Two Democrats missed the committee vote to subpoena Musk. The motion failed 20-19.

[lapucelle]

Six Republicans also missed the vote.

One of the Democratic representatives who missed the vote represents Silicon Valley, is friends with Musk, allowed Davide Sacks to host a private $3,300 - $13,200 a plate fundraiser for his reelection, and is a frequent guest on Fox News.

House Democrats try, and fail, to subpoena Musk

https://www.politico.com/live-updates/2025/02/05/congress/dems-try-to-subpoena-musk-00202777

[Think. Again.]

1. Names?

[WhiteTara]

2. Ro Khanna was one

[spooky3]

3. In the linked article Nt

[JohnSJ]

5. Ro Khanna and Kweisi Mfume

[JohnSJ]

4. No one should count on khanna to save the republic.

[dalton99a]

7. +1

[Blue Full Moon]

31. If they plan anything better not tell him it will go straight to musk's ear.

[SnoopDog]

34. Well, that is a crappy thing to say about a Democratic Representative...

[Hekate]

37. That he is so in debt to Muskrat? That seems like important info for us to have,

[SnoopDog]

38. Prove it...

[Hekate]

39. How about you prove the source is inadequate & not to be trusted?

[Crunchy Frog]

45. Doesn't mean it's not true.

He's in bed with David Sucks. It doesn't get much scummier than that.

[AkFemDem]

6. That is outrageous

[Ferryboat]

8. Dig deeper

Surprise vote, 8 dems were out of building when vote was called without notice.

Stop bashing democratic representatives.
Just stop.

[lapucelle]

9. You're wrong on the facts. 6 Republicans and 2 Democrats missed the vote.

Democrats on the House Oversight Committee moved to subpoena tech billionaire and Trump ally Elon Musk at a hearing Wednesday — and one Democrat was conspicuously missing from the vote, Rep. Ro Khanna of California, who represents Silicon Valley and has a longtime relationship with the billionaire.

------------------------------

In the end, the motion to subpoena Musk was shut down by Republicans on the committee on a 20-19 vote — with eight lawmakers missing the vote, including Khanna and Rep. Kweisi Mfume (D-Md.), who missed for an unrelated reason, one Democrat familiar with the planning said. The rest of the members who missed were Republicans.

------------------------------

The three Democrats familiar with the planning said Khanna’s staff was properly notified about the vote ahead of time. A spokesperson for the California Democrat said "Congressman Khanna and his team had zero knowledge that this vote would be up."

One senior Democratic aide said there was a member meeting Tuesday evening that Khanna missed to attend a meeting with the Progressive Caucus. Democrats also announced the motion to all staff and his staff was present on that call — and that the top Democrat on Oversight, Gerry Connolly, told the Democratic Caucus about the plan this morning, two people said.

https://www.politico.com/live-updates/2025/02/05/congress/dems-try-to-subpoena-musk-00202777

[SidDithers]

16. 1st. Politico is Trash...

2nd, and I'm not a defender of Ro Khanna by any means, but here's what he said:



Edit:

Josh Marshall asked Khanna:

Journalist Josh Marshall wrote on X, "so it was not an abstention but simply not being there in time for the quickly called vote?"

Khanna responded, "Correct. I was meeting with Ambassador Mexico on tariffs. They called a vote with no notice and didnt get there in time. 8 total missed."

Sid

[orleans]

21. and after khanna tweeted that musk told him not to be a ...

‘Don’t Be a Dick’: Elon Musk Lashes Out at House Dem Who Condemed His ‘Attacks’ On Agencies ‘Unconstitional’

https://www.mediaite.com/news/dont-be-a-dick-elon-musk-lashes-out-at-house-dem-who-condemed-his-attacks-on-agencies-unconstitional/

[lapucelle]

26. First of all, there was notice. Khana admitted that he was aware of a procedural vote

in a subsequent statement.

Second, the Democrats on the committee were looking to blindside the Republicans with the motion. If they "call the vote again", the Republicans will make sure that there members will be there to quash the motion. Both the element of surprise and the opportunity to call for Musk to be subpoenaed were lost.

GOP quashes Oversight Democrats’ effort to subpoena Elon Musk

Republicans on the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee quickly quashed an effort by Democrats to subpoena Elon Musk to appear before the panel to answer questions about a series of actions impacting federal agencies and their workforce.

The move clearly caught Republicans by surprise. They initially did not have enough votes to quash the motion, sending lawmakers scrambling back to the hearing room.

https://thehill.com/homenews/house/5127932-gop-oversight-democrats-subpoena-elon-musk/

[lapucelle]

29. "They" called a procedural vote because the Democrats surprised the Republicans

with a motion to subpoena Musk . Democratic members knew what the game plan was.

There weren't 8 members who also missed the vote; there were 7. Of those other 7, 6 were Republicans.

Why would the Democrats inform those 6 Republicans that there was going to be a surprise motion and that would necessitate a procedural vote?

[lapucelle]

12. So, just to be clear, it was not a "surprise vote" and eight Democrats did not miss the vote.

Khanna said he missed the vote and said he was unaware it was happening — but three Democrats familiar with the run-up to the vote who were granted anonymity to describe what ensued said Democrats were given a heads-up about the maneuver to try to catch Republicans by surprise.

snip------------------------

He said in a subsequent interview that he knew of a possible "procedural vote" but not specifically that it would involve subpoenaing Musk.

snip -------------------------------------

The three Democrats familiar with the planning said Khanna’s staff was properly notified about the vote ahead of time.

snip --------------------------------------------------

One senior Democratic aide said there was a member meeting Tuesday evening that Khanna missed to attend a meeting with the Progressive Caucus. Democrats also announced the motion to all staff and his staff was present on that call — and that the top Democrat on Oversight, Gerry Connolly, told the Democratic Caucus about the plan this morning, two people
said.

https://www.politico.com/live-updates/2025/02/05/congress/dems-try-to-subpoena-musk-00202777

[orleans]

19. looks like YOU need to "dig deeper" before you accuse people of "bashing democratic representatives"

[Ferryboat]

40. I was wrong

I had read an early report.
1st to print, get nuance later.

Good reporting takes time.
Get a good headline for clicks, shade in the finer points later.

Just goes to show I need to wait for a good period of time for the story to more fully develop before regurgitating incorrect information.

[Lemons UK]

10. Too busy screaming "gaaaaaazaaa!!!!!" to show up?

[LuvLoogie]

11. I think the rule against bashing Democrats may benefit from a temporary suspension.

Especially for back-stabby Dems.

[Quanta]

13. It really does inhibit problem solving.

How can we discuss problematic members of our party if we aren't allowed to criticize them?

[ancianita]

18. Not really.

Seriously? Allowed to criticize them because they said were doing other work and not notified in time?

[Arazi]

20. 8 other Dems got there in time

And members of his own staff are reporting he knew about the vote ahead of time

[ancianita]

23. Okay, then.

[Arazi]

24. Pretty sure there's only facts in my post, no criticism

[ancianita]

25. So sorry. I thought Quanta's post was yours. Apologies, Arazi.

Even so, I'd still suggest that you and Quanta and any of us who see our Dems slipping up or folding, should call and criticize them directly. https://clerk.house.gov/member_info/TTD-119.pdf

[Quanta]

43. I didn't criticize either.

Last edited Fri Feb 7, 2025, 10:46 AM - Edit history (1)

Just mentioned that being unable to discuss all angles can hinder problem solving. Do I get an apology as well?

[ancianita]

46. Then when you used the word "criticize" you meant you were attempting to do "problem solving" ?

How can we discuss problematic members of our party if we aren't allowed to criticize them?

d

It's DU. What good does it do to criticize them here? Here on GD ( not The Way Forward) the rule is "Support Democrats." If you want criticize, criticize elected people directly. So call. If you don't like hearing that, just ignore it. I'm not apologizing for my previous response, which were questions.

[Quanta]

47. Again, I didn't criticize, but thanks so much for the lovely interaction.

Ignoring things you don't agree with works both ways, after all. No need to be rude, but you do you.

[Quanta]

41. I was talking about in general, but yes -

In my very humble/ low post count opinion, being unable to completely discuss issues makes it difficult to fully explore problematic behavior. Sorry if that offended you. It's one of the reasons I've been coming here since DU opened but rarely have anything to say. It's a tough crowd.

[cadoman]

63. open party criticism is a worse problem than having party members who are out of line

May as well not be a forum at that point because there would be nothing to unite us.

There are always going to be members who are on the fringe. Most of it has to do with the fact that they are in purple or even red states. A Democrat from a red state is going to sometimes resemble a RepuKKKlocrap from a blue state. They often even explicitly promise their voters that they'll put the state over the Democratic Party.

Remember how everyone harps on a 50 state strategy when we select a new DNC chair? Well, we can't have a 50 state strategy if as soon as a Democrat wins in a red or purple state we exile them from the party. It'd be a fucking waste of money.

[Quanta]

68. Who said anything about exile?

So weird. I agree with a previous poster and get lambasted. I did NOT criticize, merely stated how it inhibits full discussion of issues that are keeping us from beating or effectively countering MAGA. I understand the rule and am following it.

[PeaceWave]

27. Context matters. For instance, if you're dealing with a Dem in a safe district...

(as is the case with Khanna), it would be preposterous to allow that individual to just do whatever when that seat could easily go to another Dem who would move the party forward.

[Hassin Bin Sober]

65. .

[mzmolly]

14. Can we hold another vote?

eom

[John1956PA]

17. It is difficult to arrange a surprise vote like that one.

The GOP with be on alert for any future attempts by the Dems to schedule a surprise vote.

[SidDithers]

15. Does anyone doubt that if all Democrats had been there to vote...

that 2 of the 6 missing Republicans would have also been there?

And the vote would have failed 22-21?

Sid

[lapucelle]

28. There's the possibility that Connolly was strategizing a surprise vote

because he had prior knowledge that some Republican members were out of town or otherwise unavailable. According to reports, Connolly told the committee members about the surprise motion at a meeting, informed members' staffs on a phone call, and made the Democratic Caucus aware that morning.

[tritsofme]

30. It would have been a nice PR coup, but at the end of the day

couldn’t the committee have rescinded its subpoena when enough Republicans showed up?

[lapucelle]

36. I don't know if the rules allow for the rescission of a subpoena by a committee.

It doesn't seem to be addressed in the rules. I do know that subpoenas have been rescinded through House resolutions.

https://oversight.house.gov/wp-content/uploads/2025/01/119th-Committee-Rules.pdf

[FBaggins]

44. The rules don't need to... because it wouldn't happen

Rule 2D says the presiding member is always a member of the majority and Rule 5B says that the presiding member can pause the vote and resume it later.

IOW - if there were a chance of losing the vote - it wouldn’t have occured.

[lapucelle]

49. That rule applies to matters, questions, and amendments, i.e. the committee's legislative functions.

The rule is silent as to a vote on a motion to issue a subpoena, an investigative (rather than legislative) function.

[FBaggins]

50. Sorry - both bills and resolutions are "matters"

See 6(b)

[lapucelle]

51. A motion is neither a bill nor a resolution. N/T

[FBaggins]

53. They're all motions

Feel free to find the separate rules for motions that you imagine

[lapucelle]

59. Neither bills nor resolutions are motions. A motion is a parliamentary procedure.

Neither bills nor resolutions are procedures.

I can't believe that I actually had to type that.

[FBaggins]

61. The vote was on the motion to table the motion to subpoena

The rule cited controls and you've failed to provide anything backing up your position. We're left to believe that they just left out of the rules how motions are handled (when motions are how they take every action).

If you watch the video - you can see that a number of republicans show up after the vote counting passed their name. There is simply no reason to believe that any Democrats thought they could win. The point of the move was just to make the point.

Note that rule section 5 is about recorded votes... which is what Democrats insisted on after the chair's opinion that the ayes had it. The rule explicitly says that he has the power to pause those votes... but you're asking us to believe that there's a category of recorded vote that they just forgot to include but you know about.

Now would be the time to put up...

[lapucelle]

64. I surmise that you've retreated from your position that bills and resolutions are motions.

Wise move.

[FBaggins]

66. Nope - and your inability to deal with the actual issue is telling

The rule is about votes - all votes come from motions.

You can write a bill... but you can't vote on it unless someone makes a motion. Want to adjourn? Someone has to make a motion. Appeal the ruling of the chair? Motion. All of the votes are a result of a motion... so you can't pretend that a rule on how votes are managed somehow excludes motions - because they're all motions.

[lapucelle]

69. So bills and resolutions aren't motions.

Got it.

[lapucelle]

52. I'm not vested in the narrative that Democrats will fail no matter what they do.

Nor am I so lacking in confidence in the Democrats on that committee that I assume that their parliamentarian was not consulted and advising them in strategizing the surprise motion.

[FBaggins]

55. No... you're vested in the notion that they only make motions they expect to win

They regularly take actions that they know will fail - because the move (and the reporting of same) serves their purpose.

See the house democrats today who showed up at the Dept of Education. They had no hope of accomplishing anything more than being publicly opposed to DOGE nonsense. That isn’t evidence that they thought they had any power to stop it.

[lapucelle]

56. Do not presume to tell me what I am vested in. It's the height of entitlement and extremely ill-advised.

[FBaggins]

60. Laughable

What on earth do you think you were doing in the post I replied to?

[lapucelle]

70. What do I *think* I was doing? Really? I know exactly what I was doing,

and it wasn't making the argument that Democrats only make motions that they expect to win. Presuming to tell people what they are *really* doing when they are doing something else entirely is known as gaslighting.

So to recap...

- I am not vested in the narrative that Democrats will fail no matter what they do
- categorical claims based on no evidence are illogical at best
- making categorical claims that presume to tell people what they are vested in is the height of entitlement
- presuming to tell people what they are *really* doing when they are doing something else is gaslighting
- bills and resolutions are not motions

[LuvLoogie]

67. Tangential to your point

But circling back to THE point. If we don't have EVERY available Dem publicly opposing this shit with the one official act that matters--voting--why should our voters have confidence in ANY Dem, or in the party itself?

Dems are going to ask for the country's vote in 2026. Good fucking luck if the "most progressive" Congressmen can't show up to vote to subpoena Elon Fucking Sieg Heil Musk who's in service to Putin's rapist thrall.

Have another two martini lunch Congressman "insert corporate donor here"

Politicians like to scold the electorate, "Every vote matters"

Apparently not. So why show up?

[FBaggins]

32. Yes - or the vote would have been blocked

Until more republicans were available

[PeaceWave]

22. Thank you for letting us all know what Ro Khanna and Kweisi Mfume did here...

We need to hold those in our own party accountable. Not sometimes. Always. Khanna represents an extremely safe district. He needs to act like it. If he can't tow the line under such circumstances, that's something we need to know come the next primaries.

[Cha]

33. Too bad Ro Khanna and Kweisi Mfume couldn't Make the Vote

to subpoena the Universal Asshole that's trying to "Destroy America".

Democrats also announced the motion to all staff and his staff was present on that call — and that the top Democrat on Oversight, Gerry Connolly, told the Democratic Caucus about the plan this morning, two people said.

Mahalo for Doing your Usual Deep Digging on this Report, lapucelle

[JanMichael]

35. We're not supposed to criticize Democrats

So good job guys! Way to kick ass and do a great job supporting everybody that voted for you.

Great work!

[ecstatic]

42. Disgusting and disappointing. nt

[republianmushroom]

54. DINO's or just sucking up ?

[uponit7771]

57. Didn't MAGA call the vote while dems were out of the area? I thought I heard Ro say something like that

[lapucelle]

62. Khana said that the vote was called without notice.

Here's what Politico reported:

The three Democrats familiar with the planning said Khanna’s staff was properly notified about the vote ahead of time. A spokesperson for the California Democrat said "Congressman Khanna and his team had zero knowledge that this vote would be up."

One senior Democratic aide said there was a member meeting Tuesday evening that Khanna missed to attend a meeting with the Progressive Caucus. Democrats also announced the motion to all staff and his staff was present on that call — and that the top Democrat on Oversight, Gerry Connolly, told the Democratic Caucus about the plan this morning, two people said.

"No staffer from our team was present on a call where this was announced," the spokesperson for Khanna said.

Politico also reported

[Khanna] said in a subsequent interview that he knew of a possible "procedural vote" but not specifically that it would involve subpoenaing Musk. He also said there should have been notice on the Oversight Democrats' group chat and far better notice on important votes to members' staff.

https://www.politico.com/live-updates/2025/02/05/congress/dems-try-to-subpoena-musk-00202777

[iemanja]

58. It's only democracy at stake. Why bother?

[mucifer]

71. I continue with the belief that musk and others are trying to bribe people in both parties.

It's really scary.