Hakeem Jeffries got two things out of the Hegseth impeachment:

  1. He got to stand up and say he’s a “hard yes” on impeachment, thus making some people happy after his earlier mushy post-election statements.

  2. He got to say that Republicans tanked the impeachment by referring it to committee last night.

But, I can use clerk.house.gov and I see this:

If 11 Democrats had voted, the Hegseth impeachment would not have been sent to committee. So who were those Democrats?

❝

Julia Brownley (CA-26) , J. Luis Correa (CA-27), Laura Gillen (NY-4), Steven Horsford (NV-4), Jonathan Jackson (IL-1), Nancy Pelosi (CA-11), Brittany Petterson (CO-7), Melanie Stansbury (NM-1), Haley Stevens (MI-11), Marilyn Strickland (WA-10), Frederica Wilson (FL-24)

Bold - voted on other bills yesterday. Italic - voted Monday but not Tuesday Regular Text - Have not voted since the midterm election.

You can see the legend above. Nine of them were in town and could have voted. Haley Stevens is obviously a lost cause (she voted on Monday but did so hiding out in the Republican cloakroom). But 8 would have been sufficient for the measure to die.

Stansbury is out with this statement.

I don’t think she’d lie about that, and since she and Petterson, Brownley, Strickland and Gillen are all women elected around the same time, perhaps they were together and got caught in traffic. Still, it’s your job, show up.

Anyway, there were five Republicans who didn’t vote on the Hegseth impeachment who voted on other measures yesterday, so maybe it still would have been referred to committee if everyone had gotten to the floor on time. On the plus side, they did elect noted (alleged) abuse-enabler Gym Jordan as their new leader.

Tedious vote counting aside, the main thing I want to say is that I am so fucking sick and tired of checking up on the bullshit we’re fed by Democratic leaders. Jeffries gets no benefit of the doubt from me. Until proven otherwise, I assume he held back some members so that the Hegseth impeachment vote failed. Is that fair? Nope. We often treat people who lie and dissemble, repeatedly, unfairly. It’s part of human nature. Pelosi, Jeffries’ mentor, not showing up for the vote is a huge tell about what the establishment thinks about the Hegseth impeachment.

The good news is with a huge majority next year, these kinds of games won’t fly. A lot of the newly elected Democrats are going to want to impeach Hegseth, not as retribution, but as a just outcome for his many crimes.

Moving on to Jeffries’ dynamic counterpart in the Senate, Charles Schumer, Bernie Sanders and Elissa Slotkin had a press conference yesterday where they both said they wouldn’t endorse Schumer. I thought they both made good points that the process needs to be a vigorous debate, and also that the winner needs to have a clear agenda to respond to the mandate for change that happened last Tuesday night.

The first five or so minutes are enough to get the gist of both Bernie and Slotkin’s positions. Also, Slotkin said that Democrats need to be clear about how they’re going to get money into people’s pockets, which I took as a direct reference to AES’ campaign slogan (“Money out of politics / Money in your pocket / Medicare for all”).

I misspoke in the comments yesterday when I wrote that Slotkin was seeking the Majority Leader nomination — she specifically said she wasn’t at the press conference. I don’t agree with Slotkin’s ideology, but she’s showing some grit here. She wants a fight, many Democrats don’t, so she’s going to join with Bernie to force a fight. She’ll take many votes that I don’t like, but her vote for a different Majority Leader is one that I’m glad she’s going to take.

Reply

Avatar

or to participate

Avatar

TBone Dinosaur3 minutes ago(edited)

Thank you for the Sanders & Slotkin video. I'm so glad I watched to the end where Sanders calls out the press for their 2028 horserace bullshit and demands instead their help covering the real crises and issues we're all facing! And stating that it's not a sign of weakness to listen to your constituents! He and she made a great tag team that goes great with coffee. I'm now reenergized, up and at 'em.

Avatar

r po44 minutes ago

I'm rereading the history of the Mexican Revolution, which if you elide Porfirio Díaz's 35 years ending 1910, can be construed to be about the whole span from about 1810 until 1920 or so. Would not want to live through that.

Anyway, a lot of inflection points happened when this faction or that faction "got stuck in traffic". Communication wasn't instantaneous then so "fog of war" really was "fog of life".

Jeffries was leading, alright. Veering off from an iceberg. Maybe it was smart, we'll see.

Avatar

r po9 minutes ago

Some heated claims out there that the vote was called with very short notice, so stuck in traffic might not be a feint. Fog of war.

You know what? I think visibility into this process with competing claims is good.

Avatar

Kay W.44 minutes ago

Slotkin is known for two things - winning very competitive elections (she’s only won comfortably once, in 22, the House) and an obsessive focus on voter data. I think that makes her very tuned in to the current state of any electorate, and she knows ALL voters in ‘26 were demanding change. Frankly, I’ll always respect her for staying far away from the insanely bigoted anti Abdul campaign that was run by both (some) Democrats and all Republicans. Shows me she actually believes in a multicultural diverse America instead of using differences to set one group against another. I’m ok with her hitting Abdul on policy. She’s right - the Left does have to show how to get money in pockets. It seems like Schumer might be in real trouble. I’m not that surprised. He really does personify “business as usual”.

Avatar

Busted Knee57 minutes ago

I don't agree with Slotkin on much however she's from the midwest and is both CIA and DOD. If we are going to wrangle the MIC under control we need insiders. We have a lot of them we just don't put them forward as we should. If we want to go after Hegseth get Jefferies and Schumer away from that. We've got plenty of veterans who are more charismatic, aggressive, and know how the game is played. Let them skewer him. I'm sure they'd relish the chance.

Avatar

Butch Fries1 hour ago

Gym Jordan's still going to be buying his clothes at the feed store.

Avatar

David J1 hour ago

I don't think the Senate Majority Leader's ideology is as important as it is for the Speakership. Senators are far more independent than House members. Josh Marshall wrote about Schumer yesterday and I concur with his assessment. Schumer is not a good fit for this moment in our history. With all that said, I think it is very likely Van Hollen becomes Majority Leader. You don't have to be a Senate Whisperer to see he is carefully maneuvering himself into position to win the vote.

The Democrats have two Senators from NY compromised by their ties to the financial industry and in Gillibrand's case her familial ties to the crypto industry. I don't trust either one of them, and I especially don't trust Schumer to meet the moment.

Avatar

David J1 hour ago

TPM has an interesting interview with Pramila Jayapal in which she addresses what part the Progressive Caucus should play in the new Congress and if Jeffries should be Speaker.

https://talkingpointsmemo.com/news/pramila-jayapal-wants-progressives-to-be-the-push-force-in-the-new-congress

Avatar

Busted Knee1 hour ago

The issue, as I see it, is the press seeks out the leader to go on camera. Most senators love the camera. So the leader should be someone who can bring the fire. I'm also against anymore leadership out of CA and NY. It's a bad look and both of those states are riddled with problem industries.