Yes, some Democrats weren't present for the vote. Some Republicans weren't either.
The current House leadership called the vote specifically because the Democrats weren't there. If they were, they wouldn't call the vote.
How about we maybe wait until the new Congress gets seated with a Democratic majority before we start blaming them for shenanigans?
I definitely agree that it feels like there's something funny going on with the missing Dems.
That said, I think something like half of all Democrats (and more Republicans) in congress get support from AIPAC, so singling out these 11, many of whom had relatively small contributions from AIPAC is pretty obviously intentionally misleading.
I'm not saying this article is right or wrong, but it feels more like propaganda than reporting.
"Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity."
While I’m certainly willing to believe that, perhaps two or three of these house representatives were “conveniently otherwise occupied“ due to the influence of special interest interests, I’ve seen interviews with the majority of them, and they were clearly just being irresponsible dumbasses.
I mean… Have you met people?
Edit: Don Lemon even interviewed one of these house representatives, and all he could say was how much of an idiot he was and that he was sorry.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=MfV7C09f6Mg&pp=ygUJZG9uIGxlbW9u&ra=m
If nothing else, it’s refreshing to see politicians admit when they fucked up and did the wrong thing. And gasp! Apologize for it? At least it’s progress from the Trump shit show we’ve had for the last (1)2 years.
Distraction from
Don't get me wrong, this isn't trump leading the distraction, he's too far gone mentally to do anything like that on purpose.
You've literally got a $0 AIPAC donation person listed in your graphic. You're not a serious person.
Can we get a proper list of AIPAC donations, ranked from highest to lowest of all members, and then highlight which weren't there? I'm guessing there's a lot more donations and chery picking these people makes it look more intentional than it was.
Why couldn't they literally just submit it again for a vote? I'm guessing because Republicans put it up for this very specific type of vote and it can't be redone until January. If it was another type of vote, they could have literally just tried it again with more members present if they were serious about it.
You want to hate on AIPAC, go ahead. But don't do it as GOP puppets. Enough with the anti-Democrat crap. Petending like you aren't falling for GOP's manufactured outrage is 100% on brand for unserious people. If it doesn't happen in January, then I'll re-join you in your anger.
I guess Melanie stansbury just did it for the love of the game since shes the only one who didnt receive AIPAC money (according to the chart anyway).
I am just happy AIPAC is getting exposed for what they really are, a foreign agent that manipulates and uses american taxpayer funds to drop bombs on women and children in palestine. You take money from israel, you will fail at the polls and the elections.
Wait, you guys got paid for this??
Sure did! I got 13k. Ka-fucking-ching, baby!
Nice, I've got 15! Haley, how about you?
... same, 15k.
I wonder if this is a calculated move to wait until after the new Congress is sworn in, but that might be way too charitable.
I'm going to keep pasting everytime someone posts a new article about this dead horse...
Maybe some of you don't realize this, but while I don't like the Dem party, this is clearly news bait to drive a wedge in the left.
The vote wasn't whether or not to impeach, it was whether or not to move the impeachment to committee.
It was also called short, before Dems that COULD'VE been present could arrive.
The GOP loves playing games, this is them playing games and you're falling for it.
Man what kind of jobs are you people working where you get fired for being stuck in traffic. Not defending these people, but some of the discourse I've seen around this has been insane.
So help me out here. I understand the vote was 211-204 against, with Massie (R) being the only republican to vote with the Democrats for impeachment. But the US House is still 219 Republicans - 214 Democrats until January. Wouldn't the Republicans have just waited until a more opportune time to call the vote, when they had all 218 Nay voting members present, if those 11 Democrats had been there? Meaning the presence of the 11 Democrats really didn't matter with regard to the outcome of the vote, just the timing of it?
It only costs $13K to tank a congressman’s vote?
Shit I should give it a try.
As difficult of a pill as this is to swallow, an impeachment vote wouldn't solve the problem. It would put people on record, sure, but anyone who's paying attention already has there mind made up about hegseth, and those supporting his position. To actually remove him, it would take 2/3rds of the Senate to convict him, which is definitely not in the cards until January, and even then it's a pipe dream.
The real change that is needed is the rebuke of citizens united, and the removal of private money from politics. Publicly funded elections and severe reprimands for anyone taking money under the table are the only ways I can see to make sure our representatives actually have a drive to represent us. The billions of dollars of private money is why, time and time again, politicians vote explicitly against the desires of the majority of their constituents.
That or guillotines.
Isn't Jeffries supposed to be in that picture?
all 37 comments