What is more outrageous? Kevin McCarthy giving Tucker Carlson—TUCKER CARLSON—personal access to all of the Jan. 6 Capitol security footage? Or McCarthy then justifying it by saying that Carlson’s handling of the video will be more objective and less “political” than was that produced by the Jan. 6 Select Committee?

I have some questions. Why is McCarthy empowered to make this decision? Why does he have control over this material in the first place? And if he does, wouldn’t the fair decision be to release it to anyone who seeks it?

Media outlets should, and will, cry foul under the Freedom of Information Act.

So Tucker Carlson is going to have mountains of video and an editing machine? Yeah, that seems like a good, fair and objective idea.

Armed with Carlson’s distorted and sanitized work of “art,” The Cult will go right back to claiming that Jan. 6 was just a new episode of The Dukes of Hazzard that got a little rowdy.

I was genuinely unamused Tuesday when the forewoman of the Fulton County, Georgia special grand jury—Emily Kohrs—jumped on tv and flippantly “teased” that the grand jury has recommended multiple indictments. The interview was improper in every way and amounted to nothing but gleeful self-promotion. Beyond that, it will be used by defense attorneys to damage the cases against anyone who IS indicted. Not cool.

The White House said that President Biden’s Tuesday speech in Warsaw was not a “rebuttal” to Putin’s dark and dour address in Moscow. Of course it was. And it was a brilliant one. The contrast the president made between the ascendance of democracy and the decline of autocracy could not have been more effective. The Russian war on Ukraine is a year old. And Joe Biden has foxed Vladimir Putin’s jock at every turn, without exception. You want to “put America first”? There is nothing more in America’s best interests than supporting democracies around the globe.

It’s comforting, I guess, to learn that the nine SCOTUS justices are as confused, confounded, frustrated, ambivalent and relatively ignorant about internet regulation as I am. The issue in the case before the court is the future of Section 230, a key provision of the 1996 Communications Decency Act. Section 230 protects the operators of website and social media platforms from legal liability for the content posted on those platforms by third parties. Congress passed the law 27 years ago to support and promote the emerging internet.

Here’s the “nut graf” of Section 230.

“No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider.”

The current case concerns a lawsuit brought by the family of Nohemi Gonzalez, an American student who was killed by ISIS terrorists in a 2015 attack on a Paris bistro. The family sued under the Antiterrorism Act of 1990. The suit claims that videos posted on YouTube prior to the Paris massacre promoted terrorist videos and thus contributed to the death of Ms. Gonzalez. It further alleges that algorithms created by Google, which owns YouTube, disproportionately funneled these videos to terrorists and would-be terrorists.

Google’s position essentially is simply, “We’re completely protected by Section 230.”

Does your head hurt yet? You’re not alone. On Tuesday, neither the nine justices nor the lawyers arguing the respective sides of the case seemed to have a clue.

Among the courtroom quotes during oral argument:

“So I guess I’m thoroughly confused.” –Justice Samuel Alito

“I mean, we’re a court. You know, these are not like the nine greatest experts on the internet.” –Justice Elena Kagan

“It’s hard to do this in the abstract.”  –Plaintiff attorney Eric Schnapper

Yep. There’s the rub.

Actually, the issue may have been best framed by Justice Clarence Thomas, who asked how platforms can distinguish between algorithms that “present cooking videos to people who are interested in cooking and ISIS videos to people interested in ISIS.”

So what is SCOTUS likely to do? As little as possible, including perhaps punting and sending the case back to a lower court. None of the justices appears eager to make any sweeping decision regarding the foundation of Section 230.