you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 8 points 12 hours ago (4 children)

Looking for clarification on something:

If this vote happened and Hegseth was impeached, couldn't Trump and the current GOP Senate just back-fill his cabinet position before January with no opposition from Democrats?

In other words, wouldn't it be better to impeach after Democrats have control of Senate where there is a 51 confirmation requirement?

  • source
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 17 points 9 hours ago

    It doesn't matter it takes 67 senate votes to convict, he can't be removed either now or later. The point of the vote was whether Massie gets to make everybody in the House go on record voting whether they support illegally starting two wars, murdering 200 elementary school children, and massacring Caribbean fishermen under no quarter. Which is why a lot of these Democrats sat it out, they were the ones cheering Hegseth on when he did all that shit and don't want to have to stand by it now that they've noticed the peasants are unhappy.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 4 points 1 hour ago (2 children)

    A) Now that the articles have been introduced they can be brought up for a demand vote by the Speaker at any time, including in January when the speaker chances.

    B) This is about creating and destroying political capital, as the other user said. Those 11 dems now explicitly endorse Pete Hegseth and the Trump regime, including all of its crimes. It's on record now, and that record will be used by both republicans and dems against them when they're up for reelection. It's a vote to show your hand and your donors.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 1 hour ago (1 child)

    For (B) I still don't quite get it because, for example, Pelosi is a lame duck retiring anyway come January. What did she have to lose by voting Yes for posterity, especially when substantively it would've led to nothing happened given the Senate vote threshold?

    Pretty obvious how badly this looks -- I mean Hegseth is pretty universally unliked.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 2 points 1 hour ago

    What did she have to lose? Her fortune, her family's assets, any and all legitimacy she has. While you say she's a lame duck, she's still 'respected' by representatives in power. By making this stance clear, it's another thing that can be used against representatives that think Pelosi and her choices have any positive impact on democrats or society - aka, it's a cudgel people can hit AOC on the head with the next time she tries to defer to centrist dems on something.

    Pelosi might be gone, but her legacy of 'raising' junior reps is not, and those junior reps, for 'some' reason keep doing her bidding even when it goes against the mandate they were elected for.

  • source
  • parent