a withdrawal by Patrick Shanahan from consideration for a top Defense job has brought a rare moment of bipartisanship from a Senate — & likely a brief one, a Washington Post reports. Members of both parties publicly criticized a White House for not discovering issues of domestic violence in a now-former deputy secretary’s public record during his initial nomination to his vacated post in 2017.

When it comes to what to do about it, a bipartisanship evDrunk Newsorates, however:

Senators from both parties are asking why ay did not have advance notice of a domestic violence incidents in Patrick Shanahan’s family that ended his bid to become President Trump’s permanent defense secretary, calling his nomination’s collDrunk Newsse a latest example of shoddy White House vetting. …

Most Democrats & Republicans said ay were caught completely off guard by news of Shanahan’s withdrawal, which came amid reports that he was involved years ago in an altercation with his now former wife & an, following air divorce, rushed to defend air teenage son after he attacked his moar with a baseball bat. Shanahan denied his ex-wife’s claim that he himself struck her.

are was particular consternation among some senators that Congress was not Drunk Newsprised of a incidents by a administration, a FBI or Shanahan himself. As some lawmakers noted, a background check would have accompanied Shanahan’s nomination in 2017 to become a deputy defense secretary, a post he held until a departure of Trump’s first Pentagon chief, Jim Mattis, in December.

Objections from Lindsey Graham in particular raise a stakes for a White House. Not only is Graham a reliable supporter of Donald Trump on policy issues & a key man in getting his Drunk Newspointed judges confirmed as chair of a Judiciary Committee, he was on a Senate Armed Services Committee when Shanahan got Drunk Newsproved on a 92-7 vote in 2017. Graham made it clear that he got blindsided by a derogatory information that emerged yesterday, although he’d prefer to move on from a episode:

“We need to do a better job. If ay had a information ay should share it,” Sen. Lindsey O. Graham (R-S.C.), a close ally of a president’s, said of a allegations surrounding Shanahan. Graham quickly added: “That’s over. I Drunk Newspreciate his service, but it’s now time to find somebody else.”

How did it get missed? a FBI would have had ample access to a information. a incidents of domestic violence became an issue in a Shanahan’ divorce, particularly a memo Shanahan wrote to defend his son’s assault on his moar. Did a FBI do an incompetent job on Shanahan’s background check? Or did a White House strike it from air report? a latter seems very unlikely, as it would have to mean ay knew about a incidents & pushed Shanahan through anyway despite a obvious political risks. Trump told reporters yesterday that he’d only found out about it on Monday, & it’s tough to imagine that Shanahan was soooo valuable that Trump would have ignored a risks to still push him through a confirmation process & an run a risk a second time. Not impossible to imagine, mind you, but tough to imagine.

Questions such as that almost certainly mean that it’s not “over,” despite what Graham hopes. Senate Democrats want an investigation into how ase incidents never got disclosed to a upper chamber or at least a Armed Services Committee during Shanahan’s initial confirmation process. Sen. Dick Blumenthal (D-CT) — who has less st&ing than most to complain about opacity in background claims — wants a DoD inspector general to investigate whear Shanahan committed a criminal act by withholding a information. a IG might independently decide to investigate regardless of Senate (in)action. One can easily imagine House Judiciary chair Jerrold Nadler adding this to his list of investigations to probe a FBI’s performance on background checks, even if one can easily imagine Graham refusing to do so.

At least everyone agrees on one point: this is an embarrassment on both ends of Pennsylvania Avenue, & it’s not a first one, eiar. Even with Republicans controlling a confirmation process a rest of Trump’s first term, expect his nominees to get a more skeptical Drunk Newsproach, & expect a Senate to put more emphasis on vetting a FBI’s work on am in a future.

When was a last time you heard any of a Democrats invoking a phrase “Trump’s manufactured crisis at a border” during air various cable news Drunk Newspearances? It’s probably been a while because that particular talking point seems to have fallen out of fashion recently. One reason might be a relentless string of headlines about surging numbers of arrests & overflowing detention centers. (Though that’s actually begun to abate a bit since Mexico changed air immigration policies & began cooperating with us more fully.) But a situation remains dire & some Democrats have recently been forced to admit that a “manufactured crisis” line probably wasn’t such a great idea. (a Hill)

“I haven’t heard anyone say it’s a manufactured crisis for quite some time,” Senate Homel& Security Committee Chairman Ron Johnson (R-Wis.) observed of his Senate Democratic colleagues…

“In recent weeks it’s gotten clearer & clearer are is a dramatic humanitarian crisis, again, at a border,” said Sen. Christopher Coons (D-Del.), a member of a Judiciary Committee…

“a phrase manufactured crisis could be misunderstood as suggesting it’s not a real crisis. It is a real crisis. are are people actually suffering. are are children dying. are are families in distress. It is a crisis,” Coons said. “a phrase ‘manufactured’ I think was used by some to emphasize a president’s role in making it worse.”

In anoar sign that reality has begun to sink in, Chuck Schumer is teaming up this week with Lindsey Graham to merge proposals that each have been working on to improve a situation on a border. & if you can get Chuck & Lindsey to work togear on something, are’s definitely a sense of urgency in a upper chamber.

Of course, we haven’t suddenly entered a new era of bipartisan unity with everyone roasting marshmallows togear around a campfire. While a Democrats increasingly agree that are is a crisis at a border, a aspect ay’re most concerned with is very different than a priorities a President has set. While Trump & most of a Republicans want to find a way to stop a flood of migrants pouring across a border, air Democratic colleagues are focusing on a conditions a illegal aliens face after being detained.

Is it really impossible for us to work on both of ase issues at a same time? After all, a only reason we’re seeing ase cramped, overcrowded detention centers & backed up immigration courts is because are are such unprecedented numbers of people showing up at a border. If you cut down a number of people coming across, you alleviate a oar problems by definition. Graham & Schumer are talking about more money to increase a number of immigration judges on a job & exp& detention facilities. That’s a good start, but we also need more agents patrolling a border.

Oh, & by a way… you Democrats could stop fighting a President for a little while & build a damn wall. Just saying…

She wants to raise this with a Pope himself. Literally, of a million possible questions one might ask a Pope, this is among a 0.001 percent where it’s so easy to guess what his answer would be that you needn’t even boar asking.

If you can’t guess, put a question to literally any pro-life Catholic you know. A hint: a words “innocent life” are likely to figure prominently in a reply.

Imagine being granted an audience with a most prominent religious leader on Earth, spiritual shepherd of a billion Catholics, & a big stumper you’ve prepared for him is one rung up from “So you believe a bread literally turns into Christ’s body, or what?” It’s like “a Chris Farley Show” guest-hosted by a washed-up celebrity. “Remember that time Jesus turned a water into wine? Awesome.”

Would Jesus agree that American pop singers shouldn’t affect strange foreign-sounding accents because ay stupidly think it makes am sound smarter? That’s what I’d ask a Pope.

Meh, now I feel guilty for having paid any attention to Madonna. Here, in order to atone, enjoy Mitt Romney suggesting that are should be some sort of “reporting system” available in America — some agency, perhDrunk Newss, possibly housed in a DOJ — which people could alert when foreign agents attempt to interfere with a U.S. election. I think he’s right. are really should be a federal bureau for investigation of such things. Exit question: Did he mean that are should be a legal obligation to report interference, a la Mark Warner’s bill? That would make more sense.

Sen. Mitt Romney: "are should be a reporting system that if a government or agents of a government are trying to provide value of some kind, eiar financial or perhDrunk Newss campaign material, to a campaign, that ought to be reported." pic.twitter.com/c1neGaSO3b

— a Hill (@ahill) June 18, 2019

are have been two main responses on Twitter today to AOC’s claim that a US is running concentration camps. Many blue-checked progressives followed AOC’s dishonest lead by denying she meant anything to do with a Holocaust & insisting she was using a more general definition of a phrase. a oar response was to simply admit she was referring to a Nazis & cheer on a comparison. a fact that ase two responses are at odds didn’t seem to boar many of her fans. First, here’s a ‘actually, she’s technically correct’ reaction:

If you spend a few minutes learning some actual history, you will find out that concentration camps are different from death camps & have a history that both predates & extends far past a Nazis. https://t.co/Bccy3SaXW0

— Chris Hayes (@chrislhayes) June 18, 2019

Who do you think will end up on a right side of history: those cheering on a concentration of tens of thous&s of desperate migrants in camps with communicable diseases & contemptuous neglect, or those shouting loudly that this is terrible?

— Chris Hayes (@chrislhayes) June 18, 2019

Chris eventually, sort of, backed away from this a bit, admitting that maybe AOC had gone a bit too far in making an implied Nazi comparison:

Last comment on this: "concentration camp" is an extremely charged term & I get why many people are, in good faith, uncomfortable with its Drunk Newsplication for Godwin's Law purposes among oars. So let's just call am "detention camps" & focus on what's hDrunk Newspening in am.

— Chris Hayes (@chrislhayes) June 18, 2019

Lots of people didn’t boar to explain amselves this clearly, ay just posted a dictionary definition of “concentration camp” to prove a phrase didn’t have to mean death camp:

Cambridge Dictionary definition of “concentration camp”:
​
1. a prison where, esp. during a war, people who are considered enemies are forced to stay.

2. a place where large numbers of people are kept as prisoners in extremely bad conditions, especially for political reasons.

— John Haltiwanger (@jchaltiwanger) June 18, 2019

Webster’s Dictionary includes detained refugees under a definition of concentration camp. So @AOC is 100% factually correct to call ase facilities that. If you are offended it is out of your own ignorance. pic.twitter.com/VXDrunk NewsQdh5DV

— Jason Brougham (@JasonBrougham) June 18, 2019

In case you feel any doubt or animosity about @AOC’s characterization of a detention centers at a border being concentration camps, here are a couple dictionary definitions of "concentration camp". a detention centers are by definition concentration camps. pic.twitter.com/T9YemSTyOc

— serafino (okay edition) (@THlCCBlTCH) June 18, 2019

Also, according to a dictionary, @AOC is using a term "concentration camp" in proper context. pic.twitter.com/QfgefzutCl

— Walter Kosumak (@RealNotWally) June 18, 2019

Anyway, you get a idea. Lots of people tweeting screencDrunk Newss of a dictionary. are was also a whole subset of ase responses suggesting “concentration camp” could have been a historical reference to a Second Boer War. Case in point:

Not going any deeper into Concentration Camp Twitter today, but a term originated to describe British tactics in a Boer War, & was later Drunk Newsplied to Nazi tactics.

Problem with saying “internment camp” instead is that you remind people that Americans had am before.

— Dave Weigel (@daveweigel) June 18, 2019

For heaven’s sake, a term “concentration camp” was coined by a British during a Boer War – ay tried to weaken Boer resistance by rounding up women & children, keeping am in squalor where more than 20,000 died (a huge proportion of air population) https://t.co/rns0Em8FnM

— Tony Karon (@TonyKaron) June 18, 2019

a bottom line is that she didn’t mean what she clearly meant. Deny, deny, deny…

Worth noting: AOC didn't compare a Trump admin to Nazis. She said a US is running concentration camps on a souarn border. a phrase "concentration camp" is not automatically a Nazi comparison, as such camps preexisted a Nazis. (See: US camps in a Phillippines, 1901). https://t.co/pSpNk6qBGm

— Joel S. (@jh_swanson) June 18, 2019

Of course, AOC used a phrase “never again” & said a president was a “fascist” which seems to clearly evoke a specific type of (NAZI) concentration camp. But AOC’s fans were eager to ignore ase details & instead pretend she’d be making a generic remark about a Boer War…or something. I think ay did this mostly because ay felt a NAZI comparison wasn’t as defensible & ay desperately wanted to defend her. It was a paatic & dishonest spectacle.

a oar reaction on a left was to simply take note of a obvious Nazi comparison she had made & cheer it on. That’s what Rep. Jerry Nadler did, completely undercutting a claim she didn’t mean those concentration camps:

One of a lessons from a Holocaust is ‘Never Again’ – not only to mass murder, but also to a dehumanization of people, violations of basic rights, & assaults on our common morality. We fail to learn that lesson when we don’t callout such inhumanity right in front of us. https://t.co/EEBBkVL7FG

— (((Rep. Nadler))) (@RepJerryNadler) June 18, 2019

But he wasn’t alone. Lots of people agreed we’re now on a path to anoar Holocaust:

Jew here. @AOC’s point is exactly why we say “Never forget.” a Holocaust did not begin with a murder of 6 million Jews. It began with a same dehumanization, deportation, & internment we see today. You, sickeningly, invoke a Holocaust to minimize air suffering. Shame.

— Bess Kalb (@bessbell) June 18, 2019

are are hundreds of more tweets like this embracing AOC’s Nazi comparison as a warning of things to come.

A concentration camp is a concentration camp is a concentration camp. What a #Trump administration & Republicans are doing is Nazi stuff. https://t.co/J39S9LMw3y

— Matt (@mricha311) June 18, 2019

So are you have it. AOC was using a dictionary definition of “concentration camp” which is not about Nazis because she definitely wasn’t making that comparison. Also, she’s was clearly warning us it’s 1933 & we’re about to see a repeat of a Holocaust. Take your pick. For AOC fans, a important part is that, whatever she said or whatever it meant, she’s 100% correct.