A panel of the House will vote on the parameters of a dismissal investigation, with Democrats delivering conflicting messages

The House 's return to Washington this week after a six – week suspension was filled with Democrats offering contrasting explanations to the Judiciary Committee' s investigation: President Jerry Nadler and other Democrats said that "we are in the midst of this week. they were conducting an indictment or indictment investigation, while the Democratic leaders refrained from labeling the inquiry in this manner.

The dissonant messages aroused the frustration of grassroots members, particularly those of competing races who are suspicious of the impeachment, and even pushed Democrat No. 2 of the House to backtrack on his statement regarding the revelation. committee inquiry Wednesday.

The committee's new procedures for its hearings could be exposed as early as next week, when former Trump campaign director Corey Lewandowski is scheduled to appear on Tuesday. In July, the committee summoned Lewandowski and former White House aides Rick Dearborn and Rob Porter on Tuesday, but it is unclear whether the White House will order Dearborn and Porter not to appear. invoking the same immunity as the former White House lawyer. Don McGahn and others.

A more general question frustrates the Democrats

Nadler and committee members say that the adoption of the resolution will make their investigation more effective as they collect information – subpoenas, hearings and courts – to decide on the opportunity to introduce acts of impeachment against the president.

But the more general question: does the committee conduct an impeachment investigation? – disturbed the Democrats all week.

For Nadler and many committee members, the committee is conducting a recall investigation. They argue that the debate on how to qualify the survey is a mere semantics: they have stated publicly and in court that their investigation was part of an active effort to decide the opportunity of continue the impeachment.

The direction of the House, however, took a different approach. President Nancy Pelosi, Majority Leader Steny Hoyer and Caucus Chair Hakeem Jeffries all refused this week to affirmatively state that the committee's investigation was a dismissal or dismissal investigation, such as Nadler has described it.

"I do not want to get caught up in semantics," Jeffries, a member of the Judiciary Committee, said to the question of whether the investigation was a dismissal investigation. "We are all in agreement, on behalf of President Pelosi, through the intermediary of each member of the democratic caucus of the House, that we have the constitutional responsibility to hold a government accountable. uncontrollable executive. "

Hoyer said "no" when he was asked if the House was in a dismissal investigation, but he subsequently issued a statement clarifying his remarks.

"I thought the question was about whether the whole House was actively reviewing the impeachment items, which we are not right now," Hoyer said. "I strongly support President Nadler and the Democrats of the Judiciary Committee as they conduct their investigation" to determine if there is any reason to recommend impeachment items to Parliament ", such as It is essential that the Congress have access to all the relevant facts, and we will follow these facts wherever they go, including the dismissal. "

Hoyer's statement, however, refrained from referring to an impeachment investigation or investigation. CNN asked him Wednesday night if he thought the committee was conducting an impeachment investigation, but he refused to say, "You've seen my statement, I'm not going to say anything more."

The semantic battle symbolizes a wider fracture

Representative Jamie Raskin, a Maryland Democrat sitting on the Judiciary Committee who called the investigation, said the dispute was emblematic of broader divisions on what to do about impeachment. Is it wise to continue, he suggested, when the House knows that the Senate will not act?

"There are 100 views expressed about the proper way of dealing with the president, even among people who agree that he's committed serious crimes and misdemeanors," Raskin said. . "If you think we're not of the same mind about how to proceed, you're absolutely right, nobody knows exactly how to proceed, but everyone thinks we can not let the president get away with it. corruption and bad practices in power. "

Although the Democrats suggested that the labeling dispute of the committee's investigation was not important, the question of whether the committee would conduct an impeachment investigation could have implications the judiciary will be subject to a judge in the coming weeks.

The committee is suing for the grand jury documents of former special advocate Robert Mueller and forcing McGahn to testify. He argued before the courts that his investigation was part of an active debate on the issue of the dismissal of the president.

Republicans say the committee is not conducting an imputation inquiry at all, arguing that the entire House has not authorized a formal investigation as was the case under Presidents Richard Nixon and Bill Clinton.

"The formal impeachment procedures were always allowed by a plenary vote, which President Pelosi took care not to allow," said Georgia's Doug Collins, Republican at the summit. He said the Democrat's resolution was "an insignificant reiteration of existing committee authorities, allowing the president to keep this story in the news while moderate Democrats simply want it to go away."