PETE HEGSETH IMPEACHMENT FAILS BECAUSE 11 DEMOCRATS DIDN'T SHOW UP

So this was a motion to take the impeachment proceedings either directly to the floor and just do a straight vote or to take it to committee, right? And the Republicans obviously were in favor of taking it to committee so we could just like dust off and die out. They're never going to obviously advance it through the committees because they have the majority. There was an opportunity here for the Democrats to unite as a caucus and vote to push it to the And the reason for why they didn't do it is because 11 Democrats, including Including Nancy Pelosi and our favorite, our girl, Haley Stevens were absent. They did not vote. There were 11 total Democrats that did not vote because they did not show up. And we're going to be talking about that. Let's get to this. 11 House Dems missed the Hegseth impeachment vote. They were trying to push it. Republicans are trying to push the committee so they can just like toss the football, spike the football and never actually put out a vote on whether or not the House would impeach Pete Hegseth immediately. Democratic leaders, when they came off the floor, they were uncertain why some of their members didn't make it. Sometimes members are doing other things and they just simply don't make it to the floor in time for a vote. And Republicans are still in control of the House chamber and they can gavel close a vote really at any time when they have the requisite number of votes. have been what happened here, but there was Serious frustration within the ranks when I talked to a number of Democrats afterwards because they thought they had a chance of succeeding. And this could have kicked the effort over to the United States Senate. If they were able to pass these articles of impeachment, the Senate would have to consider a trial. A trial seemed very possible to at least happen, meaning they could tie up the Senate floor. And even though there were not the votes to convict Pete Hegseth, that could at least be a distraction of sorts from the remaining weeks of the Republican-controlled Congress. I think this is so unbearably disrespectful to what just took place, where for months you guys in this community and voters all around the country talked to their family members, door knocked for their candidates, phone banked for their candidates, they went They voted. They participated in their civic duty. And then after this incredible victory, a people's mandate was delivered to the Democratic Party. You had 11 Democrats just refuse to show up to work. That is un-*******-bearable. That is exactly what we hate about Washington, D.C. It is a deep betrayal. Now, you will say this was a symbolic vote. Obviously, impeachment will happen in January once there is actually an effective majority in both the House of Representatives and the Senate, because currently the Democrats don't control the majority. Doesn't matter. Show up to work, okay? We're done with this nonsense. And I will tell you why these representatives didn't show up to vote. And it's disastrous. It's exactly what you think it is, okay? It's Israel-related. We're going to get to that in a second. But having said that, this kind of stuff breeds apathy. So quickly do the Democrats go back to their undemocratic nature where they... Say, oh, it doesn't matter. Yeah, we won. Who cares? We'll take our sweet time. There's nothing you can do about it. That is unacceptable. We need a better measurement of performance, and we need better accountability and punishment for our elected representatives. I think... Smiling and dialing and calling their offices is insufficient. I don't know what it is, but this kind of stuff is completely unacceptable. And it is a real stain on Hakeem Jeffries' attitude. It's not even a stain on his attitude. I think it's just a further reinforcement that he is not up. The fact that he couldn't get every single Democrat to vote on this impeachment is disgusting. The fact that when asked why he didn't whip the votes, he basically said, I haven't had a conversation with anyone on the floor team about what may or may not have happened in terms of the Hegseth resolution, but this is not the end of it. It's just the beginning. What are we doing? And you want to know something even crazier? His whip wasn't even there. His whip was also at the event. That is the reason why many of these Democrats didn't show up to vote. They were stuck in traffic, they said. This is outright unacceptable. If this energy carries over to the new Democratic majority, the people's mandate that we delivered to the Democratic Party, I'm going to lose my ******* mind. Democrats are going to cast aside all of that momentum, once again, to go back to the calcified duopoly that doesn't really fight for marginal incremental gains, and then people get very frustrated with politics, and then they go back to voting for people that will break the system. That is how Donald Trump came into power, not once, but twice. We cannot repeat this mistake. I find it disastrous. I find it dangerous. And I'm glad that there are others who see it as well. Symbolic or not, it is important for every single Democrat to be united and voting as a party in this moment, okay? Because the counter-argument to this is, it doesn't matter. The Republicans have a majority. They could have potentially found enough votes to do away with this impeachment. Great, fine, **** it, let them fight. But we cannot be responsible when we have the votes. What are we doing? Democrats are supposed to be responsible to their voters. And this is what the voters want. Is this a democracy or is this an oligarchy where we vote in 800-year-old vampires every two ******* years and then they never abide by the wishes of the masses and they just go back to their closed-door meetings, they go back to their fundraising dinners, and in this circumstance, Catherine Clark is the Democratic whip in the House and it is her responsibility to ensure members are there to vote. It turns out Clark also happens to be a founding member of the EDW and they were holding a new member reception at the Roost The EDW is a cutout for APAC, or at least its PAC-EDW Action works alongside AIPAC Clark is a founding member of EDW, which hosted an event tonight from 4.30 p.m. to 6.30 p.m., overlapping with the 5:30 p.m. vote on the Hegseth impeachment Of the 11 members who missed the Hegseth vote, eight have received support from EDW or its AIPAC-tied super PAC-EDW Action Of those eight, two are sitting board members. If you don't show up to work on time, you get fired. These people don't show up to work. They get money Inverse incentive structure that causes the Democratic Party to not be responsive to the needs of the majority that voted them into office. I find it utterly disastrous. She also had the audacity to make this statement. Republicans just blocked the House from impeaching Pete Hegseth They are protecting an unqualified, incompetent man over our service members. What a disgrace. You hosted a cocktail reception sponsored by the EDW an AIPAC affiliate PAC that you are the founding member of At the same time that this vote was taking place, you are responsible. You did the exact opposite Or one could say you actually did whip the votes You just whipped the votes against the wishes of your voters You whipped the votes in the opposite direction You found a... Squad of rotating villains who wouldn't be there Elect Democratic Women PAC You might remember it because they were aggressively involved in the Kat Albugazalic primary against Daniel Biss and against the AIPAC candidate I'm sick and tired of this Israel first nonsense, okay? This is not even ineptitude Some people, like old heads that cover this stuff, will obviously say, Oh, these guys are just out of touch. This is just the old way of doing business. People have never actually paid this close attention. to how Washington, D.C. operates, and these people thought they could get away with it. No. The real reason is far worse. The real reason is these rotating villains that constantly refuse to go along with the rest of the caucus are specifically designed to be an impediment on legislation that pertains to their corporate paymasters. And in this circumstance, it's the continuation of the Iran war, regardless of the disastrous outcomes that people were so frustrated by. that they voted for a larger majority in Congress than we have seen in many, many decades. Like post-Watergate majorities in Congress were delivered to the Democratic Party. A people's mandate was delivered to the Democratic Party. And what are they doing with that mandate? Nothing. Truth nuke, I don't think it's Hakeem's fault, and it's unreasonable to expect him to do much. If he teaches the base that they have to make demands, then this makes the party profoundly unattractive to the donors and could bankrupt the party. They have nothing to gain by responding to their voters. Also, if Hegseth remains, it makes Democrats look better due to his incompetence and malice. I understand that. I don't care. I'm speaking to the voters. I'm not speaking to the handful of Washington, D.C. consultant types that understand why Hakeem Jeffries is supposed to be feckless, why Hakeem Jeffries is supposed to be inept. I understand that reality, but I'm addressing the voters. I'm addressing the public. I'm addressing the people. It's not crazy logic. He's not wrong. That chatter is absolutely correct. Hakeem is supposed to play this role because if they actually advance and impeach Pete Hegseth, all of a sudden, what if there's a more competent person that becomes the secretary of war? All of a sudden, Donald Trump sees the pressure, doesn't like it, and replaces Pete Hegseth before the impeachment moves into the Senate, which again, it's going to die in the Senate regardless. Democrats don't have the majority in the Senate. Well, who knows? Maybe the outbound Republicans could possibly caucus with Democrats. It's just a lot of work, right? They don't want to do it. They're not going to do it. However, what this creates is an environment of pressure from the legislative body, from Congress, that causes Donald Trump to potentially replace Pete Hegseth. This would chart a big victory for the Democratic Party. It would create an environment where the Democrats could expand on that initial victory to build on that momentum. And that's precisely the reason why Hakeem Jeffries doesn't want to do it. These guys don't want to do their jobs. That chatter is correct when he says the underlying reasoning is because Democrats can't come across like they're responsive to the needs of the base because then the base will demand more. And demanding more means doing more. And doing more as a Democrat means you're going to piss off your actual. Corporate paymasters. God forbid the Democratic Party give confidence to the Democratic Party's base of support to the voters. God forbid, because if they were to do that, then the voters are going to expect more from their elected representatives. This is a way to beat down the voters. This is a way to create apathy. Once again, that's his goal. That is Hakeem Jeffries's goal. That is also Chuck Schumer's goal as well, which is precisely the reason why we want them replaced. We want them We want responsive politics. We voted for responsive politics. We did not vote for do-nothing Democrats to ruin the momentum. The people's mandate that they now have to fight back against some of the excesses of this administration, to investigate the corruption of this administration, to expose the corporate ties that the Trump administration has. But I'm glad that people are not putting up with this nonsense. People are aware of Hakeem Jeffries' ineptitude. And you know what I think? I think Hakeem feels. Far too comfortable in his seat of power because he knows he has the votes. He doesn't realize how weak he is and he doesn't realize how much the base despises him. for exactly this type of reason. He did not whip the votes when Marie Concentration Camp Perez and Jared Golden moved in a way that no one had ever seen before outside of the caucus, did something totally unacceptable. They were not there to continue the shutdown fight to protect healthcare subsidies. That was another devastating blow and people hated that. That is the reason why these guys are deeply unpopular. They're not just unpopular with the Republicans. That is expected. Every Democratic Party leader is unpopular. with the opposition. That's normal. That's expected. That's understandable. But Chuck Schumer and Hakeem Jeffries are also unpopular with the base. That is not good for them. But there's a good reason why they're unpopular with the base. You cannot signal to the voters that you are committed to doing nothing. What a disaster. We resurrect this in any certain way because it's what's known as privilege in the United States House, meaning they can actually force this vote in the House, which means that if it doesn't come up this year, It could certainly come up again next year. And you heard from Congressman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez. She's not the only one. Other Democrats want to go after Pete Hegseth. They want to go after other cabinet officials like RFK Jr., Cash Patel. Some have been pushing to impeach Donald Trump himself. And that's what Hakeem Jeffries, when he becomes speaker, assuming he gets the votes to become speaker, which everyone pretty much expects that he will, he'll have to prioritize who to go after when. What investigations to launch and make sure it does not distract from their key parts of their agenda, which is about affordability, the reason why Democrats say that they are now in power. I mean, if they can't even do this, if they can't even vote for a symbolic vote to impeach Pete Hegseth and create more pressure. To force Trump to drop and replace Pete Hegseth, then why do we expect them to fight for an affordability agenda? We don't. This is top-level Democrats basically spiking the people's mandate that they've gotten to cut away at the momentum that they currently have on their side to knock the wind out of our sails. I think it's deliberate. Thanks very much. My next guest is Democratic Congresswoman Chrissy Houlahan, an Air Force veteran who sits on the House Armed Services and Intelligence Committees. Last year, she came under fire from the president for participating in this video She had this to say about Secretary Hegseth earlier today. Since the day he was nominated, I have been clear, Secretary Hegseth is not qualified for this job. Unfortunately for our nation and for our people, he has literally signaled and doubled down on that incompetence ever since day one. He is not a serious man. He is not a capable man. And our nation deserves a real Secretary of Defense who will not be laughed out of every room in the Pentagon. And Congresswoman Houlihan joins me now. Thanks for being with us. Do you have any idea why these... I mean, this is the easiest W of all time. It's so simple. Even if you lose the vote at the end, even if Republicans were able to find enough votes to still send us to committee to kill it, it would have been important to show up full force. It would have been important to show the voters that they didn't just... Throw these votes away that there is going to be a real fight in the legislative body against the Trump administration. It would have been a great way, especially when there's so much. Attention on the hill by the masses. This is coming right on the heels of this gigantic victory. People are living out. I'm living out. You know, I'm giving permission to this community to live out. We're all living out together. We're thinking, oh, we're united. This is a real competent party. And they just killed the honeymoon phase before it even began. It is, as Alex Ocasio-Cortez said. Part of my job to be there and to show up for votes and certainly barring some sort of medical issue. It is a failure of duty to not show up for the vote, especially something as important as this. And so I think there are different reasons, my understanding for why various Democrats didn't show up. But more importantly to me is the fact that my Republican colleagues and I have very good relationships with many of them disappointed me. Those who did show up as well. In the fact that they also did not support the impeachment of Secretary Hegseth. And many of them, I know, in their hearts, knew that it was the right thing to do to vote to impeach or to vote to move this process forward. And they didn't do that. And that, I think, is every bit, if not more of a disappointment to me that they failed in their duty as well. Like, see, this is what I mean. No, they're heartless monsters. OK, they're Republicans. We're not giving them any charitability. We're not giving them any grace. Stop being friends with them. They are your political enemies. I know you hang out with them every day. You see them as colleagues. We're not going back to business-as-usual politics. This is no longer the pre-Trump Republican Party because the pre-Trump Republican Party is what delivered Donald Trump. Everyone, get more partisan now, okay? That's my only expectation from Democrats. That's my only expectation from centrists. If you are a centrist, if you're center-right in the Democratic Party behave in a partisan fashion, then what good are you? Then you might as well cross over and come out as a Republican. That's it. It's the bare minimum expectation from people like myself, people on the left. Our expectation is you caucus with the Democrats and you show at least a fraction of the disdain that your voters have for not just MAGA, not just Trumpism, but the Republican Party broadly. Like, what good are you? What utility do you have if you turn around and I want to say, oh, no, these are kind people. They have real... Investment in a pluralistic democracy, like they would have voted appropriately, but they couldn't get themselves to do it. And I'm really disappointed. It's like, no, be mad. Don't be disappointed. Now is time to be mad. It's no longer time to be disappointed. It's time to be mad as hell. Because guess what? The voters are ******* mad as hell. I mean, even George Conway is upset, dude. George Conway is absolutely insane. The House Democratic whip was throwing the fundraising bash that kept Democrats from voting to send Pete Hegseth's impeachment vote to the floor. Ridiculous. I suspect she's not being insincere. There's a fair amount of Republicans that are upset with Pete Hegseth's antics. I don't care. If they don't vote, they are our enemies. It's that simple. Because we already know. They are behaving in a partisan manner. So who cares what you think? Every Republican in the House of Representatives loves Pete Hegseth, wants to defend him. No, they're behaving in a partisan manner. It's that simple. They're being partisan. You should, too. The Democratic Party is a ******* clown show. And the leadership, the minority leader currently, which is obviously attempting to become the majority leader, the Speaker of the House, Hakeem Jeffries and his whip, or rather, they're inept from our perspective, but they're very aware of what they're doing. They can no longer put the interests of corporate donors, the super wealthy, and foreign lobbies over the interests of the masses. They can't do that. We have a lot of attention. We have a lot of eyeballs in Washington, D.C. right now. Now is our time to strike. Now is our time to make a big fuss about this, okay? I can start with the fact that he's wholly unqualified, but that's, of course, not my call to make because I'm part of the House and not the Senate in terms of my ability to... To hire him, so to speak. He also, I believe, is harming the warrior ethos, to be honest, in the fact that he is acting against the will of the people. He is these wars, the articles of impeachment that Mr. Massey put together, four or five of them had to do with the fact that he is... sanctioned the outright murder of hundreds of fishermen off the coastlines of Latin America in the Caribbean. He has murdered, he's sanctioned the murder of 120 little girls at school. The Iran war has been a disaster. He is not even able to maintain operational security when communicating. Classified, highly classified special military operations like Signalgate. The first thing that Pete Higgs did, that was the first **** up that this admin broadly was involved in. It's unbelievable. Everything that they do is an impeachable offense. There's less unimpeachable offenses that these guys commit than impeachable ones. He was contravening or going against the will of the people in the Congress. He also is taking what could be extrajudiciary candidates, Killings in the places like the Caribbean and those kinds of places. And so the list is long. I mean, it's seven or eight versions of things that he could be impeached for. And Mr. Massey just put those together in a series. And it was our job to move that forward if we thought there was a there there, as I mentioned. And it would be the Senate's job to see that in a hearing or a trial. How about he's a drunk rapist? That's a good way to cover it. Anyway, he's a war criminal. It's unacceptable, and he's also deeply unpopular. I do hate that there is an entire genre in the commentariat of pundits who are moonlighting as pundits whose sole jobs are to operate as... PR merchants for these corporations and these different interests, the military industrial complex, APAC, that moonlight is pundits. And their entire job is to say, here's why the Democrats have to be feckless. Here's why the voters deserve less. I can't stand it. One example of this is obviously Matt Iglesias. His entire, you know, million dollar substack operation relies on constantly going, I'm confused. Why is a politician politicking? I don't get it. Wouldn't it be better if a politician just won and then shut the **** up afterwards? You know, he got absolutely destroyed, demolished, ritualistically humiliated by Nick Wright, a sports broadcaster from Fox 2. We're going to be talking about that in a second. But that was fascinating to watch unfold. Also tells me that there are more and more people who are getting agitated with not only the ineptitude from the Democrats, but also it's its greatest defenders. They're frustrated with the punditry, the commentariat that constantly says, no, no, no, better things are not possible. You need to shut the **** up. New Democratic members generally agree Hegseth should be held accountable. Yes, I would support impeaching Pete Hegseth, but it's time we have a secretary of defense who actually respects our troops. But others would rather focus attention on fulfilling campaign promises to fix the economy. I'm hoping that Secretary Hegseth won't be an issue. I mean, they're not going to do that either. Like, they're not going to do that either. Let's be real. Are we going to do that? How are we going to do that if we can't get an easy layup here? Pete Hegseth is the tip of the iceberg. In this administration's incompetent misdealings, and we can't even get a symbolic vote together because we couldn't whip enough votes. It's an insult. Ridiculous. The Pete Hegseth impeachment is mock trial almost of the incompetence and the corruption investigations, by the way. That is why you will see, despite all the grumblings, enormous gratitude for the hard work he has done to get us to this position Kirsten Gillibrand is one of the most corrupt Democrats in Senate. Remember how racist she was to Zoran after Zoran won the primary? It's not that she's a massive Islamophobe. She's also unbelievably corrupt, okay? Unfathomably corrupt. We've heard rumblings about Chuck Schumer's daughter working for a lobbying firm that recently signed on the United Arab Emirates as a client. And that is basically nothing in comparison to Kirsten Gillibrand's lobbying connections, her own personal finances and campaign contributions are a laundry list of some of Americans' biggest enemies, right, in terms of corporate donors. Here is a crypto billionaire among dozens to back startup from Gillibrand's son. Chris Larson, John Griffin, and Mark Ayn are angel investors in a new financial exchange led by Kirsten Gillibrand's 22-year-old son, wow, how industrious that Kirsten Gillibrand's 22-year-old son is getting tremendous backing from Democratic mega-donor Chris Larson, who has backed Senator Gillibrand's political campaigns. Larson, a cryptocurrency billionaire, is one of the nearly three dozen Wall Street luminaries, venture capitalists, and recent Stanford University alumni. ...who have backed Theo Gillibrand's new financial exchange venture, the American Perpetuals Exchange Corp, or APEC, according to a pitch document seen by Politico. If you're wondering why, you go out and you vote, you go out and you protest, and then things... Never change. It's stuff like this. Okay. It's what is happening when you're not paying close attention that matters so much more. Several house Democrats have spoken out about this saying they're really frustrated with their colleagues in the house for missing this vote on, on such a high profile vote, especially given the fact that so many of these Democrats have been screaming from the rooftops now that they want to impeach Warsaw. It is wild. That in any other industry, in any other sector, even in school, if you were to come out with this my dog ate my homework ass response, you'd get fired, you'd get expelled, you'd get punished, you'd get suspended. Not in Congress. As I've said before, there's three sectors where you are expected to do a bad job and never get punished for it. As a matter of fact, you might get promoted for it. Policing, CEOs, and politicians. Those are the only three places in American society Only three jobs in American society where the expectation is that you fail upwards. It's ridiculous. So there's two different schools of thought here, right? One school of thought is obviously, oh, they failed because of their ineptitude. They were so dumb. They were so silly. The other school of thought is this is by design, that there is always a steady flow of rotating villains. David says, Jeffrey's opponents on the left are making a meal of this. Members who just ducked out for a pointless post-election reception are getting their AIPAC tracker number shot back at them, accused of secretly supporting the Iran war, et cetera. Skip the reception, go to work. Simple as. It's true. Get to ******* work. Chop, chop. Do your goddamn job. Hamid says, the idea of a rotating villain became popular a few years ago, and under Jeffries' tenure, we've repeatedly had Dems defect on Iran, war powers resolutions, flip to advance GOP bills, Marie Concentration Camp Perez did this, Golden did this year, Golden did this in September, without any consequence whatsoever. That's very impactful. Hakeem is basically training the caucus. To actively work against the Democratic Party's agenda. If Hakeem Jeffries does not whip the votes, and then on top of that does not punish those who betray the Democratic Party for one reason or another, he's basically telling people it's up for grabs. You can do whatever the **** you want. This is completely unacceptable. Does this mean he can't control progressives? Buddy, if you think he won't whip the progressives, you are out of your ******* mind. The caucusing only goes in one direction. Only the progressives and the left are... expected to constantly be in tow with the party line. The right flank of the caucus can do whatever the **** they want. They can collude with the Republicans. They can ether bills over and over again. They are expected to do that. That's my point. My point is this is by design. Erica says I can assure you that any Democrat who hit traffic for the impeachment vote for Hakeem Jeffries yesterday causing them to miss the vote would have been camped out inside the house all day if it meant blocking Medicare for all or anything that would help the general public. Yeah. You think they I think they would miss a vote if there weren't enough. Enough votes for funding Israel, for example. If that was in contention, you think those 11 Democrats would not have found a way to be inside of Congress on that glorious day? Are you out of your ******* mind? They would have been camping outside of the halls to ensure that they were there to be that reliable vote, to deliver the goods to Israel, to deliver the bombs to Israel. A member of his caucus famously just endorsed Mike Rogers in Michigan. Will there be consequences for that? Speaking of Jeffries getting his caucus in line, what are the news on the consequences Haley Stevens will be facing? Haley Stevens wasn't there for the vote. She was one of the 11 non-voters. She missed the vote as well. Understand that this whipping goes in one direction and one direction only. It goes right wing. That's it. She's losing her seat. Doesn't matter. Does not matter. I know she's no longer going to be in Congress come January, but it doesn't matter. Congress is in order right now. She still is a public servant. She's still supposed to serve the interests of her constituents. The **** do you mean? Do your job. You're getting paid. Do your ******* job. It's wild to me that the most powerful people in American society, elected representatives, public servants, are not only not expected to do their jobs, but there's always people who will defend them. Have they established anything? Have they shown you that they are worthy of your defense? Why is the expectation that they are not supposed to do their ******* jobs? What are we doing? There's no quiet quitting in Congress. Get the **** to work. Do your goddamn jobs. Adam Johnson asks if impeaching. There's a priority, as Jeffries indicated it was last Sunday. Does Jeffries have a plan to discipline those whose conspicuous absence was dispositive and exit avoiding accountability? What's the plan there? Nancy Pelosi came out and defended Haley Stevens. The apes. What do you think of some of your colleagues calling for Haley Stevens to be kicked out of the Democratic Caucus after she endorsed Mike Rogers at the last minute? Well, you know, we have about three more weeks or two more weeks of being in the Congress, so I don't think we should start making judgments about anybody in the caucus at this point. In other words, compared to what? Compared to what? I was disappointed in that. I've conveyed that to her. I want to be helpful to her in terms of how she deals with this, but I'm not supporting taking that. So you've spoken to her since then? Yes, I have, yes. I mean, does she have any concern about coming back to the Democratic Caucus? We heard reports she was with the Republicans last week. You'll just have to ask her that, about what her plans are. But nonetheless, let's focus on the very positive. This is a great day for our country. What a great class of people. Yeah, Nancy Pelosi, ironically enough, skipped the votes because she was at a Veterans Day event. Swords to Plowshares' 30th Annual Veterans Day Celebration, an important and longstanding district tradition she regularly attends and will mark for the last time as a member of Congress by receiving a Lifetime Advocate for Veterans Award. Here's what she could have done as an advocate for veterans. Get Pete Hegseth the **** out. It's preposterous, but unfortunately... It's expected. There's always something that stands in opposition. The Senate parliamentarian, traffic, couldn't find enough votes. Understand that the whipping happens in the opposite direction with these people. Can you imagine a world where Hakeem Jeffries did not have the sufficient votes to pass a funding bill for Israel? Can you? Honestly, can you? Can you imagine a world, Democrats in Congress could not find the votes? Like the left was playing the role of a spoiler. They were not going to vote for it. So they couldn't find the sufficient votes from right wing Democrats and centrists to advance a funding vehicle for Israel. Absolutely not. So why are you still a Democrat? Great question. Because there's, one, no other alternative in this current existing duopoly, and two, it's because there is a divergence between the voters, their expectations, and the politicians. I am here to explain to people that divergence. I am here to heighten the contradictions. I am here to explain why the things that you vote for never end up getting fulfilled. This is the same argument, the tireless argument over and over again. Oh, look, you're being duped. I'm not. I'm not being duped. I am trying to explain to people why they feel like they're duped. You know what the problem is here? Democrats, when Biden was president, one of my biggest frustrations with the Democratic Party was that they were always coming short when it came down to whipping votes. This is how Flores vote. No, dude, you're missing the forest for the trees. What matters is that the Democrats need to show up as a united front, even if it fails. When Democrats don't show up to vote and say, oh, well, Republicans would have beaten us anyway. They're giving up. They're openly saying we're waving the white flag. It doesn't matter. There's no need for unity. There's no need for a show of strength. There's no need to lean into the momentum. The expectation that we have of our elected representatives is that they do ******* show up no matter what. It's bare minimum, man. If you can't even expect them to do this in a symbolic vote, why the **** do you think they're going to do this for a vote that matters? Are you crazy? This was a real problem with the Biden administration. They could not. sufficiently whip their own caucuses to vote on the Democratic Party's agenda. So the conversation was always about how the Democrats were in disarray, and it was never about the Republicans putting up a united front to tank these good bills that would improve the economy. How do you not understand that? The idea that this would have passed had the 11 showed up is just wrong. I know that that's not the case. But you have to present the fight so that Republicans are laid responsible. The Republicans have to eat the blame. don't actually show up as a united front, then you are responsible. Then Hakeem Jeffries is responsible. It's that simple. By the way, Nathan Robinson is right. He says, I've come to the conclusion that Hakeem Jeffries is the most serious threat to the progressive agenda in the country, more so than Trump himself, and that any progressive not loudly actively opposing Jeffries is actively betraying their movement. I don't think there's any other conclusion you can reach after seeing this. Jeffries will personally ensure Dems pass nothing significant that threatens Wall Street or Israel, and that the entire focus is on taming Trump's worst excesses. And even on the anti-Trump stuff, Jeffries will ensure nothing meaningful actually happens, just symbolic acts like bringing a Hegseth impeachment resolution, deliberately failing to unite his party behind it, and then going, oh, well, oops, we all tried back to doing nothing. Having him as speaker will absolutely crush the momentum of the Democrats, will be totally demoralizing to activists, and will probably kill the party's long-term chances of maintaining power. And it's not about the party's long-term chances of maintaining power, given the current duopoly that exists. ensuring that Republicans never win a seat of power ever again. We are destroying that opportunity here. The wind is on our side. The wind is in our sails. Hakeem Jeffries knocking down this momentum so close to the people's mandate that was delivered to the Democratic Party is indicative of how he is going to govern, how he is going to refuse to whip votes in favor of legislation that are must pass legislation for the people. And he will always find rotating villains that mess up the unity, that the caucus needs to demonstrate. Having him as speaker will absolutely crush the momentum on the Democrats, will be totally demoralizing to activist Nathan J. Robinson, it says, and will probably kill the party's long-term chances of maintaining power. I 100% agree with this assessment. He needs to be defeated. And those who don't get that will realize it too late. Right now, AOC ought to be leading a movement that categorically says no AIPAC policies leading the party, period. They will not get our vote. They'll get our vote if they give concessions and some committee assignments. Now's the time to draw moral lines. If someone runs against Jeffries on a no to AIPAC, no to corporate money Medicare for all pledge, they will receive the overwhelming support of the public. The problem is this is not a public vote. This is not democratic at all. I've explained to you guys what the reasoning is behind why some of our... Left politicians not coming out and endorsing someone in opposition to Hakeem Jeffries for speaker. Okay, I've told you the political realities at play here, and we identified someone who could potentially be a name, even if it's symbolic, a name in opposition to Hakeem Jeffries that fits those standards. Her name is Ayanna Pressley. She has not shown personal interest, even though she keeps tweeting about how she wants real fighters, she wants the Democrats to be united, to fight against the Trump administration for the last 24 hours. She has so far not exactly floated her name, but we are trying to get that out to present her as an alternative. She is not as AIPAC compromised as Hakeem Jeffries is. After all, no one in Congress is as AIPAC compromised as Hakeem Jeffries is. Let's be real. She's a real fighter. She's fought against the Trump administration, trying to restore temporary protected status to the Haitian migrants at a time when the Trump administration is attacking them. Not only is she a good name, she also has the opportunity to stick her neck out. Many of these other Democrats might not. Why? Because even if Hakeem Jeffries sought out her punishment and she was relegated to the backbencher status for the next two years, she should feel confident knowing full well that eventually she will take on Ed Markey's position, that the people will. Present her as the next senator from Massachusetts, her home state. I don't even know if Ed Markey will finish his term. I mean, he's very old. He's very dynamic still, regardless of his 86 plus year old age, whatever how old he is. But the reality of the matter is there is an opportunity for Ayanna Pressley. You understand? Unpopular opinion, can't wait until Democrats regain the gavel or win back the White House. The biggest benefit to Hakeem Jeffries' ambitions of becoming the first black. Speaker of the House, the leader of the Democratic Party, the only thing that is harming our efforts to stop that from taking place is that there is no replacement, no name whatsoever. With Chuck Schumer, the replacement is clear. Chris Van Hollen, he is the perfect person to not only have the experience in Congress, because if Chris Van Hollen stayed in the House of Representatives, he'd probably be the speaker right now. Chris Van Hollen has also led the DSCC. Like, he has a lot of leadership experience. He's old. He's not, like, overtly an activist voter. You know what I mean? But he has done a lot of things in the Senate. As a senator, the base responded positively to going down to El Salvador to get proof of life for Kilmer Obregon-Garcia. That was a huge deal. It was a big turning point. He's also much closer to the base's demands on the issue of Israel and American foreign policy broadly. So there is a perfect replacement for Chuck Schumer. And that's precisely the reason why that conversation very Quickly move, right? Because if you were to ask people, all the knowledgeable parties, a week and a half ago, who would be Chuck Schumer's replacement, they would tell you, no one is going to replace Chuck Schumer. Chuck Schumer is definitely set. He is going to be the leader in the Senate. That conversation changed so fast. Why? Not only because there was appetite for this change, appetite from the base for this change, but there was also appetite inside of the caucus for this change, a leadership change. All the incoming freshman senators had also run and won on replacing Chuck Schumer and party leadership, including those that were coming from red states. But also on top of that, there was a replacement that was quickly positioned. Abdullah Syed had floated his name around when he was running, and he is a great replacement for Chuck Schumer. We don't have that same predicament or position in the House of Representatives. Hakeem Jeffries has no one that fits the same qualities that are necessities, pretty much. Someone who has experience in Congress, someone who's also Black in order to give more confidence to the frustrated vanguard of the Democratic Party, the black voters, especially at a time when the VRA has been gutted, especially at a time when black political power has been personally destroyed by the Republicans at a time when. Black voters are very animated, very frustrated. No one that has any future in the Democratic Party is going to come out and say the possible next leader of the House was about to be a black person, and now we're going to put forward like a white person instead or a non-black person. It's just not going to happen. And I explained this before, and people got very frustrated with me in this community as well. They were like, what about the policies? Like, yes, the policies are obviously important, but that's why I'm saying that Ayanna Pressley could be a great replacement, not only a great replacement, but also a name to fly float around. Ayanna Pressley fits those qualities perfectly. She's not compromised by the same corporate donations in the same way that Hakeem Jeffries is. She's a black woman. She's a fighter. She's much closer to the appetite of the base for a real fight. And she has experience in Congress, longer experience in Congress than Summer Lee does, for example. Way more charismatic than Hakeem as well. That's very important. Voters like her. She's closer to the desires of the base than Hakeem is by a wide margin. And on top of that, she is charismatic. We can't have an anti-Medicare-for-all, pro-Israel guy run the Democratic Party when the Democratic base is demanding these changes, demanding this legislative agenda. Let's hear what Sean the Black had to say about this. Should be the speaker if not Hakeem Jeffries and what that dynamic was? And what Ahsan was saying was that it needed to be somebody who was black and established. In Congress. to challenge Hakeem Jeffries and nobody wants to be the person who stops the first black speaker from becoming the first black speaker, which I think he's correct. I think he's right about how people in DC feel about Hakeem Jeffries. I think he's wrong because I don't think he's wrong. I think those people he's quoting are wrong, right? To feel that way because the black people care I care more about the Democrats getting things done as opposed. To Hakeem Jeffries being the first black. Yeah, but the replacement hat. Here's the thing. This would be a historic. pick from the perspective of everyone involved. If they were to thwart this potentially historic pick, if any Democrat were to come out and thwart the first historic pick, I do think that they would get punished for it. There would be a tremendous amount of backlash. Everyone would say this is white supremacist. Everyone would say this is like the Democrats betraying black people. And it would be a mountain of controversy, unnecessary controversy, okay? It would be It would be viewed as a betrayal. It would be presented as a betrayal in the media. It would disunite the caucus, disunite the base. In a perfect world, it doesn't matter, right? I don't give a ----. I care about the policies. That's what I care about first and foremost. This is more so a name. It's a name to kickstart the process. That's the point. Ayanna Pressley would be a fantastic replacement, even if she does not have the established presence in the caucus, but she would be a phenomenal replacement nevertheless. It's just that even if she doesn't get the sufficient votes, This would kickstart the process. of that conversation. The conversation that Hakeem Jeffries is unqualified, You understand? Hakeem Jeffries is unqualified to lead the Democratic Party. And in order for us to even have that conversation in broad daylight, we need a replacement that fits the other standards that I just mentioned. She launched a petition for supporters to endorse Ayanna's agenda and make calls for her to run for Speaker of the House against Hakeem Jeffries. It lists advancing Medicare for all, passing national abortion protections, swapping data centers, and abolishing ICE. There's also a separate change.org petition to make Ayanna Pressley run for Speaker of the House, and that has 18,000 signatures so far in less than like 12 to 13 hours. If there was someone like Ayanna Pressley who was getting tremendous amounts of support to run against Hakeem Jeffries, This would deliver a decisive blow to the confidence of Hakeem Jeffries being the next leader in the Democratic Party. It would show that the voters are not united around Hakeem Jeffries. It would cause a significant amount of public pressure that even if Hakeem Jeffries ended up becoming the speaker regardless, he would have to deal with the rest of the caucus, specifically the left and the voters themselves. It's important. This conversation is important It's important to have because right now everyone treats Hakeem Jeffries as, as as this infallible institution that is impossible to deal with. It's a done deal. People are looking at Hakeem Jeffries as though it's a done deal. He's the leader of the party. He's the leader of the Democrats. And I think that's unacceptable. It's totally unacceptable. We have to give confidence to people who are not exactly fond of Hakeem Jeffries or are worried about how he's going to do these committee assignments and how he is going to govern. I'm sick and tired of do-nothing Democrats. I'm sick and tired of not getting the changes that we ******* voted for. Not getting the changes that we actually protested for in the streets. We want real fighters. The time for change is now. People are hungry for it. People have the appetite for it. And while there is this appetite, this very clear need, we have to keep applying pressure. We have to keep pushing back. Because Hakeem Jeffries is going to destroy that momentum. The Speaker of the House won't be voting on until the new Congress begins in January. Most Democrats are expected to back current Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries. House Republicans chose their new leader, too. I just don't have the same confidence that AOC and Zoran has that Hakeem Jeffries is actually going to do right by the left. I know how much. disdain he has for the left. I know the reason why he was elevated to this position of prominence in the party was specifically to rat **** the left every step of the way. And I also know that the way these things work, we as outsiders can apply pressure when our electeds can't. We are the voters. We are the base. They have to reckon with us. They have to listen to our demands. They are public servants. They're not corporate servants. They're public servants. I know for a fact that there. There are no downsides for us to continue maintaining the pressure and let our voices be heard. Let our demands be known that Hakeem Jeffries is insufficient for this moment. He is not the right man for the job and we demand a replacement. After all, this is supposed to be a democratic process. This is not a Marxist-Leninist party. There's no intra-party affairs. It's not supposed to be that way. You can't, on the one hand, criticize Chinese governance and say, oh, they have a one They don't even listen to anything. They don't listen to the demands of the voters or whatever, and then turn around and try to operate with democratic centralism in mind within the Democratic Party when we are supposed to be a small d democracy. Democrats want Lenin, but for centrism, it's ridiculous. What's up, YouTube? If you liked that video, please like, subscribe, and turn on the notifications. Also, tune into my stream. I'm probably live right now at twitch.tv/hasanabi. And support independent media like the Piker Broadcasting Service, the People's Broadcasting Service. Thank you. Ainsley Earnhardt did it better. Shut up!