Hoyer responds after contradicting Nadler on impeachment investigation

The Democratic leaders of the House still can not put order in their dismissal messages.

Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-Md.) Backed off Wednesday after declaring the Democrats were not conducting an "impeachment investigation," a statement that directly contradicts key investigators and sows the confusion on the strategy of the democrats.

History continues below

Democratic Party No. 2 then issued a statement in which it claimed to have misunderstood a question of journalists shortly after telling the press that it did not believe that the Chamber was conducting an impeachment investigation – a direct contradiction with the language used in cases brought against the Speaker by the House. Donald Trump, and the older Democrats fear that this will damage their reputation with the federal judiciary.

"I thought the question was whether the entire House was actively reviewing the indictment articles, which we are not at the moment," Hoyer wrote in a statement.

"I strongly support President Nadler and the Democrats of the Judiciary Committee in pursuing their investigation" to determine if there is any reason to recommend impeachment articles to Parliament, "he said. for follow-up.

Earlier, when he was tipped to find out if he was in agreement with Jerry Nadler, president of the judiciary, according to which the Chamber had opened an impeachment investigation, Mr Hoyer replied " no".

"The delimitation should be to know if they are contemplating a resolution of dismissal," Hoyer said. "I do not want to be simplistic about it, but I do not want to challenge the words either."

Hoyer's initial remarks tarnished Nadler (D-N.Y.), Who said – and pleaded in court – that Hoyer himself had signed – that the impeachment investigation was ongoing.

And a few minutes ago, Democratic House caucus chair Hakeem Jeffries of New York refused to say definitively whether the House was conducting an impeachment investigation.

Hoyer and Jeffries' comments come as President Nancy Pelosi also avoided dismissal issues and avoided adhering to the Judiciary Committee's position on the issue.

In private, many Democrats have expressed concern that contradictory descriptions could undermine their court-based efforts, which depend on the formal recognition by federal judges of the House's impeachment power to allow legislators to gain access. essential information from the grand jury and testimony from key witnesses.

Advocates argue that the confused messages of the House's top democrats have intrinsic strategic advantages: they allow Pelosi to meet progressive demands to investigate the president more aggressively, while protecting vulnerable moderates who have tried to completely avoid this politically charged affair.

Earlier Wednesday, several vulnerable recruits questioned Nadler about the impeachment message, according to numerous sources.

The session with Nadler – which included more than a dozen freshmen Democrats – was part of a series of routine meetings of assistant president Ben Ray Lujan (DN.M.) with new members. While the caucus was described as cordial, several freshmen, including Xochitl Torres-Small (DN.M.) and New York representatives Anthony Brindisi and Max Rose, told Nadler that they were concerned by the widespread confusion that eclipsed their political agenda. could cost them the house.

"We continue to talk about the need to be able to walk and chew gum at the same time, but if you look at someone in real life who chews and erases gum and walks, you do not see her at all Rose said according to several sources in the room.

Representative freshman Katie Hill from California, representing an alternative district, told Nadler that they were tired of Democrats being "seen as the party of destitution."

"Everyone is frustrated by the fact that the dismissal talks are using all the oxygen in the room," said Hill, who was also at the meeting. "But beyond the way we talk about it in our own communities and paid communications, we can not control the national media's rhetoric."

New polls conducted by the Congressional Congress Campaign Committee have frightened some moderates who found that the public was more aware of democratic investigations than the bills they had passed.

The national survey revealed that "Only 10% of respondents said that the Trump survey should be a top priority for Congress, but 54% said it believed it was the top priority for Democrats in Congress," according to poll findings , obtained by POLITICO.

"Several members sent a message to the president saying that his efforts were aspirational and that they were not convincingly presented to the American people," said a member in the room. . "They are presented with elitist jargon."

"Meanwhile, we are not doing enough in health and infrastructure and we are losing the confidence of Americans," added the MP.

Before Hoyer misrepresented, Jeffries, a prominent member of the House's Judiciary Committee, said he would wait for the committee to vote on a resolution Thursday formalizing the proceedings of his imputation case.

"I do not want to get caught up in semantics," Jeffries told reporters on Wednesday. "We all agree, on behalf of President Pelosi, through the intermediary of every member of the democratic caucus of the House, that we have the constitutional responsibility to hold a government accountable. uncontrollable executive. "

Despite these remarks, impeachments have already been referred to the Judiciary Committee of the House and, during recent filings, counsel for the Chamber noted that the Panel of Experts was considering recommending these articles, or a revised version, to the entire House. As a member of the bipartite legal advisory group, Hoyer has approved the lawsuits.

In addition, in July, the committee formally started telling the federal courts that it was considering recommending or not dismissing the president.

"[The] the investigation includes consideration of whether the Judiciary Committee should exercise its powers under s. 1 to recommend indictments, "wrote counsel for the House in a lawsuit seeking the testimony of former White House lawyer Don McGahn.

"Acts of impeachment have already been introduced and referred to the judicial commission of this congress", continues the trial.

Hoyer on Wednesday addressed caucus concerns – particularly moderates – that dismissal talks could spoil the party's ambitious 2020 agenda.

"The fear is that you are exclusively focused on this, to the exclusion of all the other things we need to do in the US Congress," Hoyer said.

Insisting on what he would consider exactly as a formal impeachment inquiry, Mr. Hoyer said it should be a specific committee action or a formal vote in the House.

"The impeachment issue is a resolution that is drafted and under consideration by the committee and that the House has decided to proceed," Hoyer told the press. "In both cases, I do not think that's what happened. We do not think that's what happened. I do not think we can better explain it than this: they pursue the search for the truth. "

Kyle Cheney contributed to this report.