We now have a fifth freshman Republican Representative from New York calling on George Santos to resign from office. Now it’s Mike Lawler of New York’s 17th district, just north of New York City. He’s the one who narrowly defeated Sean Patrick Maloney, who was the head of the DCCC in 2022. As noted yesterday, the now close-to-unanimous demand from constituents and the New York GOP for Santos to get out won’t, I think, have much effect. He’s close to a wanted man in his Long Island district. In a sense it hardly matters what the folks back home are saying. His support is coming from the House GOP leadership.

Over the course of the afternoon, four Republican Reps from New York state – all freshman – have called on George Santos to resign.

The first was Rep. Anthony D’Esposito, who is from the adjoining 4th district. He made the announcement at the Nassau County GOP press conference we noted earlier. Since then Rep. Nick LaLota (1st), Rep. Nick Langworthy (23rd) and Rep. Brandon Williams (22nd) have all done the same. (I think this the rough order over the course of the day. But they’ve come in kind of a flurry.)

People forget that it wasn’t really the Freedom Caucus that knocked Kevin McCarthy out of contention for Speaker in 2015. They were part of it. But what did him in was that members from the rest of the caucus didn’t think he was ready. As the Speakership was hanging in the balance in 2015, he gave an interview in which he said that the whole point of the Benghazi hearings was to damage Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign. That was true of course. But that wasn’t the public story for Republicans. Today’s comments from McCarthy are a reminder of that and a reminder that things probably haven’t changed.

There’s a simple way to avoid being forced to resign: Don’t resign. It’s really that simple. It always has been. Just don’t resign. George Santos seems to understand that. But I’ve never thought shaming or lack of support at home or on the Hill would drive him out. Lawsuits and prosecutions are what will bring him down. And likely sooner rather than later. Just which it will be I’m not sure. There are so many routes to criminal and civil liability.

The mystery of that three-page document continues and even seems to be picking up steam. I mentioned the gist in this earlier post here. The question is just what concessions Kevin McCarthy made to the Freedom Caucus to become speaker? It came up at a GOP conference meeting today. And apparently some details were revealed but not others. Indeed, there seemed to be some disagreement about whether it’s actually written down at all. Or, rather, there was disagreement about whether there is a mystery three-page document and then yet other commitments that weren’t even included in the three-page document. These latest details come from Axios’s afternoon email.

Brazil’s Supreme Court has ordered the arrest of Anderson Torres, who until Sunday served as chief of security in the country’s capital Brasilia, according to the English-language Brazilian Report. Torres is a former justice minister under ex-President Bolsonaro. At the moment he is on “vacation” in the United States. Torres is at the center of suspicions that pro-Bolsonaro authorities were negligent or worse in security preparations for Sunday’s demonstrations.

The House GOP has passed its rules package and now the 118th Congress in the House is off to the races. But the rules package was never where McCarthy’s real concessions resided. The rules package wasn’t what signed control of the House over to the Freedom Caucus. That was contained in informal promises where McCarthy agreed to cede control over the committee that schedules votes, where he committed to backing the Freedom Caucus’s debt default plans and more.

I had assumed these were verbal agreements over hand shakes. But apparently not. According to the insider sheet Punchbowl News, in addition to the 55-page rules package hashed out between McCarthy’s supporters and the Freedom Caucus, there was an additional, secret three-page document spelling out the real agreement.

From Punchbowl …

The Post’s Ishaan Tharoor has an interesting rundown of differences and similarities between the events of Jan. 8 in Brazil and Jan. 6 two years ago. The fundamental difference, which any expert would have told you in advance, is the role of the Brazilian military and security services. Less than 40 years ago, Brazil was under military rule. Military rule is not some fantastical dystopia there. It’s the reality that most of the country’s political class grew up in.

Brazil’s insurrectionists had studied Jan. 6 closely. You can see that in so many of the visuals. But there was a key difference. The focus of the insurrectionists’ plan, in advance and on the day of, was to build support within the military. They camped out around military bases. They tried to build links to military factions. Nor was this some vain hope. It’s generally agreed that the military and security services were and are sympathetic to Bolsonaro. But political sympathy is not the same as a willingness to intervene to overthrow the political order. Tom Shannon, a former U.S. Ambassador to Brazil, told Tharoor: “The Bolsonaro people had really studied January 6 and the conclusion that they came to was that Trump failed because he relied on a mob and that he had no institutional support.” Institutional support, in this case, being the army and the police.

A number of you have asked me via email just how it is that Jair Bolsonaro is in the U.S. at all? He may be informally on the lam or trying to stay out of the reach of Brazilian authorities. But he didn’t come seeking asylum. I told these readers I figured former heads of state and rich people and just VIPs generally don’t have much problem making extended visits to the United States. But really, I had no idea. But this Reuters story has what seems like the real story. It’s much more interesting and suggests more planning.

There’s such a thing as an A-1 visa which the U.S. reserves for heads of state and high-ranking government officials. Bolsonaro entered the U.S. on his second-to-last day as president. (He pulled a Trump, refusing to participate in the inauguration of his successor.) There’s no way to know specifically without more information from U.S. consular authorities. But according to consular officials and outside experts, Bolsonaro almost certainly entered the U.S. on his A-1 visa.

I’m going to resist commenting too directly on yesterday’s events in Brazil because it is far outside any expertise of mine. But allow me a few observations. The parallels to the January 6 insurrection in the U.S. are obvious and uncanny. To some degree that seems to have been intentional. But there is at least one key difference. On January 6, 2021, the American insurrectionists were trying to disrupt a specific constitutional process essential to the transition of power to the new president. That doesn’t seem to have been the case here. Lula is already president. The Brazilian Congress wasn’t in session. And Lula was in another part of the country.

Even in Brazil there seems to be some real question about just what the plan was and just how far into the military and state security services support for the insurrection went. Watching press reports yesterday there were a number of key governmental officials who are suspected of either being part of the insurrection or passively supporting it who then made showy efforts to arrest perpetrators once things got out of hand. From a distance it looked like something went wrong, like it became clear that whatever was intended wasn’t working and then players who had been taking a wait-and-see approach made hasty efforts to distance themselves from violence. All this said, Brazil is a different country with internal politics I have little understanding of and a very different history from the United States.