Phil Schumacher: How much support do you think Hakeem Jeffries has in the caucus for his meeting with Kushner? Is it like ending the filibuster in 2021 where Manchin and Sinema were vocal in opposing it but several others were silently supporting them? What can Democratic voters do to force Democratic leadership to grow a spine?
I suspect the median caucus member feels a bit like I did and do: Not surprised; concerned; intent on learning more. There may be a few naive or craven souls who think it was a good or practical or simply courteous idea—gotta prove we’re ready to govern! And perhaps another small handful (members who’ve never been terribly fond of Jeffries, say) feel like this should disqualify him from the speakership.
But, to invoke the idiom of litigation, there’s too much belief and not enough information to go on here for critics to expect him to lose his leadership position over the fact of the meeting. We’d have to learn of some kind of quid pro quo arrangement or unacceptable mutual understanding or friendship between Jeffries and Kushner for this to cost him the speakership.
Barring that, or some other wild, out-of-left-field scandal, it’s cooked. He will be Speaker. Zohran Mamdani, who has a broader strategic detente with Jeffries, still wants him to be Speaker. The Congressional Black Caucus wants him to be Speaker. New Dems want him to be Speaker. It’s his office to lose.
But, this revelation clearly jolted him and the party. The same day I published my “We Need To Hear From Jeffries” piece, he released this video implying he does not intend to spare Kushner from oversight. I didn’t find the video terribly reassuring—I don’t believe Kushner wanted to discuss the “affordability crisis” with Jeffries
