Alexander Bushnell

Just because Republican cards are dealt to us doesn’t mean we have to play them and especially not with them controlling the whole game - not to mention creating it to begin with through a grudge fueled, staunch Republican with flexible morals. Standing on principles may keep Democrats warm at night but it’s not going to help us in the long run. The choice is yours: perpetuate the rage-bait or think through the entire scenario and compare it to the scenario that could happen in January. Then ask yourself which scenario has a greater likelihood of succeeding with the highest rewards.

🚨‼️DEMOCRATS, PLEASE LEARN HOW IMPEACHMENT WORKS BEFORE LOSING YOUR COLLECTIVE MINDS. 🚨‼️ My feed is overflowing with outrage about yesterday's Hegseth “impeachment vote”. Unfortunately, much of that outrage is based on misinformation and a fundamental misunderstanding of congressional procedure. WE DID NOT LOSE “THE” IMPEACHMENT VOTE. WE LOST A PROCEDURAL VOTE ON ARTICLES THAT, IN MY OPINION, WERE WEAK, SLOPPY, AND INADEQUATELY SUPPORTED BY EVIDENCE. THERE WAS NEVER GOING TO BE A VOTE TO ACTUALLY IMPEACH HEGSETH YESTERDAY, FOLKS. YOU GOT IT WRONG. First: In the world of Congress, what does it mean to REFER something? In this case, it means sending Massie's impeachment resolution to the House Judiciary Committee for consideration. It does NOT mean referring Hegseth for impeachment, approving the articles, or voting then & there to impeach him. The committee can review the resolution, take further action, or simply let it sit without advancing it. HERE'S WHAT ACTUALLY HAPPENED: - The House did NOT vote to impeach Hegseth. They were never going to yesterday, folks. Republicans moved to REFER Massie's impeachment resolution to the Judiciary Committee. That motion passed 211–204. - YES, 11 Democrats were absent. Seven Republicans also did not vote. Had all 18 members voted along party lines, THE REFERRAL TO COMMITTEE WOULD HAVE STILL PASSED 218–215. Had only the 11 Democrats voted against referral, it would have failed 211–215. Both scenarios matter, and neither would have impeached Hegseth. - Defeating referral could have opened the door to a vote on the actual articles. It would NOT have guaranteed one. Republicans had other procedural options, including moving to table the resolution, which they would've done IMMEDIATELY. - Even if an impeachment vote had occurred, Massie was the ONLY Republican to vote against referral. There was no demonstrated Republican coalition sufficient to impeach Hegseth. - Before accusing absent Democrats of sabotage, consider that some were ill, others had the flu, and Rep. Melanie Stansbury & several others were reportedly prevented from reaching the Capitol by a major traffic accident. And please stop treating unverified AIPAC happy-hour rumors as established facts. You know better. NOW, LET'S TALK ABOUT MASSIE. Massie admitted he didn't whip votes. He introduced 8 articles of impeachment WITHOUT first building a comprehensive evidentiary record through committee investigations, hearings, subpoenas, EVIDENCE, or sworn testimony. Remember how the Trump DOJ slaps together filings which read like an Op Eds but have very little evidence or weak legal merit? Yah, that’s what happened here. In my opinion, several articles also raise serious legal and evidentiary questions. Allegations are not proof, and impressive-sounding legal language doesn't necessarily make for a strong impeachment case. His articles were not supported by a comprehensive investigative record (emails, texts, videos, witness testimony, reports, written legal advice from JAG, recordings, etc.). There was no true evidentiary record! Was Massie's resolution constitutionally permissible? Absolutely. But he could have written those exact articles on notebook paper and turned them in like answers to an essay question, and they still could have been constitutionally permissible. That's a pretty low bar. Was it a serious, coordinated strategy with a realistic path to impeachment? I don't believe so. I consider it political theater. IMO, y'all should be irate with Massie and not all Dems. Your anger is misplaced. However! I do understand the anger over the principle. Democrats campaigned on fighting corruption, and 11 members missing that first opportunity is frustrating. Bad optics, absolutely. But, IMO, folks are giving Massie and his articles WAAAAAAAAAAAY too much credit and weight and not asking the right questions. AND HERE'S THE BIGGER PICTURE: Democrats are preparing to take control of the House in January. They will have the opportunity to conduct investigations, subpoena witnesses & records, gather evidence, hold public hearings, and build carefully constructed articles of impeachment. THAT is the kind of accountability I want. I want evidence uncovered that can be used in other investigations and proceedings. I want evidence that exposes the involvement of others. I want FULL transparency and accountability that extends beyond one individual. I want devastating and incriminating evidence shown to the world, including the UN, NATO and ICC. And for those demanding transparency while furious about yesterday, ask yourselves what you actually want: instant gratification (or instant disappointment in this instance) from a rushed procedural vote to vote on impeachment that WAS NEVER GOING TO PASS YESTERDAY IN THE FIRST PLACE, or a thorough investigation that follows the evidence wherever it leads? So please stop attacking fellow Democrats based on assumptions, rumors, ignorance, righteous indignation and procedural misunderstandings. You are falling for the "divide and conquer" strategy hook, line & sinker. That being said, would you all be interested in an IMPEACHMENT PRIMER explaining how impeachment actually works, including the procedural maneuvers used to advance, delay, or kill it? Because judging by my feed this morning, we desperately need one.