House Democrats are gearing up for one of their last opportunities to present evidence about President TrumpDonald John TrumpPence: It’s not a “foregone conclusion” that lawmakers impeach Trump FBI identifies Pensacola shooter as Saudi Royal Saudi Air Force second lieutenant Trump calls Warren ‘Pocahontas,’ knocks wealth tax MORE’s contacts with Ukraine before introducing articles of impeachment.
The high-stakes Judiciary Committee hearing on Monday will feature Democratic and Republican investigators seeking to win the PR battle over whether the president’s conduct rises to the level of an impeachable offense.
As investigators from the Intelligence and Judiciary panels duke it out, the hearing will also be vying for the public’s attention amid the anticipated release of a Justice Department watchdog report examining the FBI’s actions in the early stages of the 2016 Russia investigation.
The Judiciary hearing, while not expected to unearth new information, will be a carefully staged operation by Democrats determined to weave the narrative that Trump pressured Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky to open two investigations that would benefit him politically, including one into a top 2020 political rival.
Republicans, meanwhile, are expected to counter by raising complaints of an unfair process and claiming a lack of direct evidence tying Trump to such allegations.
The hearing will be the first since Speaker Nancy PelosiNancy PelosiPence: It’s not a “foregone conclusion” that lawmakers impeach Trump Democrats open door to repealing ObamaCare tax in spending talks Sunday talk shows: Lawmakers gear up ahead of Monday’s House Judiciary hearing MORE (D-Calif.) announced on Thursday that the relevant committees will begin drafting impeachment articles. A floor vote on the eventual articles could come as early as this month.
The hearing also comes just two days after Judiciary Committee Democrats released a report providing more details on the inquiry and impeachment offenses.
Still unresolved, however, is what specific charges Democrats will pursue, as members of different ideological stripes are at odds over how far they should extend. Pelosi had rejected impeachment through most of the year, heeding warnings from centrist lawmakers wary of blowback at the polls in 2020. Some of those lawmakers are hoping to focus the articles squarely on the Ukraine episode — an easier sell, they say, with voters in their purple districts.
“If we’re trying to convince the American people we’re serious, you keep it on the phone call, and the transcript, that moved us to the impeachment inquiry,” said Rep. Kurt SchraderWalter (Kurt) Kurt SchraderKrystal Ball: New Biden ad is everything that’s wrong with Democrats Blue Dogs issue new call for House leaders to abide by pay-go rule Caution for Democrats: Voters care more about drug pricing than impeaching Trump MORE (D-Ore.), a senior Blue Dog Democrat, referring to Trump’s July 25 phone call with Zelensky.
“Keep it simple, don’t bring in a bunch of extraneous stuff. We’ll be accused of a witch hunt.”
Rep. Tom MalinowskiThomas (Tom) MalinowskiMore than 100 Democrats sign letter calling for Stephen Miller to resign Diplomat ties Trump closer to Ukraine furor Impeachment week: Trump probe hits crucial point MORE (D-N.J.), a freshman who flipped a Republican seat last year, is also advocating to limit the articles to Ukraine-related events.
“There is a very clear and strong case that not only most Americans understand but that can be seen to symbolize all of the abuses of power that the president has been credibly accused of,” he said.
More liberal Democrats would go further, to include elements of the Mueller report, which examined Trump’s role in Russia’s 2016 election interference, as well as accusations that the president has used his office to benefit his business empire.
“I don’t think they should go to every grievance that we have with the president,” said Rep. Jared HuffmanJared William HuffmanPelosi heading to Madrid for UN climate change convention Harris introduces bill to prevent California wildfires Overnight Energy: Fight between EPA watchdog, agency lawyers heats up | Top EPA official under investigation over document destruction | DOJ issues subpoenas to automakers in California emissions pact MORE (D-Calif.). “But I am one who would choose to impeach this president for a pretty long list of abuses — that includes emoluments, that includes obstruction of justice, and certainly the Ukraine scandal articles.”
Huffman quickly added that he would accept a slimmed-down roster of charges if party leaders decide that “makes more sense.” But he also noted a potential benefit of widening the net: It would allow vulnerable moderates to go back to their districts having voted against certain impeachment measures.
“It gives them the ability to demonstrate a measured approach, if that’s something they feel like they need to show,” he said.
Others argued that including parts of the Mueller report, which outlined 10 instances of potential obstruction of justice, simply helps their case.
“The real question is whether we want to focus on a singular, discrete episode or patterns of misconduct. And I do think we need to focus on patterns of misconduct,” said Rep. Jamie RaskinJamin (Jamie) Ben RaskinLawmakers to watch during Wednesday’s impeachment hearing Pelosi faces tough choices on impeachment managers Five questions looming over impeachment MORE (D-Md.), a constitutional lawyer who sits on the Judiciary Committee. “And I think that the misconduct we saw with respect to the Ukraine shakedown was not some sort of aberration.”
How quickly Democrats move to draft articles is another open question. Pelosi’s rapid shift to the drafting phase seems to set the stage for floor votes before Christmas — a timeline many lawmakers are hoping to realize.
But the inquiry is also causing a stir among members who fear that, if not done right, vulnerable Democrats will be the ones to pay the biggest cost.
“It’s going to be a liability for all Blue Dogs. … Our districts are purple or red,” said Schrader. “So I’d just as soon get it done, move on.”
Yet that timeline is sure to fuel Republican criticisms that Democrats rammed the process through without due consideration, including interviews with prominent White House officials whose refusal to testify is currently subject to court challenges.
And still, questions have been swirling as to whether Democrats will seek to bring in key witnesses who have yet to testify when they reach the point of arguing their impeachment case before the Senate, with some suggesting it would be an opportunity — and others, a liability. Such names would include former national security adviser John BoltonJohn BoltonThe shifting impeachment positions of Jonathan Turley The key impeachment hearings are before an appeals court, not the House Judiciary panel Beyond the myth of Sunni-Shia wars in the Middle East MORE, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo
Michael (Mike) Richard PompeoForeign Relations Democrat calls on Iran to release other American prisoners Documentary groups challenge Trump administration’s vetting of immigrants’ social media Iran releases American graduate student in prisoner swap MORE and acting White House chief of staff Mick Mulvaney
John (Mick) Michael MulvaneyGiuliani meets with fired Ukrainian prosecutor who pushed Biden, 2016 claims: report Fox’s Napolitano says obstruction ‘easiest’ impeachment offense for Democrats The key impeachment hearings are before an appeals court, not the House Judiciary panel MORE.
Indeed, during last week’s Judiciary hearing on the topic, the lone Republican witness acknowledged that Trump’s conduct might rise to impeachment, but the evidence is yet too thin to make that claim.
“I am concerned about lowering impeachment standards to fit a paucity of evidence and an abundance of anger,” Jonathan Turley, a law professor at George Washington University and contributor to The Hill, told lawmakers.
Pelosi defended the pace last week, saying Democrats have been meticulous in their investigation, stretching back more than two years to include the Mueller report on foreign election interference.
“We are proceeding in a manner worthy of the Constitution,” she said.
She and many others in the caucus are leery of delaying the process to hold out for any cooperation from a White House that appears intent on pushing the court battles well into next year.
“I’m an old trial lawyer, and when you’ve gathered sufficient evidence to make your case, you’ve just got to call the question and get on with it,” said Huffman. “If you lacked confidence in your case, then that’s perhaps a reason to delay and seek more information. That’s not where we are. We’ve got the goods.”
The White House on Friday signaled it will not participate in future impeachment proceedings in the House and called on House Democrats to end their impeachment inquiry.
“House Democrats have wasted enough of America’s time with this charade,” White House counsel Pat Cipollone wrote in a one-page letter to Judiciary Chairman Jerrold NadlerJerrold (Jerry) Lewis NadlerJudiciary panel releases report defining impeachable offenses READ: White House letter refusing to participate in impeachment hearings White House tells Democrats it won’t cooperate in impeachment hearings MORE (D-N.Y.).
Monday’s hearing also comes amid the growing question of who will buck their party on the impeachment vote, a topic of great interest among leaders on both sides.
Republicans have been united in their opposition to impeachment, but Democrats are hoping to peel away Rep. Francis RooneyLaurence (Francis) Francis RooneyAmash says he will vote in favor of articles of impeachment Billboards calling on House Republicans to ‘do their job’ follow members home for Thanksgiving How House Republicans have stayed unified on impeachment MORE (R), a retiring Floridian who has been open to the possibility of supporting it.
Though, Rep. Justin AmashJustin AmashHere are the Senate Republicans who could vote to convict Trump Amash says he will vote in favor of articles of impeachment House approves two-state resolution in implicit rebuke of Trump MORE (Mich.), who switched from a Republican to an independent earlier this year after splitting with his party on Trump’s conduct, told CNN on Friday that he would likely vote on three articles of impeachment: abuse of power, obstruction of justice and obstruction of Congress. But he caveated that he wanted to see the final language before fully committing.
Across the aisle, if Republicans are able to scoop a handful of Democrats to side with them and oppose articles of impeachment — even just one — they will be able to tout the dissent in arguing that even members of Pelosi’s party believe she has gone too far in trying to remove a sitting president.
Just two Democrats — Reps. Collin PetersonCollin Clark PetersonAmash says he will vote in favor of articles of impeachment Democrat says he expects to oppose articles of impeachment against Trump Five questions looming over impeachment MORE (Minn.) and Jeff Van Drew
Jeff Van DrewAmash says he will vote in favor of articles of impeachment Democrat says he expects to oppose articles of impeachment against Trump The Memo: Will impeachment hurt Democrats or Trump? MORE (N.J.) — opposed the impeachment rules package that the House passed on Halloween. But that was a procedural vote, and the number of dissenters could grow as articles to remove the president are brought to the floor.
Already, Van Drew has said he’ll vote against all of them, citing the near certainty that the Republican-controlled Senate will knock them down — and give Trump more ammunition on the campaign trail.
“When it goes over to the Senate, obviously he’s going to be found not guilty. And I think it’s something he will be very proud of and use during his campaign,” Van Drew said. “Certainly people are thinking about [it], they don’t know what to do. This is a very hard vote to make one way or the other.”
