Jeffries likely shot himself in the foot with his Kushner meeting. He might not be elected speaker after this. Someone like Jamie Raskin would be a better choice.
Jamie Raskin would be 1000% better as Speaker of the House than Hakeem Jeffries. Time and time again, I felt Jeffries had disqualified himself for Speaker before thus latest blunder. The meeting with Kushner was his Waterloo. Thank you for laying out all the reasons in your article, Jen. Thank you for continuing your writing as you heal your throat. (We do miss seeing you on Substack Live).
Jen Rubin's paragraph summarizing all the reasons there is no common ground with these thugs calling themselves Republicans--what is Jeffries thinking!--was the most brilliant piece of writing I've seen in a while.
I run across a lot of transplanted New Yorkers in my neck of the woods in California. They don't like HakeemJeffries either. For whatever reason, Jeffries garnered Nancy Pelosi's early support. Now that Pelosi is retiring, I think Jeffries will find his support for Speakership waning after the Midterms.
Seems like there is very little chance of that. Democratic voters would have no choice but to vote for the Republican, Lewis Mizrahi. Or stay home in large enough numbers that it would torpedo him.
yes, but even without Pelosi (I guess she just wanted a puppet she could control), i think Schumer (although in the Senate) has enough influence with NY voters to prop him up. IMHO, Jeffries makes Li'l Mikey Johnson look like a principled man with values.
I am not so sure that is true, living in NYC and recently living in his district for some time. There was a move toward a challenger early in this cycle, but Mamdani didn't support the move and it didn't go far. Gov Hochul is quite close to Jeffries and Mamdani was playing a delicate political dance early on, since he really needed the governor's support as a new mayor. Many of the new Democratic NYC candidates are in a similar position right now. His district has many DSA supporters and other progressive Dems who are really sick of him.
That could definitely change a lot after this election, especially with Jeffries's continuing missteps. Right now many Dems in Congress are being cagey when asked, but a survey last fall showed a sizable number of House Dems either non-committal on backing Jeffries' leadership or outright opposed to it...we will see.
Sure! Having said all that, Jeffries still does have some support and is still formidable..he raises lots of money and has insider pull. He was more popular once upon a time..
But this last unforced error has really rolled him...the timing, the action itself, the secrecy, his reaction, the fact that it looks like he was just played hard and was oblivious to how this would go.. I don't know if I've ever seen such a unified negative response to anything he's done.
When Jennifer Rubin and Mehdi Hasan are saying nearly the exact same thing about your actions, you are really in the weeds.
People in other posts I read who are from his Brooklyn district do not seem to like him. I think Schumer just kneecaps any opponents and uses his "influence" to create the votes for Jeffries. I am seriously thinking of sending Jeffries' Republican opponent, Lewis Mizrahi, $5 just to express my anti-Jeffries outrage.
The corporate Democrats are terrified of losing their cash stream - so terrified that that Jeffries took that meeting with Kushner on the 'down low' and QT... But it is becoming increasingly apparent that huge ad campaigns by PACs are being picked up by the voters and ignored. Outreach to voters with actual ideas for change and the right amount of Righteous Indignation seems to be the formula for this age.
Here is a posing I made on Gloria J. Maloney's Substack.
Jeffries meets with Kushner and all of a sudden Jeffries pulls his support for universal healthcare. Suspicious.
First question that needs to be asked is who called for the meeting? The second question is why? Let me give Jeffries the benefit of a doubt initially. Let’s say he wanted to understand how best to communicate with the Trump administration to make the lawmaking process go more smoothly. My obvious question is, “Why Kushner?”. He’s not a cabinet member and is only a defacto member of Trump’s administration. Therefore, the information he was likely to gleam from this meeting would be suspect, at best. If Jeffries wanted to speak to a senior cabinet official, why was he shunted off to Kushner, and why then would Jeffries agree to meeting with an underling with no authority to commit to any plan they may have discussed. This all would make Jeffries look weak.What if Kushner called the meeting, saying that he was directed by the Secretary of State to brief Jeffries on some of the nuances of Iran negotiations and of discussions with other leaders in the region. If this were the case, then disclosing this would be of benefit to Jeffries and to the Trump Administration, showing cooperation so if Jeffries became Speaker, he would more clearly understand what the situation on the ground in Iran actually was. All of this makes too much sense, like the Trump administration was interested in any kind of cooperation. So, I toss this out as not conforming to the character of the Trump and his administration. This leaves me with only one conclusion. Kushner called the meeting to threaten Jeffries and Trump used Kushner to give him credible deniability should Jeffries leak the true intention of the meeting.
The threats were likely both physical and financial. My guess, Jeffries agreed to Kushner’s terms and to demonstrate his acquiescence to Kushner’s, i.e. Trump’s terms. Kusher told him he had to eliminate his backing for universal health care or suffer the consequences. This would benefit many of Trump’s donors like pharmaceutical companies and for-profit hospitals and health insurance companies, all of which would stand to lose significant money if a universal healthcare plan were adopted. On Jeffries’ side, he raised $650,000 from healthcare related groups which make up roughly 4% of the money he raised in 2024. So, his campaign financial impact would be minimal and could be made up with cash on hand. Jeffries could also claim that putting together a universal healthcare program would not be feasible with the current congressional makeup and even after the mid-terms, he would not have adequate number to override a Trump veto, so he was shifting his focus to other areas.
One of these or none may be the case, and we won’t know until Jeffries shows some transparency – something politicians of all parties are reticent to do. If he is asked by the press, he will simply claim national security issues and not answer. We’ll see!
I can see Kushner being the delivery boy for tRump threats, but it has the appearance and stench of something corrupt. I see it as a losing situation for Jeffries and Democrats. We need to vote in November in numbers on the order of the recent numbers in Hungary. tRump has already said he will pardon 'everybody who got within 200' of the Oval Office'. I would like to hear Jen and some other legal scholars on whether there is any path at all to negate a Presidential Pardon?
A losing situation for Jeffries but a winning situation for Democrats because this will force the issue of who will become House speaker. Jeffries is clearly not up to the job. Please, everyone, write to your Dem representatives and urge them to elect a strong, Progressive speaker. Some names come to mind, for example: Raskin, Dean, Ansari, Lieu, Khanna, Neguse, Castro, Casar. . . any of these would be good.
I'm impressed with Rep. Robert Garcia of CA. He's quiet but effective and very very strong in his values stances. I think he would be able to form intra-Democratic coalitions and glue people together to act in unity and strongly for what is right, not just what is expedient. I like Raskin and Khanna too. (Not familiar with the others.)
But, I fear the current DOJ would seek to move those types of cases to Federal Courts. If these pardons are inevitable, we must amend the Constitution to eliminate that power. There must be multiple mechanisms to bring down a corrupt, criminal president.
Threats to "national security" are being used as an all-purpose cudgel and scare tactic. In the name of truth and transparency, we need to know exactly how it's being threatened instead of throwing the term around indiscriminately. As it is, the term is losing its punch due to over-use.
I agree. Although you are very kind in your analysis, even though it is appropriately unflattering, of Jeffries' and Kushner's potential motivations. My own opinion is that Kushner called the meeting, Jeffries came to heel, and Kushner said, we'll put a billion dollars in your personal account if you promise not to impeach Trump and we'll give you a large stake in the Nazi fascist empire we're building.. If you don't take the offer, we'll have your children killed. And Jeffries said, I'll take it under serious consideration.
I was thinking along the same lines. If you are reading about the big Epstein Class plans in the works (now under Kushner leadership), from writers such as Kait Justice, Alisa Valdez-Rodriguez, Monica Andreasen, Leah, and others as well as people like Peter Thiel revealing his own goals, Musk's continuing abilities to buy or steal elections, and Lutnick and Bessent's monetary system schemes, you can see Kushner's movement has a lot at stake. We're talking world dominance in the hands of a few oligarchs taking over everything. Kushner has deals with Israel, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, UAE, and Russia for starters.. Universal Healthcare is just a grain of sand in the desert of distractions. This group's coercion tactics are well known: bribery, intimidation, extortion, threats to family, reputation, and future political opportunities, blackmail, and death, including of family members. I doubt Jeffries jumped at the chance to give Kushner a place at the table and initiated the talk. Nope, Jared is making sure that Jeffries knows who's going to continue to be the big players. We see more and more the control this group has had on presidencies of both parties since at least the Reagan years, and with the current Supreme Court, DOJ, and FBI still in place, there is a lot of uphill climbing ahead, even if the Dems end up taking the House and Senate.
We'll never know until Jeffries comes up for a vote. We'll also see who in the Democratic party really cares about the House leadership, or how many will simply follow the money their oligarchs feed them.
Jeffries is up for a vote now. There is no one opposing him. The only option is for the liberal Democrats in his district to vote for the Republican. ?@!!
No one opposes him because Pelosi won't LET anyone oppose him. Jeffries is her boy. I send Pelosi postcards telling her to get Jeffries out. That he is done. Can you call or postcard Pelosi too?
What was Nancy Pelosi thinking? Jeffries has always been a limp wrist. And now we know he’s an idiot and worse. He and Schumer must go! Love the Jamie Raskin nod.
There are probably others, but Raskin seems to be a no nonsense guy. He will also go after Trump's illegal and unconstitutional activities like a pit bull smelling a good steak.
I get Raskin’s ‘s quarterly newsletter to his constituents even though I’m in Virginia and not one. He’s always thinking of the little guy and giving information on healthcare concerns, etc. So refreshing. Then there is his brave pit bull aspect that was so admirable during the January 6 hearings. I’m a fan.
Democrats will need to stabilize the country before exploring ways to work in a bipartisan way. Jeffries just blew his opportunity to lead the House to do this.
Does Kushner even have security clearance? That’s maybe a separate issue than the Jeffries meeting, but the point is Kushner has no official role and he is not bound by any ethical standard (as stated by Jen). This meeting was a major red flag for me. And yes. As a constitutional scholar, Jamie Raskin is who we need as we fix this unbelievable mess. So much to fix and restore and strengthen so this can never happen again.
So much to fix is right. Congress needs a process to address fixes not just Band Aides. The process is easy to outline but hard to execute. Identify an issue to be corrected, determine the root cause of the issue (the hard part), then fix the root cause. This process worked for me for thirty years in the Navy's nuclear submarine program.
Donna, I believe "Speaker" Raskin has the experience and common sense to delegate the draft of Articles of Impeachment to an effective committee of Constitutional experts. I believe he recognizes that he cannot manage both the House and drafting Impeachment documents
Jamie Raskin for Speaker. He can manage someone else on impeachment articles and more! We need more people working on these kinds of things not the same ones. Jamie‘s got experience and he can spread it around.
Jeffries is Pelosi's hand picked successor. I am sure he's a wizard at "machine politics". But that's not what I want, and clearly not what MANY Democratic voting Americans want in 2026. I want someone able and willing to directly confront corruption wherever he sees it and demand his House look into it, and refer for criminal prosecution whenever it seems appropriate.
I don't need a witch hunt... we already know who the witches are! We just need to be sure we expose them to the public and to the legal consequences of their actions! Maybe someone else should be Speaker and Jeffries can be Whip. I imagine he'll be a great vote-wrangler and vote-counter. It's a critical job and I think he'd be good at it. But I am not convinced he's the right man to be Speaker next year.
I LOVE Jamie Raskin and his competence, but I think he would help the democratic cause much more in his other leadership positions. His many talents would be wasted in the speaker role. I vote for AOC as the new speaker. She is the only one with the balls to do it, just like Nancy was.
I agree. Rankin's political and common sense seem far superior to Jeffries. I believe Rankin would make strict scrutiny, rule of law and swift referral to the court system for corruption a major part of the House Democratic policy and agenda. It would be a significant improvement over either Little Mikey or Jeffries.
I fully agree with you. I’ve never felt that Jeffries has the strength to become speaker of the house. He hesitates when he speaks and I realize a lot of people might do that because they’re thinking on how they want to form their sentences, he’s not forceful enough in his messages. I agree, Jimmy Raskin would make a better speaker!
Step one is a great idea, but will take a total changeout of congress and a long time. Also, the Fixes will likely be to everyone's liking. Can't argue with step 2.
At first, he seemed like a reasonable choice as speaker, but he has been more and more disappointing with each passing day. Any of the more progressive Dems would be a far more palatable replacement.
I have an aternative opinion. DEMs could benefit having someone who can communicate with Trump, who is fearful of the consequence of losing the Congress this midterm. He could plan something extraordinary and some assurance of his minimum safety might help him from acting it. I might be wrong but would like to hear others.
Let me start off with a pet Pieve of mine. It’s Democrats not DEMs. DEMs is a term of derision probably started by MAGA republicans. No one calls Republicans REPs.
OK, venting complete, so let me get back to your really good question. Finding someone who can communicate with Trump. Communication is a two-way street, and Trump has “one way” embossed on his buttocks, one word on each cheek. Trump only listens when the speaker is doing one of two things; praising him or telling him about a scheme that will make him money. This is why you see him sleeping through briefings and sometimes in cabinet meetings. You can tell him anything you want, he just won’t acknowledge what you are saying. You can ask for his opinion and all you’ll get for an answer is “I know nothing about that” or he’ll change the topic.
Trump makes crazy and dangerous proposals on an almost daily basis. He acknowledges that there is danger in what he says, but as long as he has a dedicated secret service team to protect him, he just doesn’t care. He does respond to threats, but only if they are made from someone who can follow through with them. This won’t be the case until after the mid-terms, assuming the Democrats control both the House and Senate.
Thank you for your question. I hope you get a lot of replies.
I felt like Charlie Brown and said, "Good grief" when I read about Jeffries' meeting with Kushner. Both Jeffries and Schumer should lose their leadership positions after the midterm elections. Can anyone imagine Nancy Pelosi exhibiting such poor judgment? The Democrats need competent leadership in these perilous times. We can do better.
There would be a downside, in that while she would not be a voting member of the House she would claim a spot. So this wouldn't be a good move if the Dems didn't have a clear lead in the House. Assuming the will, then the could afford to elect a non-member as Speaker.
Where in heaven's name do you get your information? Of course the Speaker is a voting member of the House of Representatives (Civics & Government 101).
No, Steve. If the House elects a non-member to be Speaker, then the Speaker will have no vote, including being excluded from casting a tie-breaking vote. The House has never before elected a non-member to be Speaker but the Constitution doesn't impose membership as a qualification. Article 1 of the Constitution.
I can't trust "news" reports but has Jasmine Crockett agreed to campaign with James Talarico? If she isn't out there solidifying support for the Texas Democratic Senate candidate then I can't see her in a leadership position in the party.
Hmmm. 🤔 Makes me wonder about Pelosi. She is serving out her final term in the House and still rules behind the scenes as “Speaker Emerita.” Nancy has always been Hakeem’s mentor. Did she approve of this meeting with the devil?
There should be NO "common ground" with anyone in the Trump regime. Too many Democrats are still trying to pretend this is just "normal politics". These are not normal times; the Trump regime is not a normal administration; their actions are willfully unconstitutional, AND their intent is to retain power at all costs. That means the end of democracy as we know it. Failure to fight "fire with fire" will cost us the country. Wake the Hell up.
In too many ways, actions based on the belief of 'normal politics' is appeasment. This is a tactic that just plain does not work. It's seen as weakness, and is further exploited to get more concessions. It's past time to realize this. No more appeasement.
Amen!! This interaction between Jeffries/kushner is inexcusable and down right stupid on Jeffries part! We the People, are sick and tired of the scammers in the government lining their pockets w/money as they pretend to represent us!!
Who is kushner other than the son of the most corrupt, disgraceful, pedophile & man-child hanging out in the WH??!! Come on…this would be laughable if it wasn’t so inappropriate. Does Jeffries even understand where we are in run up to the midterms??!!
Thanks to Jen and to all. Jeffries must be replaced. The old way of dealing with Republicans is over. We need either a respected figure like constitutional scholar Jamie Raskin or a young and capable Representative like Joe Neguse of Colorado. Time to turn the page.
Right on, Carol! I would love to see a progressive female Speaker of the House, like AOC, Jasmine Crockett or Melanie Stansbury, but I doubt the corporate-owned faction of the Democratic Caucus would allow it.
I'm for Jasmine. AOC has plenty of other work to do, including possibly running for Schumer's seat in 2028. This would keep Jasmine on the political scene after the new House is swon in next Jan.
The Speaker does not have to be a House member or a member of Congress at all, However until now every single Speaker has been a sitting member of the House. Let's use the rule on the Speakership to keep this fighter on the scene!
Agree. We need her!!! I did a little digging and these are her future plans (posted 3 months ago):
Jasmine Crockett leaves Congress to launch FIRE PAC
U.S. Rep. Jasmine Crockett (D-Texas) announced she will leave Congress at the end of 2026 and launch a new national leadership PAC called FIRE — short for Fueling Individual Rights Everywhere.
She revealed the plan during a recent appearance on “The Sherri Show,” hosted by Sherri Shepherd. The announcement follows her loss in the March 2026 Democratic primary for the U.S. Senate in Texas, where she was defeated by State Rep. James Talarico.
Rather than seek re-election to her House seat, Crockett is transitioning out of elected office to focus on national organizing through the new PAC.
I see many mentions for Raskin here too which I can see as an option..but the more I think about it I like Jayapal..she has had a lot of Dem House leadership experience and IMO could be a good bridge between the 'progressive' and 'moderate' wings of the party.
I adore Jamie Raskin, and he would make a fine Speaker … but I bet he’ll want to stay at Judiciary. He is Ranking Member now and will become Chair when the Dems take over in January, and that is a mighty position. Jamie will wield that gavel masterfully as the House Judiciary Committee issues subpoenas and starts investigations into the fascist regime.
but, who knows what Dems will do...it wouldn't surprise me if they keep him (Jeffries)tbh but dynamics will change a lot in a few months. Jeffries won't go down without a fight in any case .
Behavior like that is exactly why the young, Democratic Left is surging! The Democratic leadership (Schumer, Jeffries, Durbin) are just getting too comfortable in their jobs. They've become tired and lazy. Long past time for the Democrats to be lead by people who have the stomach for a fight.
Or as Michael Corleone said to consigliere Tom Hagen:
Things could get rough and you're not a war-time consigliere.
"If they gain the majority, Democrats’ mandate will not be to find “common ground” with a decrepit autocrat bent on destroying congressional power. It will be to halt him in his tracks, reverse disastrous policies, and exercise exacting oversight".
Well said, Ms. Rubin.
Even google agrees:
"The phrase "there is no negotiating with evil" is a common political and moral idiom used to reject compromise with an opponent or regime deemed fundamentally corrupt, dangerous, or malevolent."
The fact that it took backlash for Jeffries to understand how problematic his meeting with Kushner was is proof positive that Dems need new leadership. Kushner is poster boy for Trump plunder, oligarchal
dealings, & the untrustworthiness of anyone connected with this so-called admin. I feel that keeping the money spigots open was the general purpose of this meeting for both Jeffries & Kushner. Just another sign that establishment Dems do not think outside the beltway, as much as they may talk about “affordability.” I will do all I can to demand new leadership; Raskin would be a good choice as others note. Business as usual Jeffries & Schumer both must be replaced.
Truly a disappointment from Jeffries even before elections are concluded. I am so disturbed. Anyone who thinks Kushner is a good person or trustworthy should pause and reflect on the optics and the meaning of this request from this beforehand. It’s a shame to have to read this today
Jeffries is disqualified to lead congress. Sneaking around to secret meetings with Kushner does not inspire confidence. We don’t need to wonder about his transparency. We have enough to worry about for our country. There is more talent in the in the party to select from
Add a wonder about ethics and judgement as well as transparency. This meeting was an incredibly bad move and should disqualify Jeffries from leadership.
Jeffries should have thought….What would Nancy do? I’m sure Ms Pelosi would have said something like, “Are you kidding me? Meet with Kushner? Over my dead body.”
Jen your explanation of what the democrats must do if they regain majority in congress is spot on and deserved the bold print. But, you were too kind to Jeffries. To meet with Kushner in secret and privately is like trump meeting with putin secret and privately. That kind of corrupt looking behavior has just permanently tainted Jeffries. After mid term elections Jeffries should be replaced as leadership because Jeffries has given the republican-fascist party an opening to undermine his credibility (Kushner played him).
Jefferies, under the tutelage of Schumer, is still using old school tactics with this administration. Compromise, finding common ground, extending open communication are not applicable anymore. When the Democrats take the House again in November, we will need a new leader from the progressive side of the party.
Jeffries likely shot himself in the foot with his Kushner meeting. He might not be elected speaker after this. Someone like Jamie Raskin would be a better choice.
Jamie Raskin would be 1000% better as Speaker of the House than Hakeem Jeffries. Time and time again, I felt Jeffries had disqualified himself for Speaker before thus latest blunder. The meeting with Kushner was his Waterloo. Thank you for laying out all the reasons in your article, Jen. Thank you for continuing your writing as you heal your throat. (We do miss seeing you on Substack Live).
Jen Rubin's paragraph summarizing all the reasons there is no common ground with these thugs calling themselves Republicans--what is Jeffries thinking!--was the most brilliant piece of writing I've seen in a while.
I agree with you. Personally, I never saw his appeal. But New York seems to like him so?
I run across a lot of transplanted New Yorkers in my neck of the woods in California. They don't like HakeemJeffries either. For whatever reason, Jeffries garnered Nancy Pelosi's early support. Now that Pelosi is retiring, I think Jeffries will find his support for Speakership waning after the Midterms.
Wouldn't it be interesting if Jeffries was not reelected this fall.
He will certainly win his district election this time around...keeping his Dem leadership role, we will see about that after November.
Seems like there is very little chance of that. Democratic voters would have no choice but to vote for the Republican, Lewis Mizrahi. Or stay home in large enough numbers that it would torpedo him.
yes, but even without Pelosi (I guess she just wanted a puppet she could control), i think Schumer (although in the Senate) has enough influence with NY voters to prop him up. IMHO, Jeffries makes Li'l Mikey Johnson look like a principled man with values.
I am not so sure that is true, living in NYC and recently living in his district for some time. There was a move toward a challenger early in this cycle, but Mamdani didn't support the move and it didn't go far. Gov Hochul is quite close to Jeffries and Mamdani was playing a delicate political dance early on, since he really needed the governor's support as a new mayor. Many of the new Democratic NYC candidates are in a similar position right now. His district has many DSA supporters and other progressive Dems who are really sick of him.
That could definitely change a lot after this election, especially with Jeffries's continuing missteps. Right now many Dems in Congress are being cagey when asked, but a survey last fall showed a sizable number of House Dems either non-committal on backing Jeffries' leadership or outright opposed to it...we will see.
Thanks for the NYC perspective!
Sure! Having said all that, Jeffries still does have some support and is still formidable..he raises lots of money and has insider pull. He was more popular once upon a time..
But this last unforced error has really rolled him...the timing, the action itself, the secrecy, his reaction, the fact that it looks like he was just played hard and was oblivious to how this would go.. I don't know if I've ever seen such a unified negative response to anything he's done.
When Jennifer Rubin and Mehdi Hasan are saying nearly the exact same thing about your actions, you are really in the weeds.
Money still talks too loudly. That tells me we will substitute one set of oligarchs for another. Net gain - small.
Thanks for the viewpoint from someone actually living the process.
I support your stance on Jeffries but do we really need to throw Hunter Biden into this? Please leave the guy alone.
People in other posts I read who are from his Brooklyn district do not seem to like him. I think Schumer just kneecaps any opponents and uses his "influence" to create the votes for Jeffries. I am seriously thinking of sending Jeffries' Republican opponent, Lewis Mizrahi, $5 just to express my anti-Jeffries outrage.
The corporate Democrats are terrified of losing their cash stream - so terrified that that Jeffries took that meeting with Kushner on the 'down low' and QT... But it is becoming increasingly apparent that huge ad campaigns by PACs are being picked up by the voters and ignored. Outreach to voters with actual ideas for change and the right amount of Righteous Indignation seems to be the formula for this age.
Here is a posing I made on Gloria J. Maloney's Substack.
Jeffries meets with Kushner and all of a sudden Jeffries pulls his support for universal healthcare. Suspicious.
First question that needs to be asked is who called for the meeting? The second question is why? Let me give Jeffries the benefit of a doubt initially. Let’s say he wanted to understand how best to communicate with the Trump administration to make the lawmaking process go more smoothly. My obvious question is, “Why Kushner?”. He’s not a cabinet member and is only a defacto member of Trump’s administration. Therefore, the information he was likely to gleam from this meeting would be suspect, at best. If Jeffries wanted to speak to a senior cabinet official, why was he shunted off to Kushner, and why then would Jeffries agree to meeting with an underling with no authority to commit to any plan they may have discussed. This all would make Jeffries look weak.What if Kushner called the meeting, saying that he was directed by the Secretary of State to brief Jeffries on some of the nuances of Iran negotiations and of discussions with other leaders in the region. If this were the case, then disclosing this would be of benefit to Jeffries and to the Trump Administration, showing cooperation so if Jeffries became Speaker, he would more clearly understand what the situation on the ground in Iran actually was. All of this makes too much sense, like the Trump administration was interested in any kind of cooperation. So, I toss this out as not conforming to the character of the Trump and his administration. This leaves me with only one conclusion. Kushner called the meeting to threaten Jeffries and Trump used Kushner to give him credible deniability should Jeffries leak the true intention of the meeting.
The threats were likely both physical and financial. My guess, Jeffries agreed to Kushner’s terms and to demonstrate his acquiescence to Kushner’s, i.e. Trump’s terms. Kusher told him he had to eliminate his backing for universal health care or suffer the consequences. This would benefit many of Trump’s donors like pharmaceutical companies and for-profit hospitals and health insurance companies, all of which would stand to lose significant money if a universal healthcare plan were adopted. On Jeffries’ side, he raised $650,000 from healthcare related groups which make up roughly 4% of the money he raised in 2024. So, his campaign financial impact would be minimal and could be made up with cash on hand. Jeffries could also claim that putting together a universal healthcare program would not be feasible with the current congressional makeup and even after the mid-terms, he would not have adequate number to override a Trump veto, so he was shifting his focus to other areas.
One of these or none may be the case, and we won’t know until Jeffries shows some transparency – something politicians of all parties are reticent to do. If he is asked by the press, he will simply claim national security issues and not answer. We’ll see!
I can see Kushner being the delivery boy for tRump threats, but it has the appearance and stench of something corrupt. I see it as a losing situation for Jeffries and Democrats. We need to vote in November in numbers on the order of the recent numbers in Hungary. tRump has already said he will pardon 'everybody who got within 200' of the Oval Office'. I would like to hear Jen and some other legal scholars on whether there is any path at all to negate a Presidential Pardon?
A losing situation for Jeffries but a winning situation for Democrats because this will force the issue of who will become House speaker. Jeffries is clearly not up to the job. Please, everyone, write to your Dem representatives and urge them to elect a strong, Progressive speaker. Some names come to mind, for example: Raskin, Dean, Ansari, Lieu, Khanna, Neguse, Castro, Casar. . . any of these would be good.
I'm impressed with Rep. Robert Garcia of CA. He's quiet but effective and very very strong in his values stances. I think he would be able to form intra-Democratic coalitions and glue people together to act in unity and strongly for what is right, not just what is expedient. I like Raskin and Khanna too. (Not familiar with the others.)
Agree 100%.
Yassamin Ansari reportedly has taken about $1.2 million in AIPAC and other Israel lobbies. I think that's too much.
I'm sorry to hear that. Thank you.
Good question. Let me know if you get an answer.
State charges?
But, I fear the current DOJ would seek to move those types of cases to Federal Courts. If these pardons are inevitable, we must amend the Constitution to eliminate that power. There must be multiple mechanisms to bring down a corrupt, criminal president.
Threats to "national security" are being used as an all-purpose cudgel and scare tactic. In the name of truth and transparency, we need to know exactly how it's being threatened instead of throwing the term around indiscriminately. As it is, the term is losing its punch due to over-use.
national security is threatened most by trump
Now that is certainly true! You can add the rest of the administration to this charge, especially Hegseth, Patel, and Burgum.
Then there are the advisors - Miller, Vought, and still Bannon.
Amen patricia!
I agree. Unfortunately i works during congressional testimony.
I agree. Although you are very kind in your analysis, even though it is appropriately unflattering, of Jeffries' and Kushner's potential motivations. My own opinion is that Kushner called the meeting, Jeffries came to heel, and Kushner said, we'll put a billion dollars in your personal account if you promise not to impeach Trump and we'll give you a large stake in the Nazi fascist empire we're building.. If you don't take the offer, we'll have your children killed. And Jeffries said, I'll take it under serious consideration.
I was thinking along the same lines. If you are reading about the big Epstein Class plans in the works (now under Kushner leadership), from writers such as Kait Justice, Alisa Valdez-Rodriguez, Monica Andreasen, Leah, and others as well as people like Peter Thiel revealing his own goals, Musk's continuing abilities to buy or steal elections, and Lutnick and Bessent's monetary system schemes, you can see Kushner's movement has a lot at stake. We're talking world dominance in the hands of a few oligarchs taking over everything. Kushner has deals with Israel, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, UAE, and Russia for starters.. Universal Healthcare is just a grain of sand in the desert of distractions. This group's coercion tactics are well known: bribery, intimidation, extortion, threats to family, reputation, and future political opportunities, blackmail, and death, including of family members. I doubt Jeffries jumped at the chance to give Kushner a place at the table and initiated the talk. Nope, Jared is making sure that Jeffries knows who's going to continue to be the big players. We see more and more the control this group has had on presidencies of both parties since at least the Reagan years, and with the current Supreme Court, DOJ, and FBI still in place, there is a lot of uphill climbing ahead, even if the Dems end up taking the House and Senate.
Uphill battle it will be and we will nee strong people to lead the fight. Jeffries ain't the one, in my opinion.
We'll never know until Jeffries comes up for a vote. We'll also see who in the Democratic party really cares about the House leadership, or how many will simply follow the money their oligarchs feed them.
Jeffries is up for a vote now. There is no one opposing him. The only option is for the liberal Democrats in his district to vote for the Republican. ?@!!
No one opposes him because Pelosi won't LET anyone oppose him. Jeffries is her boy. I send Pelosi postcards telling her to get Jeffries out. That he is done. Can you call or postcard Pelosi too?
What was Nancy Pelosi thinking? Jeffries has always been a limp wrist. And now we know he’s an idiot and worse. He and Schumer must go! Love the Jamie Raskin nod.
There are probably others, but Raskin seems to be a no nonsense guy. He will also go after Trump's illegal and unconstitutional activities like a pit bull smelling a good steak.
I get Raskin’s ‘s quarterly newsletter to his constituents even though I’m in Virginia and not one. He’s always thinking of the little guy and giving information on healthcare concerns, etc. So refreshing. Then there is his brave pit bull aspect that was so admirable during the January 6 hearings. I’m a fan.
Thanks. I think I will subscribe to it as well.
Democrats will need to stabilize the country before exploring ways to work in a bipartisan way. Jeffries just blew his opportunity to lead the House to do this.
Margaret Whittemore
They can probably do both. It will come down to priorities, something neither party is particularly good at.
Does Kushner even have security clearance? That’s maybe a separate issue than the Jeffries meeting, but the point is Kushner has no official role and he is not bound by any ethical standard (as stated by Jen). This meeting was a major red flag for me. And yes. As a constitutional scholar, Jamie Raskin is who we need as we fix this unbelievable mess. So much to fix and restore and strengthen so this can never happen again.
So much to fix is right. Congress needs a process to address fixes not just Band Aides. The process is easy to outline but hard to execute. Identify an issue to be corrected, determine the root cause of the issue (the hard part), then fix the root cause. This process worked for me for thirty years in the Navy's nuclear submarine program.
Jamie needs to be free to work on impeachment articles. Jasmine would be an extra body devoted only to doing the work of the Speaker.
Donna, I believe "Speaker" Raskin has the experience and common sense to delegate the draft of Articles of Impeachment to an effective committee of Constitutional experts. I believe he recognizes that he cannot manage both the House and drafting Impeachment documents
That’s a really good question.
Agreed!
From your keyboard to The Lord's eyes!
Not Jamie, he has too much else to do as the resident Constitutional Law expert. Jasmine Crockett for Speaker!
Not a bad choice.
Jamie Raskin for Speaker. He can manage someone else on impeachment articles and more! We need more people working on these kinds of things not the same ones. Jamie‘s got experience and he can spread it around.
A good observation.
Jeffries is Pelosi's hand picked successor. I am sure he's a wizard at "machine politics". But that's not what I want, and clearly not what MANY Democratic voting Americans want in 2026. I want someone able and willing to directly confront corruption wherever he sees it and demand his House look into it, and refer for criminal prosecution whenever it seems appropriate.
I don't need a witch hunt... we already know who the witches are! We just need to be sure we expose them to the public and to the legal consequences of their actions! Maybe someone else should be Speaker and Jeffries can be Whip. I imagine he'll be a great vote-wrangler and vote-counter. It's a critical job and I think he'd be good at it. But I am not convinced he's the right man to be Speaker next year.
He shouldn't be elected Speaker....
We don't need a corporate democrat interested in business as usual as Speaker.
I LOVE Jamie Raskin and his competence, but I think he would help the democratic cause much more in his other leadership positions. His many talents would be wasted in the speaker role. I vote for AOC as the new speaker. She is the only one with the balls to do it, just like Nancy was.
I agree. Rankin's political and common sense seem far superior to Jeffries. I believe Rankin would make strict scrutiny, rule of law and swift referral to the court system for corruption a major part of the House Democratic policy and agenda. It would be a significant improvement over either Little Mikey or Jeffries.
I fully agree with you. I’ve never felt that Jeffries has the strength to become speaker of the house. He hesitates when he speaks and I realize a lot of people might do that because they’re thinking on how they want to form their sentences, he’s not forceful enough in his messages. I agree, Jimmy Raskin would make a better speaker!
Step one - fix the laws so our democracy will be stronger than ever.
Step two - jail and restitution for the 34x convicted felon and his sycophants.
Step one is a great idea, but will take a total changeout of congress and a long time. Also, the Fixes will likely be to everyone's liking. Can't argue with step 2.
At first, he seemed like a reasonable choice as speaker, but he has been more and more disappointing with each passing day. Any of the more progressive Dems would be a far more palatable replacement.
For sure
I have an aternative opinion. DEMs could benefit having someone who can communicate with Trump, who is fearful of the consequence of losing the Congress this midterm. He could plan something extraordinary and some assurance of his minimum safety might help him from acting it. I might be wrong but would like to hear others.
Let me start off with a pet Pieve of mine. It’s Democrats not DEMs. DEMs is a term of derision probably started by MAGA republicans. No one calls Republicans REPs.
OK, venting complete, so let me get back to your really good question. Finding someone who can communicate with Trump. Communication is a two-way street, and Trump has “one way” embossed on his buttocks, one word on each cheek. Trump only listens when the speaker is doing one of two things; praising him or telling him about a scheme that will make him money. This is why you see him sleeping through briefings and sometimes in cabinet meetings. You can tell him anything you want, he just won’t acknowledge what you are saying. You can ask for his opinion and all you’ll get for an answer is “I know nothing about that” or he’ll change the topic.
Trump makes crazy and dangerous proposals on an almost daily basis. He acknowledges that there is danger in what he says, but as long as he has a dedicated secret service team to protect him, he just doesn’t care. He does respond to threats, but only if they are made from someone who can follow through with them. This won’t be the case until after the mid-terms, assuming the Democrats control both the House and Senate.
Thank you for your question. I hope you get a lot of replies.
I felt like Charlie Brown and said, "Good grief" when I read about Jeffries' meeting with Kushner. Both Jeffries and Schumer should lose their leadership positions after the midterm elections. Can anyone imagine Nancy Pelosi exhibiting such poor judgment? The Democrats need competent leadership in these perilous times. We can do better.
Should Democrats win a majority in the Senate this fall, Sen. VanHollen would make a far better majority leader than Schumer.
Jasmine Crockett for Speaker. She's smart, she's a fighter. And how this woold throw the president off-balance.
Indeed, she would also be a good choice.
There would be a downside, in that while she would not be a voting member of the House she would claim a spot. So this wouldn't be a good move if the Dems didn't have a clear lead in the House. Assuming the will, then the could afford to elect a non-member as Speaker.
Where in heaven's name do you get your information? Of course the Speaker is a voting member of the House of Representatives (Civics & Government 101).
No, Steve. If the House elects a non-member to be Speaker, then the Speaker will have no vote, including being excluded from casting a tie-breaking vote. The House has never before elected a non-member to be Speaker but the Constitution doesn't impose membership as a qualification. Article 1 of the Constitution.
I can't trust "news" reports but has Jasmine Crockett agreed to campaign with James Talarico? If she isn't out there solidifying support for the Texas Democratic Senate candidate then I can't see her in a leadership position in the party.
I felt like Charlie Brown when Jefferies did that, he was Lucy pulling the football away from the Dems when it looked like a win.!
Hmmm. 🤔 Makes me wonder about Pelosi. She is serving out her final term in the House and still rules behind the scenes as “Speaker Emerita.” Nancy has always been Hakeem’s mentor. Did she approve of this meeting with the devil?
i hope they do both go.
There should be NO "common ground" with anyone in the Trump regime. Too many Democrats are still trying to pretend this is just "normal politics". These are not normal times; the Trump regime is not a normal administration; their actions are willfully unconstitutional, AND their intent is to retain power at all costs. That means the end of democracy as we know it. Failure to fight "fire with fire" will cost us the country. Wake the Hell up.
In too many ways, actions based on the belief of 'normal politics' is appeasment. This is a tactic that just plain does not work. It's seen as weakness, and is further exploited to get more concessions. It's past time to realize this. No more appeasement.
Amen!! This interaction between Jeffries/kushner is inexcusable and down right stupid on Jeffries part! We the People, are sick and tired of the scammers in the government lining their pockets w/money as they pretend to represent us!!
Who is kushner other than the son of the most corrupt, disgraceful, pedophile & man-child hanging out in the WH??!! Come on…this would be laughable if it wasn’t so inappropriate. Does Jeffries even understand where we are in run up to the midterms??!!
If it smells like BS, it is BS!!!!!
Thanks to Jen and to all. Jeffries must be replaced. The old way of dealing with Republicans is over. We need either a respected figure like constitutional scholar Jamie Raskin or a young and capable Representative like Joe Neguse of Colorado. Time to turn the page.
Right on, Carol! I would love to see a progressive female Speaker of the House, like AOC, Jasmine Crockett or Melanie Stansbury, but I doubt the corporate-owned faction of the Democratic Caucus would allow it.
I'm for Jasmine. AOC has plenty of other work to do, including possibly running for Schumer's seat in 2028. This would keep Jasmine on the political scene after the new House is swon in next Jan.
Jasmine leaves Congress in January, unfortunately.
The Speaker does not have to be a House member or a member of Congress at all, However until now every single Speaker has been a sitting member of the House. Let's use the rule on the Speakership to keep this fighter on the scene!
You are right, Lynda. Jasmine did not run for re-election in TX-30. The Democratic primary was won by Frederick Haynes with 72.6% of the vote.
I think she couldn't run since she ran in the Senate primary against Talarico? I am guessing she isn't done in politics- I hope not anyway.
Agree. We need her!!! I did a little digging and these are her future plans (posted 3 months ago):
Jasmine Crockett leaves Congress to launch FIRE PAC
U.S. Rep. Jasmine Crockett (D-Texas) announced she will leave Congress at the end of 2026 and launch a new national leadership PAC called FIRE — short for Fueling Individual Rights Everywhere.
She revealed the plan during a recent appearance on “The Sherri Show,” hosted by Sherri Shepherd. The announcement follows her loss in the March 2026 Democratic primary for the U.S. Senate in Texas, where she was defeated by State Rep. James Talarico.
Rather than seek re-election to her House seat, Crockett is transitioning out of elected office to focus on national organizing through the new PAC.
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/jasmine-crockett-leaves-congress-to-launch-fire-pac-watch/ar-AA23lTC6
That’s good. It looks like we might not lose that seat then. 🙂
It’s a solidly Blue seat, from what I see. Jasmine won it in 2024 with 84.89% of the vote.
Great idea!! It would be great to have a progressive woman at the helm.
Yes, it’s time! 💙
I'd add Pramila Jayapal to that list ( and agree with Donna, I am hoping AOC unseats Schumer).
Oh yes. Pramila’s a treasure as well.
I see many mentions for Raskin here too which I can see as an option..but the more I think about it I like Jayapal..she has had a lot of Dem House leadership experience and IMO could be a good bridge between the 'progressive' and 'moderate' wings of the party.
I adore Jamie Raskin, and he would make a fine Speaker … but I bet he’ll want to stay at Judiciary. He is Ranking Member now and will become Chair when the Dems take over in January, and that is a mighty position. Jamie will wield that gavel masterfully as the House Judiciary Committee issues subpoenas and starts investigations into the fascist regime.
yup, good point.
but, who knows what Dems will do...it wouldn't surprise me if they keep him (Jeffries)tbh but dynamics will change a lot in a few months. Jeffries won't go down without a fight in any case .
Jeffries lack of judgement disqualifies him from being elected Speaker if Dems win the House.
Common ground with kushner?
Really?
With the guy who walked away with $2B blood money given to him by another guy who butchers journalists with bone saws?
Jeffries only proved he has no moral compass and no functioning brain.
Behavior like that is exactly why the young, Democratic Left is surging! The Democratic leadership (Schumer, Jeffries, Durbin) are just getting too comfortable in their jobs. They've become tired and lazy. Long past time for the Democrats to be lead by people who have the stomach for a fight.
Or as Michael Corleone said to consigliere Tom Hagen:
Things could get rough and you're not a war-time consigliere.
Shame on Jeffries. Time for him to go also along with Schumer.
"If they gain the majority, Democrats’ mandate will not be to find “common ground” with a decrepit autocrat bent on destroying congressional power. It will be to halt him in his tracks, reverse disastrous policies, and exercise exacting oversight".
Well said, Ms. Rubin.
Even google agrees:
"The phrase "there is no negotiating with evil" is a common political and moral idiom used to reject compromise with an opponent or regime deemed fundamentally corrupt, dangerous, or malevolent."
Like a Canadian provincial premier said recently, "You can't make a good deal with a bad person."
The fact that it took backlash for Jeffries to understand how problematic his meeting with Kushner was is proof positive that Dems need new leadership. Kushner is poster boy for Trump plunder, oligarchal
dealings, & the untrustworthiness of anyone connected with this so-called admin. I feel that keeping the money spigots open was the general purpose of this meeting for both Jeffries & Kushner. Just another sign that establishment Dems do not think outside the beltway, as much as they may talk about “affordability.” I will do all I can to demand new leadership; Raskin would be a good choice as others note. Business as usual Jeffries & Schumer both must be replaced.
Truly a disappointment from Jeffries even before elections are concluded. I am so disturbed. Anyone who thinks Kushner is a good person or trustworthy should pause and reflect on the optics and the meaning of this request from this beforehand. It’s a shame to have to read this today
If Trump was not president, it's clear that Kushner would have little to no support for anything that he is doing.
Jeffries is disqualified to lead congress. Sneaking around to secret meetings with Kushner does not inspire confidence. We don’t need to wonder about his transparency. We have enough to worry about for our country. There is more talent in the in the party to select from
Add a wonder about ethics and judgement as well as transparency. This meeting was an incredibly bad move and should disqualify Jeffries from leadership.
Jeffries should have thought….What would Nancy do? I’m sure Ms Pelosi would have said something like, “Are you kidding me? Meet with Kushner? Over my dead body.”
Who knows. Nancy is still Hakeem's mentor. Perhaps she approved the meeting.
Jen your explanation of what the democrats must do if they regain majority in congress is spot on and deserved the bold print. But, you were too kind to Jeffries. To meet with Kushner in secret and privately is like trump meeting with putin secret and privately. That kind of corrupt looking behavior has just permanently tainted Jeffries. After mid term elections Jeffries should be replaced as leadership because Jeffries has given the republican-fascist party an opening to undermine his credibility (Kushner played him).
Jefferies, under the tutelage of Schumer, is still using old school tactics with this administration. Compromise, finding common ground, extending open communication are not applicable anymore. When the Democrats take the House again in November, we will need a new leader from the progressive side of the party.
Yes, Pamela! Agree 💯. Preferably a woman, like AOC.
Taking the meeting with Kushner was not smart. Probably cost him speaker of the house...