Read on Twitter
Let's break down the absurdity of this veto threat and how it relates to defense legislation in the Congress. 1/x https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1333965375839621120
The idea of eliminating or even changing Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act is extremely controversial. A vote to eliminate it deserves actual debate through regular order. 2/x
What is regular order? The largely bygone process by which bills become laws, via committee mark-up of a draft bill in which committee members can offer amendments, floor amendments which can be non-germane, and conference negotiations between the House and Senate. 3/x
One place where regular order still reigns? The Armed Services committees -- even as the legislative process has broken down amid polarization, the rise of the appropriators, and the use of congressional procedure to control floor debate. 4/x
POTUS wants to insert a provision eliminating a major piece communications law that has little to do with defense. More importantly, It was not included in the Senate or House versions of the #NDAA, nor was it agreed to on the floor, nor was it part of the negotiated bill. 5/x
Normally, to add an amendment on a non-defense topic in committee, you go to outside committees of jurisdiction to get approval. Or you take a vote on the floor, where non-germane provisions are debated and voted on. Or, more controversially, you do what is called an airdrop. 6/x
An airdrop is when you insert a provision into the final version of the bill negotiated by the conference committee (the House and Senate) -- and then you just have the House and Senate vote on it. 7/x
It doesn't happen often because it's seen as a major process foul: the whole reason regular order exists is to give legislators and citizens time to weigh in, debate the issues, and engage with the Executive Branch. Producing good legislation is hard work. 8/x
But airdrops do sometimes happen with extremely urgent issues or non-controversial issues that a massive majority of members agree upon. And it's still a ton of work, because you need to get members to buy in on a completely new and potentially far-reaching provision. 9/x
I once had an airdrop related to protecting critical gov't facilities on U.S. soil from intrusions by UAVs at the behest of the Executive Branch. It involved going to eight committees and engaging with many agencies to address concerns on language no members had seen before. 10/x
It was a huge undertaking. And that was for something basically everyone agreed on! That is simply not true for Section 230, which may need to be substantially reformed but should not be eliminated without serious legislative negotiations. This is the H-bomb of airdrops. 11/x
The President is doing this because Section 230 allows Internet companies like Facebook and Twitter to escape liability for content posted by users. Without going down that rabbithole on all the pros/cons, it's obvious that eliminating their liability is a sweeping change. 12/x
Sweeping legal and policy changes deserve debate by Congress. They need to contain well drafted language that can be passed and signed into law. Otherwise, it makes a mockery of the legislative process. (Not that this is a concern of the President or some members.) 13/x
And it's not just about process in an abstract sense: it exists to ensure that the people have their say and that bill language is well written and doesn't have terrible unintended consequences. That's not to say that it's always so but it's better than nothing. 14/x
It's not really within Chairman Inhofe or Chairman Smith's power to just insert a repeal of Section 230 even if they wanted to do so but what they should be doing now is whipping votes to override a veto -- preferably beforehand, just to signal that a veto will fail. 15/x
Whipping a veto-proof majority should be easy: a lame duck president offering a laughable veto threat on important legislation over an issue that many members recognize is extremely complex. And frankly, it shouldn't take much courage or even effort to do. 16/x
The episode illustrates the President's disdain for legal/political/policy/normative constraints, certain members' tendencies to amp their profiles rather than focus on legislating, and Congress's struggle to defend its own prerogatives against absurd Executive demands. 17/x
This too shall pass. But what's sad is that the #NDAA is an area of genuine cooperation and substantive work by the Congress. It sometimes gets vetoed. It sometimes had bad provisions. But it's a testament to Congress working. We need more members who care about that. 18/x
And fewer members who care about losing their next election on the basis of an episode that will quickly fade from memory, including Trump's, in the near future. It's a hell of a thing to see people get elected and never take tough but responsible stands once in power. 19/x
I have no doubt it will all shake out but it's a sign of the times that this veto threat that is simultaneously so unserious, so disrespectful to the Congress and the voters, and such a waste of everyone's time, including DoD's. 20/20
