“Jeffries didn’t even whip the vote,” one critic said about the House minority leader, who wants to be speaker. “This is why people want a stronger leader.”
As House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries seeks to become speaker when Democrats retake Congress in January, critics questioned his leadership Tuesday after the Republican-led lower chamber effectively blocked a bid to impeach Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth by just seven votes—an outcome that may have been averted if more Democrats showed up to vote.
The 211-204 procedural vote effectively torpedoed Congressman Thomas Massie’s attempt to impeach Hegseth by sending the outgoing Kentucky Republican’s resolution to the House Judiciary Committee, where it will likely gather dust during the remainder of the GOP-controlled congressional term.
Proposal submitted by a republican
Speaker is republican
Impeachment now would be dumb because republitards would get to pick his replacement…
The left: FUCK DEMOCRATS REEEEEEEEEEEE
Absolute troglodytes…
Yea I’m annoyed that this didn’t pass because it should’ve been a slam dunk for democrats and would’ve only added to their momentum after the midterms. But I also don’t like how it’s being presented as a sign of things to come. The newly elected congress isn’t even in session and everyone’s trying to pin it on them.
I don’t have any faith in Jeffries, but if this plan of replacing Hegseth with stooge #12 immediately following impeachment was any kind of viable, why not trade him now anyway and preempt any hearings that should ve inevitable come January?
How would this passing add any “momentum” or be considered a “slam dunk”?
Wins, no matter how small, add momentum. That’s how it works. And it’s a ‘slam dunk’ because it’s a bill proposed by a Republican that dems could have easily gotten passed.
You’re under the illusion that there was a possible win to be had. If Johnson knew that Dems had the numbers, he’d never bring the proposal to the floor in the first place. If he did, it would be because the republicans would bring their majority, cuz incase you forgot, they still own congress.
Well Massie didn’t need Johnson’s permission to bring it to the floor it was a privileged resolution. So guess you’re under the illusion you know how parliamentary politics works.
Privileged resolution just means Johnson’s choice is reduced to two legislative days to bring it up, not that he loses all agency. NT tho. And Johnson steered it to be referred to committee.
Johnson had no way to stop the vote other than adjourning the session. And he wouldn’t have known 11 dems would be absent in 2 days. It had a real chance of passing. He got lucky it didn’t go through.
I’m confused by your line of thought. My complaint isn’t that the vote didn’t pass specifically, it was that someone who is presuming to take over leadership in 2027 didn’t make an effort to show leadership.
No matter if it was this Congress or the next one, the vote is mainly to feel out if Republicans are defecting from Trump at all. After the House passes an impeachment, the Senate has to vote 2/3rds to kick him out of office. All that effort isn’t going to happen before the new Congress is sworn in and if Republicans were looking to replace Hegseth before 2027, he is able to resign without being impeached.
They’re not looking to replace him, Dems are. But that’s impossible right now in a congress owned by republicans. Ofc you’re confused, this was a vote initiated by a republican and brought to the floor by a republican speaker, but you’re convinced that this is about Dem leadership.
I guess I’ll rephrase. Jefferies is the presumed speaker of the house in 2027. Which shows better ability to lead:
A. Miss a vote that would pass a Republican led house impeaching Hegseth for it to die in the Senate B. Have a Democrat led house impeach Hegseth to die in the Senate
You’re ignoring impeachment takes 67 senators voting for it. Maybe you’re more optimistic 12 republican senators will flip.
Your A. scenario would never happen because Johnson never would’ve brought it to the floor the moment he did if he knew Dems had the numbers…Yes, I’m more interested and optimistic for the version of events that is more likely to pass in the senate and allows Dems to block a replacement.
So you think people’s lives are just numbers on a screen? Is politics a game for you? Oh well we losing this time so might as well not try. PEOPLE ARE DYING. Israel is killing people every single day. Ice is killing people everyday. There are thousands of immigrants sitting in concentration camps. They are getting raped and tortured EVERY SINGLE DAY. This isn’t a fucking game. It’s not about winning and losing. We have an obligation to uphold justice and protect as many people as we possibly can.
Tell me you don’t know how the process works without telling me. The only person acting like it’s a game is you. I’m arguing for effective action, you want pointless theatre. Go ahead and explain how that would be accomplished or just keep virtue signaling into the void.
still requires super majority in the Senate so he likely won’t get ousted before or after new senators are seated (without 10+ Republican defections)
still, there’s enough representation to refer him to the Senate for prosecution and a strong inquiry to made
Yea, but after the new members are present it’s more likely to get a supermajority and they’ll get to block any unhinged replacement after. Trying to do it now is just pointless.
1st stipulation still feels like a stretch but maybe you’re right. 2nd is plain wrong as there is always value in delivering justice.
it wouldn’t be pointless but could be materially worse if the replacement was indeed more unhinged. but that’s as hypothetical as a successful impeachment so either way it’s speculative.
Sorry, what are you referring to when you say “delivering justice” if absolutely nothing would come out of an attempted impeachment right now? (This vote wasn’t a vote to impeach btw, and for that vote there’s no way republicans would bring it to the floor without their majority present).
i know how the process works. the House doesn’t impeach, they vote to refer to the Senate where Reps prosecute the case for impeachment and Senators vote on it.
i don’t think we’re going to agree. i believe that the act of a impeachment that is foregone for failure still serves a latent purpose of opening the opportunity for investigation and signals to your constituents that you’re using what powers you have to try to serve their will. my reading of your take is that if an action produces anything other than its manifest purpose, it’s a failure.
I think the current admin needs to face real impeachments, real investigations, and real indictments instead of crowd pleasing nothing burgers, yes. And watching Dems get shat on from all sides at every opportunity even when it doesn’t make any sense is getting old and is why we’re in this situation in the first place.
What’s crazy is you saw the last 2 years and are arguing about the process. You learned nothing under this dictatorship. The rules don’t mean anything. They do whatever they want. Only when democrats want to do something it’s theater or about following processes. Our politicians, both left and right, have WAY more power than they let on. The red tape is is self imposed. When enough people get angry we can make massive change and if you ask me the American people need to see things being done. All beauocracy is theatre and maybe if the left actually put some theater for us more people would get mad and actually do something.
It is sad that you see giving up as a valid option. When the cards you want aren’t on the table you flip the fucking table. It sounds ridiculous but people’s lives are at stake. Do you even care about all the people that will die because they will be priced out of their life saving medications? I guess fighting for healthcare is performative too.
Notice how you didn’t lay out the sequence of events you expected. You seem confused about the difference between congress and executive orders, you might want to check that out. Or you can just virtue signal into the void yet again.