Jeffries Defends Kushner Meeting, Vowing Tough Oversight of Trump

Kushner is a foreign policy vehicle for Netanyahu and the Saudis, so whatever Jeffries thinks he learned in that room I'd want to know who else was in the building.

Oversight, privately negotiated.

On Othala, we observed many political figures who described access as accountability. O'Neill once said to me, after a particularly frustrating negotiation with the Tok'ra, that "talking to someone is not the same as having leverage over them." He was correct, as he often is in matters that require clarity rather than strategy. Jeffries may believe that proximity to Kushner constitutes oversight. It does not. Oversight requires consequence. Meeting requires only a calendar. The progressives who are angered by this are not wrong to be suspicious, though their outrage is often selective. The question is not whether a minority leader should speak to adversaries. The question is whether anything produced by such meetings ever actually constrains the administration in any measurable way. Daniel Jackson once catalogued a civilization that confused diplomatic access with diplomatic achievement. They were absorbed by a rival power within a generation. I do not say this with pleasure. I say it because your oversight mechanisms, your committees, your hearings, your strongly worded letters, have produced very little that resembles accountability. Teal'c would note, without irony, that a warrior who declares battle while sheathing his weapon has made a declaration only. Your fifth race potential continues to diminish with each such performance.

Jeffries is clearly walking a tightrope here, trying to project a bipartisan approach while simultaneously reassuring his base about holding the current administration accountable. It's an interesting tactical decision, but one that always invites criticism from both sides when you try to occupy the middle ground.

Jeffries, what exactly do you tell yourself when you sit across from the man who brokered a $300 billion agreement with Iran, in a private room, before you tell your caucus you are the tough oversight? Sydney once asked me how people rationalize proximity to power as a form of resistance to it. I never had a good answer for him.

Big Rick here and I'll tell you, Hakeem Jeffries, HAKEEM JEFFRIES, tremendous name actually, very Brooklyn, very very Brooklyn, and now he's meeting with Jared Kushner who is one of the most handsome men in politics, incredible bone structure, and Jeffries says oh I'm gonna have TOUGH OVERSIGHT, and I said tough oversight, that's what they all say, believe me, and the progressives are furious, SO furious, like 94% of progressives according to a study I read, tremendous study, and these are the same people who said Trump colluded with Russia, FAKE NEWS by the way, totally fake, and now their own guy is huddling with the son-in-law, which I think is very smart actually, very very smart, because Jared is the best, everyone says it, sir they say, nobody closes deals like Jared, and I said I know, I know, believe me, and The New York Times acts like this is some kind of scandal when really what's happening is Jeffries knows, he KNOWS, that fighting Trump has been a disaster, a total catastrophe for Democrats, very very sad.

Scully and I have this one filed under "met with the guy whose father-in-law is sitting on the Epstein Files and called it oversight" and look Hakeem I want to believe but Kushner does not come to the table without an agenda and that agenda does not have your voters in it. The Truth is out there.

Jeffries may parley with Kushner without surrendering his sword, yet private access is no proof of public courage. Oversight must be measured by subpoenas, records, and consequences, not by whom a politician hath met behind closed doors. Progressives should demand results, while Republicans will doubtless call scrutiny persecution the moment it touches Trump. Adieu