Buy One, Get One Free

Impeachment Inquiry, National Defense Authorization Act

Feathers of Hope is a network of ordinary citizens who joined together around a shared commitment to diminishing the power and influence of MAGA extremists in the House of Representatives.

Since January, we have been urging moderate Republicans and Democrats to form a bipartisan majority voting bloc for the purpose of electing a new Republican Speaker, one who owes nothing to the minority MAGA group.

• On Wednesday, October 25, Republicans made a different choice. Rejecting the idea of a cross-party alliance, they voted unanimously to elect a MAGA-affiliated Speaker.

• We remain committed to defending the institution of the House of Representatives.

• We remain committed to diminishing the power and influence of MAGA extremists in the People’s House.

Note: This site can also be accessed by entering FeathersOfHope.net in your browser window.

Republicans unanimous in vote for Impeachment Inquiry

On Wednesday, December 13, every Republican member of the House of Representatives voted to formally authorize an impeachment inquiry against President Biden.

This came as a surprise to many observers who expected at least a few dissenters. Several Republicans have consistently expressed unwillingness to take this step in the absence of any concrete evidence of “Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors” — the Constitutional definition of an impeachable offense.

As Sarah Jones and Jason Easley pointed out in Politicus on Tuesday, even Freedom Caucus stalwart Ken Buck (R-CO) appearing on CNN just two months ago, said this about a possible inquiry vote:

“They are looking to see if there is a connection with Joe Biden. If they reach that point, where they could find evidence of a connection, fine. … Right now, I'm not convinced that that evidence exists. And I'm not supporting an impeachment inquiry.”

On September 15, he wrote in the Washington Post:

“Republicans in the House who are itching for an impeachment are relying on an imagined history. . . . But impeachment is a serious matter and should have a foundation of rock-solid facts.”

As recently as three weeks ago, Mr. Buck said, “I thought [McCarthy] didn’t bring it to the floor before because he didn’t have the votes, and my guess is that we still don’t have the votes,”

Likewise, many moderates, those whom Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-NY) refers to as “traditional Republicans” have insisted that some evidence is necessary before formalizing such an inquiry.

Rep. David Joyce (R-OH), one of a handful of those we at Feathers of Hope have been lobbying over the past year, said this in early August:

“You hear a lot of rumor and innuendo … but that’s not fact to me. As a former prosecutor, I think there has to be facts, and I think there has to be due process that we follow, and I’ve not seen any of that today,”

About the same time, Rep. Don Bacon (R-NE) perhaps the most influential of the moderate traditionals, said this:

“I think before we move on to [an] impeachment inquiry, we should … there should be a direct link to the president in some evidence…We should have some clear evidence of a high crime or misdemeanor, not just assuming there may be one. I think we need to have more concrete evidence to go down that path.” 

---

So what changed?

Most commentary from progressive sources have bemoaned the power of Donald Trump and his MAGA representatives to intimidate “feckless so-called moderates”. It’s said that they simply lack the courage of their convictions, and are fearful of offending “the base” of their party.

Much of this commentary is tinged with disgust, anger and name-calling. Very few have bothered making any attempt to understand the forces at play in a closely divided legislative chamber.

Here at Feathers of Hope, where we’ve long advocated a cross-party alliance, we recognize that the House Republican Conference is no longer a unified team. As discussed at length in our posts In Search of Moderate Republicans (November 13) and What’s the Game Plan, Moderates? (November 10), a distinct split has grown within the Conference between MAGA extremists who “want to burn the whole place down” and traditional Republicans who hold conservative viewpoints but value the institution of the House of Representatives. The latter have regularly echoed right-wing talking points, but on major issues like the debt ceiling increase and government funding they vote with Democrats.

So despite their resistance to formally joining a cross-party alliance, Republican moderates have in effect entered into an informal coalition of opposition. Together, Democrats and “traditional Republicans” have successfully opposed attempts to pass proposals too extreme to pass the Senate or become law.

What did moderates get in exchange for their votes?

In any coalition, compromises and vote-trading are the coin of the realm. Most every member of Congress can point to votes they didn’t want to cast, but did so in order to win support for their own bill. Making promises and keeping one’s word is crucial to smooth order in this unique legislative world. That’s largely why Kevin McCarthy’s Speakership failed. As one dissatisfied Republican representative complained, “For him (McCarthy), ‘yes’ means maybe and ‘maybe’ means no.”

Moderate traditional Republicans, being swing voters in the House, must work with both the majority and the minority parties in order to wield their decisive power. And as members of the majority party, they must be particularly sensitive to the needs of their Speaker, Mike Johnson (R-LA). In most cases, he’s the one who ultimately decides what bills come to the floor for a vote.

There’s no reason to believe that members of the moderate traditional faction were suddenly stricken with fear of MAGA extremists.

Keep in mind that they were not at all intimidated by a deluge of threats endured when refusing to support MAGA hero Jim Jordan (R-OH) for Speaker in October. The far more likely explanation for voting in favor of an impeachment inquiry is that Mr. Johnson needed them to do so. And it follows that he almost certainly offered something to them in exchange.

While Mr. Johnson has a history of being aligned with the MAGA faction, and is an advocate for far-right positions on many issues, he is not among those extremists whose primary intention is to obstruct and disrupt. Once former Speaker McCarthy reached an agreement with President Biden, Mr. Johnson voted for the Fiscal Responsibility Act, which raised the debt ceiling and set government funding levels for FY 2024. He also introduced and voted for the “laddered” Continuing Resolutions which currently are funding government operations. The extremists opposed both.

On Thursday, the House passed the NDAA.

Just one day after Republicans voted unanimously to formalize an impeachment inquiry, the House passed the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) by a 310-118 vote. This is one of the 12 appropriation bills needed to fund the government through FY 2024, and it had not been expected to reach the floor before the Christmas break.

Speaker Johnson agreed to a suspension of the rules in order to bring the Senate-passed NDAA to the floor quickly, as it would surely have been held-up by the Rules Committee under usual order. Previously-approved House versions of the NDAA had various “culture war” provisions attached, which targeted so-called “woke” military policies on abortion, race and gender-affirming care. Despite the Senate version being stripped of nearly all these measures, 147 Republicans voted for the bill along with 163 Democrats.

We know of no explicit agreement between Speaker Johnson and the moderate traditionals. But it’s safe to assume that a prolonged debate over the impeachment inquiry vote would have made it impossible to pass the NDAA on Thursday. After all, that is the modus operandi of MAGA extremists — obstruct and disrupt. In this instance, agreeing with the extremists defeated them.

And there is some slight merit to the argument that an inquiry, even when formalized, is still only an inquiry. It won’t require, and is unlikely to ever produce an actual vote for impeachment. Democratic members of the committee will continue to discredit the bogus accusations. In the end, it’ll expose for all to see that there is absolutely no credible evidence of any high crime or misdemeanor by the President. As the inquiry quietly peters out, President Biden will be publicly exonerated.

MAGA will be handed yet another stinging defeat, just as Donald Trump stands trial for numerous felonies in the months leading up to election day.

This is a network of ordinary citizens. In a democracy, we exercise our power by raising our voices. To be silent is to be powerless.