Hello, it's the weekend. This is The Weekender ☕

Three years have passed since the Jan. 6 attack, but our politics remain steeped in it, from the race for the White House down to the county elections office. 

One prime example can be found in GOP House Speaker Mike Johnson's attempt to use security footage to help his fellow Republicans avoid blame for the violence. While Johnson's move was initially seen by many as an attempt to appease the right-wing base, it has actually sparked infighting and a new wave of conspiracy theories on the fringe, where activists are outraged at the pace with which the videos are being released.

Johnson announced a plan to publicly release the roughly 44,000 hours of U.S. Capitol Police CCTV footage last November, less than one month after he won the speakership. He even committed to blurring the faces of individuals in the crowds who stormed the Capitol. With his vow to make the videos fully public, Johnson's plan went further than his predecessor, Kevin McCarthy, who released most of the footage to former Fox News host Tucker Carlson for a broadcast that attempted to paint the attack as a largely peaceful protest.

Even after Carlson and his producers failed to find any bombshell supporting right wing suggestions that antifa or law enforcement were somehow to blame, the online fringe and other Jan. 6 denialists have seen the footage as something of a conspiracy theory holy grail. On 8kun, one of the internet's main conspiracy forums, users greeted Johnson's announcement with excitement. They even set up a dedicated thread to scour the videos. However, less than two months later, just a small fraction of the footage has been released. With the rollout moving slowly, the pro-Trump and QAnon crowd has descended into finger pointing, conjuring up new conspiracy theories blaming their allies for the coverup.

It's a case of the dog catching the security camera. 

— Hunter Walker

Danger Ahead For Life-Or-Death Abortions

It's been one of the anti-abortion movement's most successful scams to convince the public that there exists both the logistical ability and political will to restrict certain kinds of abortions, but not others. In other

That lie is coming into clearer focus now that the Supreme Court announced Friday that it would take up a case centered on abortion care in emergency room situations. It's all about edge cases, serious medical crises when women must get emergency abortions to save their lives.

But in taking up the case, the Supreme Court leapfrogged the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals at Republican legislators' behest, and reimposed Idaho's ban in all situations for the duration. It does not bode well for the Biden administration, abortion rights supporters or Idaho women who find themselves in critical need of this reproductive care.

It also comes on the heels of a related 5th Circuit ruling earlier this week, where a panel found that the federal law requiring Medicare-accepting hospitals to stabilize patients in crises does not apply to abortions — even when abortions are that necessary, stabilizing care. 

The anti-abortion movement has always been skilled at hiding its own brutality. With Friday's order, the right wing of the Supreme Court seems poised to embrace it, warts and all.

— Kate Riga

The 14th Amendment Disqualification Question Arrives On A Displeased John Roberts' Desk

The Supreme Court does not relish wading into pure politics, but 2024 does not care one bit about the justices' preferences. 

The Court ended last year by refusing to hear Trump's claim that he is immune from being prosecuted for crimes he did while president. Now, an even bigger, thornier, and directly political question has landed in its lap: Does the 14th Amendment bar Trump from the ballot?

So, the Court (presumably reluctantly) announced Friday afternoon that it will hear oral arguments on the question on February 8.

As Kate Riga writes for TPM, the Court gave us very little early indication how it leans. That it accepted Trump's petition to take up the case, and not the petitions of the other parties involved, may suggest that the justices will also request briefing on the questions Trump raised in his brief appealing the Colorado Supreme Court. Technically, he asked only one question, and its a broad one: "Did the Colorado Supreme Court err in ordering President Trump excluded from the 2024 presidential primary ballot?" But within that question, his brief seems to ask several, other, separate questions, including urging the Court to review the Colorado courts' interpretation of state law, a request that is seemingly outside the U.S. Supreme Court's jurisdiction. 

It all indicates that, at this point, the justices are seeking to give themselves as much wiggle room as possible. 

— John Light