At 3pm, the House Rules Committee will debate the resolution that would remove Marjorie Taylor Green from House committees.

@cspan will stream here: https://www.c-span.org/video/?508558-1/house-rules-committee-debates-rule-removal-rep-greene-house-committees

(Technically, what they're debating is the rules that will be used to debate the resolution on the House floor. Some of what they discuss will probably be about the parameters of the House floor debate, but most of it will probably be about the merits.)

(There's a rule against impugning the motives of other members of Congress; I imagine that they will suspend that rule for purposes of debating whether to remove a member from committees. The Republicans will probably pretend not to understand why this is appropriate.)

To state the obvious: If you want to debate whether a member should be stripped of their committee assignments, you have to be able to say why they're unworthy to serve on committees.

The Republicans will also most likely engage in whataboutism about a junior Democratic member of Congress who Trump liked to tweet hateful things about.

They know that Trump's actions put her in danger, and they know they're putting her in danger by repeating this.

Rep. Jamie Raskin is a member of the Rules committee. He will be the lead impeachment manager, and he has been a leading voice opposing antisemitism in all forms.

The Republican Rules Committee members, none of whom are Jewish, will probably cry crocodile tears about antisemitism in an attempt to incite hatred of Rep. Raskin.

McGovern gavels in and starts "We have never had a hearing like this before, in part because we have never had a member like this before," talks about the way that MTG has called for violence against other members, promotion of conspiracy theories.

McGovern also points out that normally, party leadership will do the right thing, but the whole House has to act now because the Republican leader is refusing to remove her from committees.

McGovern: "When someone says that another member of Congress should be shot in the head, that person has no business serving on any committee. This should not be a radical idea."

"This is not about partisanship or even ideology. It is about what she said." -McGovern

He's also pointing out the absolutely unacceptable things she's done to Parkland survivors.

McGovern is Not. Having. It.

Now Ranking Member Cole (the lead Republican) has a turn to speak, says that her statements are offensive, objects to removing her from committees, draws false equivalences between Democrats and Republicans, wants to punt it to Ethics.

Cole is very concerned about the precedent that it would set if the House kicks something off a committee after they've called for other members of Congress to be shot in the head and done things that made violence against them easier to accomplish.

(Among other things she's done.)

McGovern points out the Ethics Committee is not normally involved in removing members from committees, points out that MTG has in fact doubled down. Says he's fine with the precedent of kicking someone off for this kind of behavior.

McGovern "If this isn't the bottom, I don't know what the hell is."

Now they have a panel arguing before the Rules Committee. First up: @RepTedDeutch. "I'm appearing to you not only as the chair of the Ethics Committee, but also as the representative for Parkland."

Outlines her harassment of and incitement against Parkland survivors.

(Rep. Deutch is Jewish)

Deutch points out that the FBI has named conspiracy theories as a serious threat of violence, outlines the racist and antisemitic conspiracy theories that MTG has engaged in.

MTG spread conspiracy theories about Parkland; Deutch has met survivors (who are his constituents) and carries pictures of the victims in his wallet.

Points out that MTG has not only not apologized, but doubled down on conspiracy theories and incitement of violence.

Deutch: "What the Republican leader has said is not enough," expresses outrage that she was assigned to committees by the Republican leadership (Including to the *education* committee, even as she spread conspiracy theories about Parkland survivors"/

"[McCarthy] is sending the message that this kind of conduct is acceptable." -Deutch.

Next up: The ranking member of Ethics. (R-Indiana), who says something something partisanship, says in hurt tones some version of 'don't you realize that some Republicans have condemned her remarks?!'

She also wants this punted to the Ethics Committee.

This Republican (whose name I didn't catch) is terribly, terribly concerned about the possibility of being unfair to MTG and the Republican leaders who are choosing to enable her.

Also: Something something bipartisanship.

The Republican filibusters by describing the Ethics Committee at length.

This is some serious "not mad, just disappointed" energy from someone who for some reason is very very upset that someone who clearly has no businesses serving on committees might be swiftly removed.

She's angry that this resolution wasn't referred to Ethics and also angry that it wasn't sent directly to the floor.

Something something due process.

This Republican says that this is outside of the Ethics Committee's jurisdiction and also is deeply offended that it wasn't referred to the Ethics Committee.

This Republican blames Democrats for the consequences of Republican failure to follow precedent about kicking clearly unfit members off of committees.

McGovern points out that there's no precedent for routing removal from committees through the Ethics Committee. Normally, the leadership of the relevant party takes care of this.

McGovern asks Deutch if the Ethics Committee is even fully constituted and capable of doing business yet. Deutch says that it is not.

Deutch points out that the Constitution gives the House the full power to discipline members and remove privileges, ethics committee is optional.

Deutch: "We wouldn't be here if not for the fact that Leader McCarthy rewarded Rep. Green's behavior with seats on the Finance and Education & Labor committees," describes her history of inciting violence/harassment against schoolchildren who have survived school shootings.

Deutch says that process arguments are inappropriate here *and* that the process arguments being raised are factually false on the merits.

Deutch essentially says: This is above the Ethics Committee's pay grade, the whole House needs to address this.

The Republican continues to both object to not sending it to Ethics *and* not bringing it directly to the floor.

McGovern, using polite parliamentary language about his friend from Indiana for whom he has the upmost respect, points out that this is a ridiculous argument.

The Republican also argues that stripping MTG from committees will undermine member-member trust.

McGovern points out that MTG has called for other members to be shot in the head.

McGovern: Thanks Republicans for recognizing that these statements are unacceptable, points out "We're only here because [Republicans] have refused to do anything about it."

McGovern says this is the bare minimum and that she should resign because she's unworthy to serve in Congress at all; calls for a bipartisan vote on stripping her from committees, "Talk about bringing the country together. That would send a message."

The Republican ranking member of the Ethics Committee is asked "When this was referred to the Ethics Committee, did you expect that the ethics committee would ever take it up?"

"No. My understanding is that it's outside our jurisdiction."

Deutch (chair of Ethics) points out that the Republican ranking member of Ethics is both calling for it to be punted to Ethics *and* saying that it's outside of Ethics's jurisdiction, which is essentially a call to make accountability impossible.

Cole (ranking of Rules): says MTG's comments are indefensible, pretends not to know that many of her unacceptable comments were made *after* she was elected, something something process something something precedent.

Next up: @NormaJTorres, who is Not Having It, points out that she values working across the aisle, but there's a limit. People need to show some basic decency.

"I am confused as to how long we should be expected to wait for Republicans to act on something so deplorable."

Torres quotes McConnell, who called this a cancer on the Republican Party. "I would go further. This is a threat to national security."

"Anyone who chases a child, a survivor of the Parkland shooting, for the mean-spirited purpose of harassing and intimidating them does not deserve a seat on the committee responsible for crafting policy to educate our children and keep them safe." -Torres

Torres also expresses outrage that someone who spreads ~Jewish space laser~ conspiracy theories would have any role in setting the budget.

Points out the role of conspiracy theories MTG spreads in inciting the insurrection at the Capitol.

I'm missing things because there's just *so much* righteous outrage being expressed. Any one of these things would in and of itself be a reason MTG should be expelled.

Next up: Burgess (R-TX) who feels the need to say that he doesn't support MTG's statements but does not advocate for any action against her and dislikes the one Democrats are doing.

(If you have to even *say* that you disagree with those statements, something is wrong.)

I think this is Rep. Guy Reschenthaler (R-PA), who is pretending not to understand that many of MTG's absolutely unacceptable comments have been made *while she was in office.*

McGovern points out that she's *in office* repeatedly doubled down.

Next up: Rep. Mary Gay Scanlon (D-PA), who points out that the Republican Party has become the party of conspiracy theories and Qanon.

Points out that members of Congress have an obligation to oppose insurrectionist conspiracy theories.

"No matter how much the Republicans may say they disapprove of MTG's comments, they must acknowledge that she is now the face of their party." Points out that MTG has more influence over Republican policy than any Republican in this hearing.

Next up: Rep. Michelle Fischbach (R-MN), who is very concerned about the dangerous precedent that could be created by stripping someone who incites insurrectionist violence of her committee assignments.

Next up: Rep. Raskin, who is strongly in favor of this obviously necessary resolution, and who had hoped that Republican members of Rules would join in bipartisan repudiation of MTG's unacceptable remarks.

(I think that the elephant in the room here is that Rep. Devin Nunes, Republican Ranking Member of Intelligence, also regularly spreads conspiracy theories.)

Rep. Raskin: "I take no joy in seeing the Republican Party destroyed, but it is being destroyed by these conspiracy theories, this racism, and this antisemitism."

(As always, I'll add "and misogyny.")

McCarthy: "The new precedent is that a member of this House is calling for assassinations."

Rep. Ed Perlmutter (D-CO) is uneasy about the precedent, "But I don't think we have any alternative".

(he doesn't think there's any alternative to stripping her of committee assignments, I mean)

Next up: Rep. Joe Morelle (D-NY) says "the ranking member says that there must be a different and better way." says that he agrees, and that the better way would be for the Republican leader to do the right thing.

Morelle points out that McCarthy chose to put MTG on committees *knowing what she has said and done*, that he shouldn't have done that, and that he ought to show some responsibility and fix it.

"He could undo it. He could undo it today. He could undo it before the House acts."

Morelle, who was in NYC and saw the Twin Towers burn, expresses outrage at MTG's conspiracy theories about 9/11.

Morelle says that it might be different if MTG had regretted her remarks and apologized for them. But in fact, she's not only repeatedly doubled down, tripled down, and quadrupled down — she's fundraised off of them over the past few days.

(I need to go for a bit; going to miss some stuff. But I think this tread shows the basic sense of what's been happening.)

I think I missed a couple rounds, but it occurs to me that the Republican comments about the Ethics Committee have a lot in common with “it’s about ethics in video game journalism”.