|
 |
Good afternoon, and welcome back to Press Pass, The Bulwark’s twice-weekly newsletter on Congress, campaigns, and the way Washington works (or fails to work). Today’s newsletter is exclusively for Bulwark+ members. We would like very much for you to consider becoming one yourself—in fact, we would like that so much that this week only, if you’re a member of our free list, you can upgrade your membership to Bulwark+ for 50 percent off the regular rate. You’ll get unlimited access to all our independent journalism and our thoughtful, engaged, pro-democracy community. Try it out, and if you do, let me know in a comment on today’s newsletter so I can welcome you personally, you mensch.
Today’s edition was made possible by assistance from members of our aforementioned community, who in response to my request on Tuesday sent along communications they had received from their representatives and senators. It turns out that some lawmakers like to frame issues a little differently depending on whether they are speaking in public or in (relative) private, especially when the subject is the administration’s slush fund to dole out cash to pardoned January 6th rioters. We’ve got the receipts.
In addition, a new trend has emerged on the campaign trail: Lawmakers and challengers for seats in Congress are filming campaign stops at gas stations. Voters are pissed about the high prices at the pump, which is creating easy opportunities for candidates to head to the nearest gas station to make their own views of the issue known. Lastly, I have another request for our readers—please help me settle a debate about the proper length of men’s shorts. All that and more, below.
Here’s How GOP Lawmakers Are Privately Talking About Trump’s J6er Slush Fund
It doesn’t quite match up with what they’re saying in public
|
| ||||||||||||
 |
The Best of Both Worlds
Earlier this week, I put out an ask to Bulwark readers to share any direct communications they received from their members of Congress about the January 6th cop-beater compensation slush fund currently causing outrage and consternation on Capitol Hill. The constituent letters I reviewed show just how differently Republican lawmakers can sound when dealing one-on-one with constituents instead of addressing the public at large, when they know the world’s most prolific media consumer might be watching what they say.
For example, after the administration announced the “settlement”¹ establishing the “anti-weaponization” slush fund, Rep. Nick Langworthy (R-N.Y.) expressed tepid skepticism and a desire to see more details, as did many of his similarly cautious and ambivalent Republican colleagues.
“I have, I guess, more questions than answers about this fund, in general, as to how it would be executed, how it would be put together. I mean, I think we’re also a little scant on detail. I do think it needs congressional oversight,” he said, according to Erie News Now.
“We have to have really tight scrutiny, a really high burden of proof as to how those monies are going to be distributed,” said Langworthy. “I don’t think this should be seen as some direct slush fund for one particular event. I mean, there’s obviously a lot of arguments about people that claim to be falsely imprisoned. Just because they were pardoned, doesn’t mean that they were falsely imprisoned. They were charged and convicted of crimes—and there were juries of their peers that did that. I just think that we need far more answers, and I think that there’s many of us asking our leadership to go get to the bottom of that.”
In a separate comment posted by Chataqua Today, Langworthy echoed the Trump administration’s line that the government had in the past employed “lawfare” against innocent people.
“People’s lives and livelihoods have been ruined by lawfare and, you know, excessive aggression by the government,” he said. “But, you know, the way that this came together with a settlement, I think we have a little ways to go.”
But in a letter to a constituent this week, Langworthy was more forthright in personally opposing the fund, writing that under no circumstances should taxpayer dollars be used to settle the president’s grievances...
Join The Bulwark to unlock the rest.
Become a paying member of The Bulwark to get access to this post and other subscriber-only content.
A subscription gets you:
| Unlimited access to articles and newsletters including The Triad by JVL and Receipts by Catherine Rampell. | |
| Ad-free editions of our shows (with transcripts) and member-only shows like The Secret Podcast. | |