[ad_1]
WASHINGTON – From his office on the first floor of the Capitol on Wednesday, the House Democratic Representative, House Representative, Steny H. Hoyer Representative of Maryland, was unequivocal: no impeachment investigation by President Trump has occurred. is in progress.
In the Rayburn Building, the Speaker of the Judiciary Committee of the House, New York representative Jerrold Nadler, worked tirelessly.
And as she ran the halls of Congress brilliantly this week, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi seemed to be siding between the two, reiterating a kind of mantra – "legislate, investigate and litigate" – which seems to have been tailored to avoid the word "i". .
While their investigations of Mr. Trump are entering a new phase after six weeks of absence in Washington, Democrats from all corners of the House are finding it increasingly difficult to agree on the how to define exactly what they are doing to defend their cause. the President – particularly with regard to the term "impeachment" politically charged and constitutionally burdensome.
Progressives rushed to adopt the term and Mr. Nadler was more and more willing to pronounce it, while the more moderate members, who still fear the political consequences, continued to dismiss the idea that House had really taken the plunge. formal investigation.
Confusion and conflicting statements are to be expected in some respects, as Democratic leaders struggle to navigate the delicate political terrain and complex legal landscape of whether – and how – to prosecute an incumbent president. . Mr. Hoyer quickly retracted his remarks Wednesday to eliminate the dissonance and the democrats sought to divert the debate disagreements around the terminology.
"I do not want to get caught up in semantics. We all agree with President Pelosi, through every member of the House Democratic Caucus, that we have the constitutional responsibility to hold an executive out of control, "he said. New York Representative Hakeem Jeffries, Leader of the Democratic Caucus. also sits on the Judiciary Committee. "That's what six committees do – not just the Judiciary Committee – and committees should be allowed to do their work without getting involved in semantic distinctions."
But the persistent ambiguity is also increasingly a handicap for Democrats, who may seem impeccable and unfit while they may assume the most consistent responsibility of Congress.
"The impeachment policy is debatable. Maybe they are good. Maybe they are not. Nobody knows it, "said Dan Pfeiffer, one of President Barack Obama's top advisers. wrote on Twitter. "But I know that the Democratic Party's current strategy of basically saying that it is charging Trump and saying the opposite to the moderates is an absolute disaster."
On Wednesday, conflicting messages rocked into the absurd. Mr. Hoyer tried to silence journalists' days on the question of whether the Chamber was conducting a dismissal investigation with an unequivocal "no", followed by an entangled explanation that only raised the issue. ;other questions.
"I do not want to be simplistic about that, and I do not want to dispute the words either, but impeachment, what you mean, is the review of a resolution of 39 imputation and a possible vote on an imputation resolution – this is not what is currently before the committee, "Hoyer told reporters.
Mr. Hoyer instead suggested that Mr. Nadler and his panel members were simply trying to convince the federal courts that they were considering indictment in order to expedite their trials and meet the criteria for sharing sensitive secrets. of Great Jury Collected in the Investigation in Russia.
For weeks, Mr. Nadler and his committee members have said the opposite – not just in the courts. He felt that a scheduled committee vote for Thursday would be an important step in formalizing his impeachment investigation by adopting a set of procedures to govern it in the future. Ms. Pelosi and her management team approved each step.
"What we are doing is very clear," Nadler told reporters Monday night. "You can call this an imputation inquiry, an imputation inquiry, or the term you want, for short."
Part of the uncertainty comes from the fact that there are no absolute rules that define or govern the impeachment process, and more specifically what constitutes a dismissal investigation. The Constitution specifies only the finest indictment facts and, traditionally, the House has relied on a mixture of rules and precedents.
Hoyer's staff reacted quickly Wednesday to go back, accusing him of being a misunderstanding.
"I thought the question was 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 in furthering their investigation" to determine if there is any reason to recommend items of impeachment to the Parliament ", as the l & # 39; indicates the resolution. "
But the episode was enough to trigger a new round of speculation about what Democratic leaders were trying to accomplish. And that added a sense of uncertainty among the basic legislators about what the House was planning to do.
"The caucus is anxious to know if we will proceed to an imputation survey and, if so, what will be the schedule," said Harley Rouda, California Democrat representative, a freshman who supports an imputation inquiry.
Julian Epstein, senior Democratic adviser to the Judiciary Committee during the Bill Clinton impeachment process, said the confusion may have been a little intentional, reflecting Pelosi's best attempt to balance differences between Democrats over how to proceed.
"What I fear about this is that you hang a lantern at the caucus divisions," said Epstein. "It could give you a small short-term advantage over how you manage caucus today, but in the long run, I'm not sure it helps."
Republicans are briskly digging divisions, accusing Democrats of ignoring pressing political issues as part of a determined quest to oust Mr. Trump. At the same time, they claimed that the party was pursuing a false accusation that shredded solemn constitutional precedents only to satisfy its left.
Georgian Representative Doug Collins, the Republic's High Representative on the Judiciary Committee, said Thursday's vote on the panel's investigative procedures would only continue the farce.
"The work of the commission of tomorrow is an insignificant reiteration of existing commission authorities, allowing the president to keep this story current when moderate democrats simply want to make it disappear," he said.
[ad_2]
Source link