[ad_1]
"This has been a dismissal investigation and it continues," said Nadler this week.
But Democratic leaders have a different point of view.
"We are doing the same thing as we are: we are trying to find out the truth," CNN Steny Hoyer, Democrat of Maryland, House Majority Leader, told CNN when the group asked if the committee was preparing an impeachment investigation, Echoing President Nancy Pelosi told the Democrats that the actions taken by the committee were a "continuation" of their existing investigations. Neither one nor the other leader stated that the committee 's investigation was a dismissal investigation, as described by Nadler and others.
The discordant messages highlight the persistent gap between the best democrats and the main legislators on how to proceed with the possible indictment of the president. This is an issue that divides the party between Liberal lawmakers and many of its moderate members in the districts that Trump won in 2016 – and this could potentially have significant consequences in the 2020 elections.
The mixed feelings about the wisdom of the impeachment process – defenders of the impeachment warn the House of its lack of time while many moderates say they still need to gather more evidence – have added to the confusion over the measures it is currently taking.
In closed night on Monday night, Pelosi said she was expecting Democrats to describe what was happening as they hear, even though the President's office has aired new talking points. MPs' offices, describing their plans for their investigations, without mentioning plans to dismiss the president. "People will say what they want," said a Democrat who attended Monday's meeting with Pelosi, describing the remarks made by the President behind closed doors.
Some Democrats say that the cautious approach of Pelosi is a method.
"There is an old adage about a frog – if you throw it in boiling water, it jumps, but if you put it in lukewarm water and light the fire, she will swim until she is cooked, "said representative Harley Rouda, a freshman from a California swing district who supports the impeachment process. "I have the impression that the speaker is preparing the president."
Others recognize that there is confusion in the messages.
"This is not the impeachment, and I think everyone wants to go there immediately, and that's what makes people nervous," said Pramila representative Jayapal of Washington, a judicial commission of the United States. Democratic Party in the House. "Whenever someone says:" It's an impeachment. "That's not the case yet, we have not drafted articles of dismissal, which would be the following, depending on what we find." There is some confusion, I would like everything be clear, I am very clear about what we are doing. "
For liberal Democrats pushing the House to impose impeachment, there is an urgent need to step up action, they said, recognizing that time is running out for the House's impeachment period.
"In order to protect our democracy, we must remove him," said New York representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez. "I want all Republicans to register and knowingly vote against the removal of this president, knowing that his corruption has been recorded so that their stay is suspended until the end of their lives."
Republicans believe the message is important because the whole House has not yet made a formal vote on a dismissal investigation – a step taken during the impeachment process of Presidents Richard Nixon and Bill Clinton. Democrats say that such a vote is not necessary.
Thursday's vote is an escalation
"We said that it was – we told the court, we said during the hearings – that we were looking at the various malpractices of the president with a view to the possibility of recommending articles of a kind. impeachment in the House, "said Nadler.
But Nadler and the committee did not describe their investigation, which began in March, as an impeachment investigation until they make an application to a federal judge at the end of July for the record. of Mueller's grand jury. Since then, the Committee has argued that a formal imputation investigation, approved by the entire House, was not necessary because it had all the powers necessary to conduct its inquiry in order to determine whether it was necessary to write indictment articles.
Pelosi supported the committee's efforts in court, which stated that the committee was in the process of determining whether to recommend articles of impeachment, and supports the committee's resolution. But she remains opposed to the continuation of the impeachment proceedings, arguing that the public is still not at the rendezvous, and she objected to the investigation being called an impeachment investigation.
"We have been conducting an investigation for a very long time – in case you missed it, Russia's disruption of our elections, about wrongdoing by the government. long, "Pelosi told reporters Monday.
She asked CNN if she agreed with Nadler that the committee was conducting a "formal impeachment procedure," Pelosi said, "I really do not know what the president said, I know we're on the way to (investigate) and this includes the possibility of legislation or an indictment ".
Representative Hakeem Jeffries, chair of the House Democratic Caucus and a member of the Judiciary Committee, stated that he supported the committee's investigation, but that it was not a problem. an impeachment investigation.
"I support the President's efforts to hold the administration accountable.I support the investigation in all its settings and I appreciate the fact that it is looking at the ####################################################> 39, obstruction of justice, abuse of power and cultural corruption that occurred at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, "Jeffries said.
When asked if he was in favor of deposing the president, Jeffries replied, "I support what I just said."
House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff, who has not yet endorsed the impeachment process, said, "I want to make sure we can convince the country that the conduct of this president is so inconsistent with our mandate that we had to shoulder our responsibilities. " this step, so I have not made a firm judgment. "
Confusion during recess
The committee argued that the debate was about semantics and labels and that it was essentially about getting the information needed to make a decision on impeachment.
But their efforts to get information during court battles could last months however, and Nadler told reporters Monday that the committee would not have to wait for McGahn's testimony before ruling on articles of dismissal.
At the same time, the extension of the timetable is delaying the anxiety of impeachment supporters in the run-up to the 2020 elections.
"I think leaders are trying to make sure we do not engage in our own way, or limit or jeopardize our chances in the election," said California Democrat Representative Maxine Waters. who was one of the first lawyers of the impeachment.
"I think the leaders really believed that," added Waters. "And now, I think what has happened is the continuation of the discussions and the pressure from the public has pushed the judiciary to the point where it has to further transform this so-called investigation into an investigation." and that's what's happening now. "
Democrats who have not yet ruled in favor of an imputation inquiry say that the committee must actually collect more information, regardless of the name of the investigation.
"We deserve to ensure that the American public has all the facts and information, and it is our role in justice, to pass on all this information to the American public," said Representative Lucy McBath of Georgia, member of the Judiciary Committee. "I just think there's still a lot of work to be done, we have federal subpoenas, witnesses who have yet to appear, and we have not completed the process yet."
And some say that they are exhausted by the whole thing.
"I am so tired of all the debate," said Rep. Jamie Raskin, a member of the House Judiciary Committee, who said the ongoing investigation before the committee was the same as an investigation. by indictment. "I never want to use the word again until it has legal effects."
[ad_2]
Source link