September 15, 2019

Democrats’ impeachment message leads to plenty of head-scratching | TheHill

image

Speaking with reporters and appearing on cable news shows, top Democrats on the Judiciary Committee have variably referred to an impeachment inquiry, an impeachment investigation and an impeachment process, while Chairman Jerrold NadlerJerrold (Jerry) Lewis NadlerThis week: Congress returns for first time since mass shootings Judiciary panel preparing to vote on procedures for impeachment probe: report House Democrat calls it ‘unconstitutional’ to cite God in hearing oaths MORE (D-N.Y.) churned plenty of headlines last month when he characterized his panel’s investigation as “formal impeachment proceedings.”

Meanwhile, Speaker Nancy PelosiNancy PelosiThe Hill’s Morning Report – Can Trump save GOP in North Carolina special election? Democrats race against clock with push for impeachment Democrats play to Trump’s ego on guns MORE (D-Calif.) and her top lieutenants have taken care to avoid any overt references to impeachment, a concept that remains underwater when it comes to public support across the country.

“We have had an investigation … for a very long time,” Pelosi told reporters in the Capitol on Monday when asked about impeachment.

The irregular branding has confused some lawmakers, perplexed the media and jumbled the party’s oversight message as Congress heads into the thick of the 2020 presidential cycle — a dynamic even some Democratic leaders have begun to acknowledge.

“I think there’s definitely some confusion because people are using different language,” Rep. David CicillineDavid Nicola CicillineDemocrats’ impeachment message leads to plenty of head-scratching Ten notable Democrats who do not favor impeachment White House adviser gives Trump cover on Alabama hurricane claim MORE (R.I.), the head of the Democrats’ messaging arm, said Tuesday.

“Some people will continue to call it an inquiry. Some people call it a proceeding. Some people call it an impeachment investigation,” he added. “But I think hopefully it will be clear that the Judiciary Committee is hard at work to determine whether or not to recommend articles of impeachment.”

Judiciary leaders contend they’ve been consistent in their approach, noting that they’ve repeatedly cited the possibility of impeachment in recent court filings seeking disputed documents and witness testimony from the uncooperative administration.

“I think that we’ve been clear in court, given our right to do oversight,” said Rep. Zoe LofgrenZoe Ellen LofgrenDemocrats make renewed push for election security Groups push lawmakers for hearings on voting machine security Key House Republican demands answers on federal election security efforts MORE (D-Calif.). “One of the remedies that the legislative branch has is impeachment; it’s also oversight.”

And Nadler also defended his messaging, suggesting the language surrounding the investigations is less important than their effectiveness in holding the administration to account for alleged misconduct.

“We have been involved since June or July in an investigation looking toward the possibility of voting on articles of impeachment,” Nadler told reporters in the Capitol on Monday evening. “You can call it an impeachment inquiry. You can call it an investigation. It’s the same thing.”

The impeachment debate and the semantic games surrounding it have highlighted the ideological divisions within the diverse Democratic caucus, which leans heavily to the left but owes its majority to the centrist lawmakers who flipped Republican-held seats in last year’s midterms.

It also underscores the balancing act party leaders are attempting as they seek to invigorate a liberal base clamoring for impeachment while protecting the moderates facing tough reelections next year.

If there’s one advantage to the muddled message, it’s that party leaders can assure both liberals and moderates that they’re on their side.

“I believe that the leadership is trying really hard to make sure that we … [don’t] limit or undermine our own opportunity in the elections,” said Rep. Maxine WatersMaxine Moore WatersTrump faces tough path to Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac overhaul House Democrats blur lines on support for impeachment Nadler asks other House chairs to provide records that would help panel in making impeachment decision MORE (D-Calif.), a vocal impeachment supporter.

“We’re just going to continue to do our work. I don’t know where that takes us,” she added.

Behind Nadler, Democrats on the Judiciary Committee are hoping this week to expand the panel’s investigative powers by adopting a series of procedural changes governing the Trump probe. The changes, scheduled for a committee vote Thursday, would allow Nadler to designate any hearing a part of the broader investigation. They would also empower committee staff to interview witnesses for longer stretches than lawmakers are allowed under current rules.

Rep. Madeleine DeanMadeleine DeanDemocrats’ impeachment message leads to plenty of head-scratching Democratic leaders seek to have it both ways on impeachment Giuliani: Mueller should not testify before Congress MORE (D-Pa.), a freshman member of the committee, said the changes would provide both clarity and efficiency to the investigation.

“It couldn’t be more important than to hold this president accountable for his extraordinary corruption and wrongdoing,” she said. “By setting up these procedures and being so clear, it signals to the courts … what we’re doing. And it will expedite things.”

Yet even the proposed procedural reforms created some confusion surrounding the Democrats’ intentions. Some impeachment activists were quick to praise the changes as a shift toward formalizing the impeachment process.

“The decision by Chairman Nadler and the House Judiciary Committee to move forward with the initial steps of a formal impeachment inquiry marks a pivotal moment in the historic fight to hold Donald Trump accountable,” said Nathaly Arriola, executive director of Need to Impeach, the anti-Trump group founded by billionaire environmentalist Tom SteyerThomas (Tom) Fahr SteyerConservative strategist calls Steyer’s 2020 bid a ‘vanity run’ Tom Steyer receives first presidential endorsement 2020 primary debate guide: Everything you need to know ahead of the September Democratic debate MORE.

But Nadler rejected the notion that the changes mark a step toward impeachment.

“It doesn’t change things. What it does is it provides specific procedures to continue with that investigation,” he said. “We have told the courts and we’ve said in the hearings that we are examining the various malfeasances of the president, with the possibility of recommending articles of impeachment in the House. That is what an impeachment inquiry is.”

Cicilline said he’s hoping the procedural moves do more than expand the scope of the Judiciary probe but also clear up some of the confusion surrounding the Democrats’ impeachment plans.

“One of the objectives of Thursday is to make it very clear that the Judiciary Committee is actively engaged in a proceeding to determine whether or not to recommend articles of impeachment of the president to the full House,” he said.

Meanwhile, liberal impeachment supporters are pressing leaders on and off the Judiciary Committee to adopt a more aggressive approach to holding Trump accountable for allegations of wrongdoing.

“The corruption of this president knows no bounds, and in order to protect our democracy, we have to impeach him,” Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-CortezAlexandria Ocasio-CortezLegislating against ‘loan sharks’ isn’t as simple as it sounds Warren endorses Texas Democrat Cuellar’s primary challenger Enthusiasm builds for ‘Blue New Deal’ after climate town hall MORE (D-N.Y.) said Tuesday.

Ocasio-Cortez said it’s Republicans, not Democrats, who have the most to fear in terms of political fallout if the process gets started.  

“Once the House impeaches, the House has impeached the president,” she said. “Then I want to see every Republican go on the record and knowingly vote against impeachment of this president, knowing his corruption, having it on the record so that they can have that stain on their careers for the rest of their lives.”

“Because this is outrageous,” she added.

Cristina Marcos contributed. 

Read More
Mike Lillis
The Hill

Share
Filed Under: Essentials
Source: