Nadler urged by calls for "inherent contempt"

The Speaker of the Judiciary, Jerry Nadler, is at a standstill.

An increasing number of members of the Democratic Committee are pushing Nadler to take more aggressive action to force President Donald Trump and senior administration officials to comply with numerous summonses to appear in Congress. Some lawmakers even want Congress to exhaust its little-used power by fining or even imprisoning witnesses, something that the House has not done for over 80 years and that it is poorly prepared to perform.

History continues below

But President Nancy Pelosi and her management team are worried that such initiatives, even if they like a party base that hates the president, will backfire and politically reinforce Trump.

Nadler, a 71-year-old Democrat who has long been a thorn in Trump's foot, is trapped. Any action on his part will be displeasing to a key constituency – at his home in his New York district, in his committee room in the Rayburn House office building, or in Capitol's executive apartments.

The new incitement within the Judiciary Committee to use its power of "inherent disregard" against Trump administration officials underscores the larger challenge facing Democrats in the House in responding to the President's Stonewall.

While Pelosi and his lieutenants virtually ruled out Trump's indictment – despite incessant calls from party activists and some lawmakers – the White House continued to increase risk by refusing to comply with House investigations on Trump's finances and conduct. This leaves the Democrats with little means to respond effectively unless Trump is brought before the courts, a tedious and time-consuming process that may take months or even years to resolve.

But doing nothing is not an option for Democrats, who do not want to look impeccable in the face of Trump's challenge.

Trump "is certainly the best case for impeachment," said Rep. Jamie Raskin, a member of the Judiciary and Oversight Committees. "It's the most elusive president in the history of the US But it still leaves us with many questions about what to do and when."

The Democrat of Maryland said that while Democrats could go to court first, lawmakers were deeply interested in the prospect of inherent disregard.

"People want to know what the precedents are and want to know the full extent of our power," Raskin said. "We know how to stop people here. And if we have to stop someone, the [House] A sergeant will know how to do it. I'm not afraid of that. If they can arrest my constituents, we can arrest someone else who disobeys the law. "

"You can not jump from anything to everything. We have to go through a legal process, "said Pramila representative Jayapal (D-Wash.), Another tough critic of Trump. "Once [contempt] Voting happens on the floor, so we also have the inherent authority that is at our disposal. We are considering a number of steps that we can take. People feel that we are moving at the right pace. "

Nadler has been very active in criticizing the Trump government and has imposed a tougher sanction for resisting the committee's oversight efforts.

"In the coming days, I hope Congress will have no choice but to confront the behavior of this lawless, lawless administration," Nadler said last week. "The committee will also look at the officials who allow this cover-up."

On Wednesday, the Judiciary Committee of the House voted to have Attorney General William Barr be in contempt of Congress for failing to deliver an unedited copy of the report of special advocate Robert Mueller. No vote in the House has yet been scheduled, but Democrats know that this decision is more symbolic than real. A civil contempt resolution should be approved in the coming weeks, which means that the House could sue Barr and the Department of Justice. But that's not enough for many Democrats. They want to go much further.

Some lawmakers told POLITICO that the growing pressure to adopt a more aggressive posture is being waged by the youngest members of the committee, many of whom are new to the skirmishes and polarizing fights that have long divided the judiciary.

The Judiciary Committee has long been one of the most advocates of Congress, as leaders tend to distance the vulnerable – and usually more moderate – members of the committee. This leaves a panel of members less willing to compromise or avoid a battle with a president of both parties.

"Nothing is safe, it can not be, we have to look at all the options to do our job, protect the Constitution, and make sure that the government is working as it should," he said. said the representative. Mary Gay Scanlon (D-Pa.) Said.

Scanlon said that it would be extraordinary for Congress to arrest or convict a witness who refuses to testify, but that the conflict is motivated by the White House's refusal to comply with subpoenas.

"There is a reason why we do not do it, but there is a reason why we did not even have to talk about it," said Scanlon. "Because some administrations negotiated in good faith and tried to work for the good of the American people rather than that of a particular incumbent."

Scanlon, along with several other Democrats in the judiciary, said that there had been "conversations" among panel members about the desirability of initiating impeachment proceedings. which would strengthen the committee's legal position vis-à-vis the White House.

The committee also includes the presidential candidate, Eric Swalwell (D-Calif.), Who called for Barr's dismissal, but did not call for Trump's immediate indictment.

"We restrain ourselves from doing" Donald Trump's justice. "" Justice Donald Trump "simply means that you draw a conclusion and let the facts catch up – we try to make a difference with that, which is an orderly process, which is frustrating in that it does not happen as fast as you wish., "Swalwell said in a recent interview. "We have a chance to do it right, you have a record to create for the courts, you want to show that you've given them every chance to comply." It's frustrating, but it's the law and order. "

However, there are also Democrats who may not be in favor of the bellicose speech of the committee. Representative Lucy McBathhails from a district in Georgia who is typically Republican-based and has joined the committee in part to lead her efforts on gun control. Representatives Lou Correa of ​​Pennsylvania, Zoe Lofgren of California and Sylvia Garcia of Texas, former Houston Municipal Judge, have also been described by lawmakers as potential forces of moderation within the committee.

"It's very simple for me as a member of the judiciary. What I want to know is full supervision and disclosure, access to all the Mueller documentation, the unreduced Mueller report and the underlying information. This is the first step »Correa said. "I know that the administration has announced its intention to fight, it is probably what we expected.We hope that the tone will change tone, but at this point, we will have to go to court and show them that we are reacting sensibly as members of Congress. "

Correa would not commit to asserting an authority inherent in contempt, let alone impeachment. "Let's not take the facts in advance, we are not there yet," Correa said.

Lofgren – who briefly challenged Nadler for the Democrat position on the committee following the resignation of Rep. John Conyers Michigan 18 months ago – rejected the idea that a recall procedure was needed. She also commended Nadler for dealing with the dispute with Trump and the Department of Justice about the Mueller report.

"I think we are proceeding in an orderly fashion – or trying to – exercise our oversight responsibilities, and then we'll see where we are," Lofgren said. "I think we're determined to do our job and then we'll see where we are."

The panel also includes two members of the board: the representative Hakeem Jeffries (DN.Y.), who is reluctant to go faster than Pelosi wants, and the representative David Cicilline (DR.I.), who said that the dismissal was becoming more acceptable every day. but that the committee is not ready to go.