that they have enjoyed.”While diversity training and the 1619 Project have been major targets, critical race theory has more recently become the watchword of the moral panic. Developed by Black legal scholars at Harvard in the 1980s, critical race theory is a mode of thinking that examines the ways in which racism was embedded into American law.Black parents talk to their kids about racism. Asian American parents talk to their parents about racism. Just say that you don’t want white kids to learn about racism.“Its effectiveness created a backlash,” said Keffrelyn D Brown, a professor at the University of Texas at Austin’s College of Education who argues that critical race theory does have a place in classrooms. Brown said that she believes students should learn about racism in school, but that teachers need tools and frameworks to make those discussions productive.“If we are teaching this, we need to think about racism as just as robust a content area as if we were talking about discrete mathematics or the life cycle,” Brown said. “I find that critical race theory provides a really elegant and clear way for students to understand racism from an informed perspective.”But in the hands of the American right, critical race theory has morphed into an existential threat. In early January, just five days after rightwing rioters had stormed the US Capitol, the Heritage Foundation, a rightwing thinktank with close ties to the Trump administration, hosted a panel discussion about the threat of “the new intolerance” and its “grip on America”.“Critical race theory is the complete rejection of the best ideas of the American founding. This is some dangerous, dangerous philosophical poisoning in the blood stream,” said Angela Sailor, a VP of the Heritage Foundation’s Feulner Institute and the moderator of the event.“The rigid persistence with which believers apply this theory has made critical race theory a constant daily presence in the lives of hundreds of millions of people,” she added, in an assessment that will probably come as a surprise to hundreds of millions of people.The Heritage Foundation has been one of the top campaigners against critical race theory, alongside the Manhattan Institute, another conservative thinktank known for promoting the “broken windows” theory of policing.Bridging the two groups is Christopher Rufo, a documentary film-maker who has become the leading spokesperson against critical race theory on television and on Twitter. As a visiting fellow at Heritage, he produced a report arguing that critical race theory makes inequality worse, and in April the Manhattan Institute appointed him the director of a new “Initiative on Critical Race Theory”. (Rufo is also affiliated with another rightwing thinktank, the Discovery Institute, which is best known for its repeated attempts to smuggle Christian theology into US public schools under the guise of the pseudoscientific “intelligent design”.)A host of new organizations has also sprung up to spread the fear of critical race theory far and wide. The Foundation Against Intolerance & Racism (Fair) launched recently with an advisory board composed of anti-“woke” media figures and academics. The group is so far encouraging opposition to the grant program McConnell opposed and has highlighted a legal challenge to a debt relief program for Black farmers as a “profile in courage”.Those who take the Fair “pledge” can also join a message board where members discuss their activism against critical race theory in schools and access resources such as the guide, How to Talk to a Critical Theorist, which begins, “In many ways, Critical Theorists (or specifically Critical Race Theorists) are just like anyone.”Parents Defending Education, another new organization, encourages parents to “expose” what’s happening in their schools and offers step-by-step instructions for parents to set up “Woke at X” Instagram accounts to document excessive “wokeness” at their children’s schools.A new website, What Are They Learning, was set up by the Daily Caller reporter Luke Rosiak to serve as a “woke-e-leaks” for parents to report incidents of teachers mentioning racism in school. “In deep-red, 78% white Indiana, state department of education tells teachers to Talk about Race in the Classroom, cites Ibram X Kendi,” reads one such report. (The actual document submitted is, in fact, titled Talking about Race in the Classroom and appears to be a copy of a webinar offering teachers advice on discussing last year’s Black Lives Matter protests with their students.)Such initiatives and others – the Educational Liberty Alliance, Critical Race Training in Education, No Left Turn in Education – have received enthusiastic support from the rightwing media, with the New York Post, Daily Caller, Federalist and Fox News serving up a steady stream of outrage fodder about the threat of critical race theory. Since 5 June, Fox News has mentioned “critical race theory” by name in 150 broadcasts, the Atlantic found.For some of these groups, critical race theory is just one of many “liberal” ideas they don’t want their children to learn. No Left Turn in Education also complains about comprehensive sex education and includes a link on its website to an article suggesting that teaching children about the climate crisis is a form of indoctrination.It’s not enough to be balanced; it’s not adequate to say that we balance out criticism of the past with praise of the past. The idea is that a drop of poison is all you need to ruin the wellFor others, it seems possible that attacking critical race theory is just a smokescreen for a bog standard conservative agenda. (Toward the end of the Heritage Foundation’s January panel, the group’s director of its center for education policy told viewers that the “most important” way to fight critical race theory was to support “school choice”, a longstanding policy goal of the right.)Whatever their motives, today’s reactionaries are picking up the mantle of generations of Americans who have fought to ensure that white children are taught a version of America’s past that is more hagiographic than historic. The echoes are so strong that Adam Laats, a Binghamton University professor who studies the history of education in the US, remarked, “It’s confusing which decade we’re in.”In the 1920s and 1930s, reactionaries objected to textbooks that gave credence to the progressive historian Charles Beard’s argument that the founders’ motives were not strictly principled, but instead were influenced by economic self-interest, according to Seth Cotlar, a history professor at Willamette University.In 1923, an Oregon state government controlled by members of the resurgent Ku Klux Klan enacted a law that banned the use of any textbook in schools that “speaks slightingly of the founders of the republic, or of the men who preserved the union, or which belittles or undervalues their work”. And in the 1930s, conservatives waged what Laats called a “frenzied campaign” against the textbooks of Harold Rugg, another progressive historian, that actually resulted in a book burning in Bradner, Ohio.For those supporting the resurgent Klan, “To speak ill of a founder was akin to a kind of sacrilege,” said Cotlar.Another battle over textbooks flared in the 1990s when Lynne Cheney launched a high-profile campaign against an effort to introduce new standards for teaching US history, which she found insufficiently “celebratory” and lacking “a tone of affirmation”. Harriet Tubman, the KKK, and McCarthyism all received too much attention, Cheney complained, and George Washington and Robert E Lee not enough.The decades change; the fixation on maintaining a false idea of historic figures as pure founts of virtue remains. Today, the single contention in the 1619 Project that has drawn the most vociferous outrage is author Nikole Hannah-Jones’s assertion that “one of the primary reasons” colonists fought for independence was to preserve the institution of slavery. Hannah-Jones was denied tenure by the University of North Carolina’s board of trustees, which overruled the dean, faculty and university, reportedly due to political pressure from conservative critics of the 1619 Project.“Underlying this is the never-solved dilemma about what history class is supposed to do,” said Laats. “For some people it’s supposed to be a pep talk before the game, a well of pure inspiration for young people, and I think that is why the danger seems so intense to conservatives.“It’s not enough to be balanced; it’s not adequate to say that we balance out criticism of the past with praise of the past. The idea is that a drop of poison is all you need to ruin the well.”Still, the fact that reactionaries are looking to legislate against certain ideas may be a sign of just how weak their own position is.Laats suspects that the right is using “critical race theory” as a euphemism. “You can’t go to a school board and say you want to ban the idea that Black Lives Matter.“They’ve given up on arguing in favor of indoctrination and instead say that critical race theory is the actual indoctrination,” he said of the conservative movement. “They’ve given up on arguing in favor of racism to say that critical race theory is the real racism. This campaign against the teaching of critical race theory is scary, and it’s a sign of great strength, but it’s strength in favor of an idea that’s already lost.”Or at least, so we hope.Last week I called Paweł Machcewicz, a Polish historian who has been at the center of a battle in his own country between those who want to tell the truth about the past, and those who want to weaponize history for political purposes. Machcewicz was one of the historians who uncovered evidence of Polish complicity in Nazi war crimes, and as the founding director of the Museum of the Second World War in Gdańsk, he attempted to provide an accurate account of Poland’s experience in the war. The far-right ruling party, Law and Justice, deemed the museum insufficiently patriotic and fired him. The next year, the government passed legislation to outlaw accusing Poland of complicity in Nazi war crimes.“Democracy turned out to be very fragile,” Machcewicz said. “I knew history was important for Law and Justice, but it became a sort of obsession. I never thought that as a founding director of a museum of the second world war, I would become a public enemy.”“You never know what price you have to pay for independent history,” he added. “I don’t think it will ever go as far in the US as Poland, but some years ago, I also felt quite secure in my country.” More

The Ohio governor, Mike DeWine, on Monday hailed the success of the state’s Vax-a-Million lottery in boosting demand for coronavirus vaccines, announcing that more than 2.7 million adult residents had registered for the chance of winning $1m in one of five weekly drawings.DeWine’s giveaway approach, however, has drawn the ire of fellow Republican state lawmakers, who are introducing legislation to shut the project down as “a frivolous use of taxpayer dollars”.The prize money comes from Ohio’s share of the $2.2tn federal Cares Act, which was signed into law in March last year.At a press conference on Monday afternoon, DeWine said he was encouraged by the take-up rate for the lottery, which is open only to those over 18 who can prove they are at least partially vaccinated before each prize draw. The first draw is on Wednesday.In addition to the adult cash draw, DeWine said 104,386 younger Ohioans aged 12 to 17 had registered for a chance to win a four-year full college scholarship.“Where we’ve seen the biggest increase is those 16 and 17 years of age,” DeWine told reporters.“One assumes that they’re very interested in getting that scholarship, they’re looking at college coming up and they’re looking to see if they can get in.”After the lottery was announced on 12 May, the number of vaccines administered in Ohio jumped by 33%. In that time, DeWine said, vaccine take-up by 16 and 17-year-olds had increased by 94%, by 46% for 18- and 19-year-olds and by 55% for those aged 20 to 55.In all, 2,758,470 of the 5.17 million eligible adults had begun the process of receiving the vaccine and registering for the draw, he added.“We’re more than happy with the results. This was just so important to our future as a state, our immediate future and our long-term future. Having more people vaccinated really allows us to get back to normal.”State representative Jena Powell, meanwhile, said she would introduce legislation to end the lottery to the Ohio house this week. She wants the money used for other initiatives such as small business recovery grants and mental health services for children.“The vaccine lottery is a frivolous use of taxpayer dollars. They have the ability to take the vaccine if they want but we shouldn’t be putting $5m of taxpayer money to [it],” she told 2News of Dayton.“I have to look at the whole picture and I know you’ve had a difficult year but we can’t make the future more difficult.” More

Three years after becoming the Democrats’ breakout star in Texas and a year after a short-lived presidential run, Beto O’Rourke is weighing a campaign for governor.But amid considerable noise about the intentions of the actor Matthew McConaughey, whose political affiliations are unknown but whose ambitions are coming into focus, O’Rourke is staying quiet. The former congressman says he hasn’t ruled out anything, but isn’t saying much else.Texas Democrats are itching for an answer.“Impatience is not the word for it,” the party chairman, Gilberto Hinojosa, said. “But anxious is.”A top aide to O’Rourke said the 48-year-old had not ruled out challenging the Republican governor, Greg Abbott, in 2022 – but has taken no formal steps.If O’Rourke jumped in, it would be his third straight election cycle, following his narrow loss for US Senate against Ted Cruz in 2018 and the failed White House run.A comeback could be complicated by liberal positions taken while seeking the presidency but no other Democrat would enter the governor’s race with the same ability to quickly raise massive campaign funds.There is no timeline on a decision, according to the aide, who said O’Rourke had recently finished teaching virtual classes at two Texas universities. For one he led a seminar on voting rights – as state lawmakers are set to approve a bill that would restrict polling hours and reduce options to cast a ballot.Texas is the last big battleground in a Republican campaign for voting restrictions, driven by Donald Trump’s false claims that the presidential election was stolen.O’Rourke has remained an out-front presence, following the coronavirus pandemic and February’s catastrophic freeze and blackouts that killed more than 150 people in Texas. He hasn’t let up on Abbott, who is expected to seek a third term.“These jokers can’t even keep the lights on, or the heat on, or the water on when the temperature drops. Now they want to take away our election?” O’Rourke told protesters this month at the Texas capitol.Nonetheless this is a dark moment for Texas Democrats after expectations of a 2020 breakthrough flopped. Republicans responded by muscling through measures over guns, abortion and teaching that Democrats are all but powerless to stop.Any Democrat running for governor faces long odds against the well-funded Abbott, and perhaps McConaughey. Still, O’Rourke went from virtual unknown to nearly upsetting Cruz in 2018, and relishes the role of underdog.Hinojosa said he encouraged him to consider running for governor. He said the hole at the top of the ticket is keeping others sidelined.“I told him that I thought that we needed a strong candidate for governor and he certainly fit that mold, and that, in my opinion, if anybody could beat Abbott, he could beat him,” Hinojosa said.Republicans are looking to extend their territory along the Mexico border, a Democratic stronghold that swung heavily to Trump in November. In Webb county, which includes Laredo, Sylvia Bruni, the Democratic chairwoman, said she hoped O’Rourke would run but his presidential bid could hurt his chances.O’Rourke remade his campaign after a mass shooting in his hometown of El Paso in August 2019 and made a full-throated call on national TV, saying: “Hell, yes, we’re going to take your AR-15.”That kind of comment isn’t forgotten easily in Laredo, which Bruni describes tongue-in-cheek as an area where “your guns are more important than your wife”.But “no one else has surfaced”, she said. “I haven’t seen anyone out there.” More

The Republican pariah Liz Cheney has repeatedly refused to admit a link between Donald Trump’s lies about voter fraud and restrictive voting laws being introduced in Republican states, telling an interviewer on Sunday night she will “never understand the resistance to voter ID”.“There’s a big difference between that and a president of the United States who loses an election after he tried to steal the election and refuses to concede,” said the Wyoming representative ejected from party leadership for opposing the former president.Laws tightening regulations on voter ID, voting by mail and even giving water to those waiting on line to vote have been passed or are close to passage in states from Georgia to Texas and beyond.Because of their disproportionate impact on minority voters – many of whom vote Democratic – Democrats including Joe Biden have compared such laws to Jim Crow segregation in southern states from the civil war to the civil rights era.Most in a Republican party under Trump’s grip reject such claims. Cheney has ranged herself against Trump but when pressured by Axios on HBO interviewer Jonathan Swan, she stayed in lockstep with her party.To Cheney’s remark about resistance to voter ID laws, Swan countered: “Even the Republican lieutenant governor of Georgia, Jeff Duncan, said … when this bill was started that the momentum was when Rudy Giuliani was testifying that the Georgia election was a sham.”Giuliani, Trump’s personal lawyer, pursued the electoral fraud lie through an array of cases in states won by Biden, the vast majority thrown out of court.“Four hundred-some voting bills have been introduced,” Swan said, “90% by Republicans, supported by the Republican National Committee. I don’t think it’s a coincidence that after the election, this has happened.”Cheney said: “I think everybody should want a situation and a system where people who want to vote and ought to have the right to vote, vote, and people that don’t shouldn’t. And again I come back to things like voter ID.”Actual instances of voter fraud or attempted voter fraud are few and far between. Some involve Trump voters. Nonetheless, state Republican parties have pursued strict laws while in Arizona the GOP has gone so far as to conduct a highly controversial recount in the most populous county.“But what problems are [these laws] solving?” Swan asked. “What are all these states doing?”“Well,” said Cheney, “each state is different.”Swan asked what the problem was in Georgia, or Texas, or Florida.“I think you’ve got to look at each individual state law,” Cheney said.Swan said: “But you can’t divorce them from the context. Come on.”Cheney said: “But I think what we can all agree on is that what is happening right now is really dangerous.”Swan said: “I can agree with that.”Cheney switched back to her preferred subject – Trump’s refusal to concede defeat, which led to the deadly attack on the Capitol by his supporters on 6 January, over which more than 400 people have been charged, while Republicans in Congress oppose a 9/11-style investigation.“I think about 2000,” said the daughter of Dick Cheney, who became vice-president to George W Bush after a tight election that year.“I think about sitting on the inaugural platform in January of 2001 watching Al Gore. We’d won. I’m sure he didn’t think he had lost. We had fought this politically very, very intense battle. And he conceded. He did the right thing for this nation.“And that is one of the big differences between that and what we’re dealing with now and the danger of Donald Trump today.” More

Top Senate Republicans are making a concerted effort to quash the creation of a 9/11-style commission to investigate the Capitol attack, deeply endangering the bill’s passage amid fears about what a high-profile inquiry into the events of 6 January might uncover.The Republican Senate minority leader, Mitch McConnell, has said he opposes the commission bill in its current form and several Republicans who have previously expressed support said they could no longer back it.McConnell’s opposition brings into sharp relief the treacherous path ahead for the legislation , which Senate Democrats could introduce as soon as this week, according to a source briefed on the matter.The reasons publicly offered by Republicans for rejecting the creation of a commission are myriad: it might impede existing congressional and justice department investigations into 6 January. It might become politicized. It might make pro-Trump rioters “look bad”.But in the end, the stance reflects the fear from McConnell and top Senate Republicans that extending their support to an inquiry likely to find Donald Trump at fault for inciting the Capitol attack could be used as a cudgel against Republicans ahead of the 2022 midterm elections.Both McConnell and House minority leader Kevin McCarthy are determined to put Republicans in the majority in both chambers next year, and both leaders regard the commission as an obstacle in their paths.The political calculations looming large echo many of the same concerns that arose during the debate to establish the 9/11 commission, which was opposed by a Bush administration anxious that the disclosure of security lapses could jeopardise their 2004 election chances.But while lawmakers then were able to put aside months of disagreements to form an inquiry – the bill passed in the House with three votes against and by voice vote in the Senate – the Capitol attack has become just another partisan issue in a divided Congress. The positions of the two Republican leaders also underscores the fear of what a full accounting of 6 January might uncover about the roles that Republicans may have played ahead of the insurrection, potentially inviting unwelcome scrutiny of Trump’s lies about election fraud they helped promulgate.The House minority leader, Kevin McCarthy, in particular could be left exposed should a 9/11-style commission ultimately be impanelled.McCarthy called Trump as rioters breached the Capitol building and begged him to call them off, only for the former president to side with the rioters, saying they appeared to care more about overturning the election results than Republicans in Congress. Five people eventually died as the mob looted the Capitol and hunted for politicians, including Vice-President Mike Pence.McCarthy, in his desperation, also spoke with senior White House advisor and Trump’s son-in-law, Jared Kushner, to try and stop the attack after his pleas to Trump went unheeded, a former administration source said.Those conversations between Trump and McCarthy – addressing the crucial question of what Trump was doing and saying privately as the Capitol was overrun – would almost certainly be examined, raising the specter that McCarthy himself would have to testify, voluntarily or under subpoena.“My humble opinion is that there’s some information that [McCarthy] would deem troubling for the Republican party if it got out. And I think he will do everything possible to prevent that,” said the House Democrat Bennie Thompson.McCarthy is also vulnerable to having his own senior aides investigated by a 6 January commission, having hired Brian Jack, the former political director of the Trump White House, who was involved in organizing the “Stop the Steal” rally that preceded the Capitol attack.Zach Wamp, a member of the original 9/11 commission and the former top Republican on the committee overseeing the US Capitol police, made it clear that whatever misgivings McCarthy or Republicans may have about the commission, they should put the country first.“We need to know exactly what happened,” Wamp said. “So I would appeal to my fellow Republicans in the House and the Senate, do the right thing here. We need to actually clear this up, do it together as Americans. Put our country above any political interests.”The bill to create a 9/11-style commission passed the House on Wednesday with bipartisan support after 35 Republicans, in a stinging rebuke, defied McCarthy and an emergency recommendation from the office of the House minority whip, Steve Scalise, office to oppose the legislation.But McConnell’s new resistance – a reversal from his previous openness to having a commission, as well as his sharp denunciation of Trump for inciting the Capitol attack – betrays the fraught political situation the bill faces in the Senate.The bill, in its current form, would need the endorsement of at least 10 Senate Republicans before it can be brought to the floor for debate. It would also need 10 Senate Republicans to cross the aisle and join Democrats to defeat an expected filibuster.Senate Democrats could chart a narrow path to 10 votes based on the seven Republicans – Mitt Romney, Susan Collins, Lisa Murkowski, Richard Burr, Bill Cassidy, Ben Sasse and Patrick Toomey – who voted to convict Trump at his second impeachment trial. The Senate majority leader, Chuck Schumer, and his leadership team were still hopeful in recent days of securing enough bipartisan support to push the bill through, according to a source familiar deliberations, with other Republicans, such as Rob Portman, remaining undecided.The Senate minority whip, John Thune, who has been bullish about the prospects of having a commission to tightly focus on 6 January and not unrelated leftwing violence, as suggested by McCarthy, has previously said that Republicans had not yet whipped against the bill.Zach Wamp, a member of the original September 11 commission and the former top Republican on the committee overseeing the US Capitol Police, condemned efforts from Republicans to doom an inquiry into Jan. 6.“We need to know exactly what happened,” Wamp said. “So I would appeal to my fellow Republicans in the House and the Senate: Do the right thing here. We need to actually clear this up; do it together as Americans. Put our country above any political interests.”But the bill’s chances of becoming law hit a further snag last week after at least one senator who voted to convict Trump announced he would oppose the commission. “I don’t believe establishing a commission is necessary or wise,” Burr said in a statement. More

Washington’s Metropolitan police department recorded threats to lawmakers and public facilities in the wake of the 6 January attack on the Capitol, according to documents made public in a ransomware hack on their systems this month.The documents also show how, in the month following the Capitol attack, police stepped up surveillance efforts, monitoring hotel bookings, protests in other jurisdictions, and social media for signs of another attack by far-right groups on targets in the capital, including events surrounding the inauguration of Joe Biden as president.The revelation of the seriousness of the threats comes amid Republican opposition to forming a 9/11-style commission to investigate the January attack, which saw the Capitol roamed by looting mobs hunting for politicians and involved the deaths of five people.The police documents were stolen and published by the ransomware attack group Babuk, and some were redistributed by the transparency organization Distributed Denial of Secrets, from whom they were obtained by the Guardian. Various outlets last week published stories based on the data showing intelligence indicating that far-right Boogaloo groups planned to attack various targets in the capital.But another collection of documents labeled “chiefs intelligence briefings” shows a broad, cross-agency effort in the days following the attack on the Capitol to identify suspects, monitor and apprehend far-right actors, and anticipate further attacks on Washington around events like the inauguration of Joe Biden and the second impeachment trial of Donald Trump.In the aftermath of the riot, the attention of police and other law enforcement agencies was focused on far-right activity on social media platforms, and especially on a group calling itself Patriot Action for America.One 13 January bulletin said that the group had been “calling for others to join them in ‘storming’ state, local, and federal government courthouses and administrative buildings in the event POTUS is removed as president prior to inauguration day”.The bulletin also noted that the agency was facing broader challenges in monitoring far-right actors on social media websites, saying that “with the shutdown of Parler it has been a challenge to track down how activities are being planned”, and that they continued to “see more users on Gab and Telegram following the de-platforming of many accounts on more conventional social media companies”.The bulletin mentions a “possible second suspect” in the placement of pipe bombs near the DNC and RNC, who was “observed on video scouting/taking photographs in advance of the placement”, who “took a metro to the East Falls church stop and took a Lyft from there”.On 12 January, a bulletin noted that a supreme court agent had noticed “two vehicles stopped beside each other” outside the court building, and that in one an older white male was “videotaping the Capitol fence line and the court”, and in the other a passenger was “hanging out the window in order to videotape the court”.A 22 January bulletin mentions that in Pennsylvania a man was arrested after “transmitting interstate threats to multiple US senators of the Democratic party”, having stated that he was “going to DC to kill people and wanted to be killed by the police”. When Pennsylvania state police apprehended him “he was in possession of a rifle, two handguns, and a large quantity of ammunition”.A later bulletin described an incident in which a man with an illegal firearm was arrested after asking for directions to the “Oval Office”, and another man’s van was searched after he was observed sitting in the vehicle while parked outside the supreme court justice Sonya Sotomayor’s house.The same day’s bulletin mentioned that Metropolitan police were cooperating with Capitol police in investigating “a number of threats aimed at members of Congress as the Senate impeachment trial of Donald Trump nears”.The threats continued for weeks after the attack.Almost a month later, a bulletin reported that “an identified militia group member” in Texas was claiming that if their “operation failed at the US Capitol”, there was a “back-up plan” involving the group “detonating bombs at the US Capitol during the State of the Union”.The group was not named but was described as “a large organization allegedly with members from every state, which included individuals who were former military and law enforcement”.The documents also reveal how law enforcement agencies secured the cooperation of private companies, from ride-share companies to hotels.A bulletin includes the claim that “FBI [is] working with Lyft and Uber to identify riders to and from the protest locations”.The same bulletin carries detailed figures on reservations in hotels across the capital leading up to the inauguration on 20 January, which was secured by an unprecedented mobilization of law enforcement and the national guard.Two days later, another bulletin said that “MPD’s intelligence division has conducted extensive outreach with security directors of area hotels”, who they asked to be “vigilant for evidence of suspicious activity and firearms possession by hotel guests”. More