Pelosi-Nadler alliance strained by impeachment cleavage

President Nancy Pelosi and House Judiciary Committee Chair Jerry Nadler, two long-time allies, are arguing over the opportunity to open a dismissal investigation against President Donald Trump – a sign of the Toxicity of division on Trump for Democrats in the House.

Nadler twice privately asked Pelosi to open a formal dismissal investigation, but the speaker, supported by the majority of her leadership team and her caucus, asserted that an indictment of the President would be to turn against the Democrats without significant support from the Republicans. And there is no indication that Trump's GOP firewall is cracking.

History continues below

Pelosi and Nadler, two veterans of President Bill Clinton's dismissal drama 20 years ago, seem to draw opposing lessons from this experience. And the gap between the two legislators is indicative of the problem that all Democrats face as they respond to Trump's efforts to block congressional investigations of his personal conduct, finances and politics.

"I think they articulate the different impulses within the caucus and all of us," said Rep. Jamie Raskin (D-Md.) About Pelosi and Nadler. "It's not quite clear what to do."

"Put yourself in someone's place in the House of Representatives today," added Raskin, a member of the Judiciary Committee, who wants to launch an imputation inquiry. "There are a million factors to deal with. And we are dealing with the most anarchic and corrupt presidency of our lives. So, what is the right moment to react? It's not entirely clear.

On Tuesday, however, there will be a key step on which all Democrats can agree: the entire House will vote on the authority of committee chairs to subpoena senior and former officials in the administration of Trump, including Attorney General William Barr and former White House lawyer Don McGahn.

The resolution will allow, in part, the Judicial Committee to sue Barr and McGahn in federal court for the unredacted report of former advisor Robert Mueller, the underlying evidence from his investigation of Russia, as well as the public testimony of McGahn.

But the majority of the Democratic members of Nadler's committee are in favor of Trump's removal from office, putting intense pressure on the president to take more radical action.

Pelosi and other well-known Democrats argue that most members of their party do not support such a move, especially without significant support from the GOP. Even if the Democrat-controlled House voted in favor of Trump's removal, the Republican-run Senate would likely acquit him, he said, which means Trump would not only stay in power, but that he would be in power. It could potentially embolden the GOP's base and lead to the re-election of the president. .

Nadler, for his part, told Pelosi that an impeachment investigation would simplify their investigations under a single committee and strengthen the position of Democrats in federal courts in the face of challenges to their subpoenas.

Nadler and Pelosi clashed at a private meeting last week. Nadler again urged the speaker to support an impeachment investigation, but she refused, saying that she would prefer to see Trump "in prison."

Some members of the Judiciary Committee are referring to a more serious gap between the two legislators. But the main Democratic advisers are constantly minimizing any tension between them.

"I think President Nadler has done a very good job, especially given the parameters on which he has to work," said Rep. Steve Cohen (D-Tenn.), One of the strongest supporters of the removal of the caucus. "There are several of them."

Tuesday's vote – the first enforcement mechanism to take place in the House since the publication of the Mueller report almost two months ago – should not ease tensions, even if House Democrats continue to win significant victories in federal courts and in their negotiations with the Department of Justice on access to Mueller files.

This is partly because Pelosi's allies use these gains to prove that their current strategy is paying off – and that removal is not yet necessary.

"We win with respect to the strategy we pursue and the fact that the Department of Justice has agreed to provide documents and allow the inspection of a more recent version of the report means that we must keep Cape Town, "said Speaker of the Democratic Chamber Caucus, Hakeem Jeffries (DN.Y.), a member of the Judiciary Committee. He was referring to a treat the committee has begun a dialogue with the Department of Justice on access to some of Mueller's "essential" underlying evidence of a possible obstruction of justice by the president.

The dispute between Pelosi and Nadler concerns the intensity and speed with which the Democrats are investigating Trump and how this decision will be reflected in next year's elections.

Pelosi frequently talks about how she empowers the chairs of her committees – by allowing them to make decisions about the legislation they are pursuing and the way they lead their respective groups.

With Nadler's panel, however, she was much more personally involved in the committee's decision-making process, according to several sources, even compared to panels such as Oversight and Intelligence, which also conduct potentially explosive investigations against Trump.

The speaker's allies, however, claim that Pelosi did not resort to the Judiciary Committee, except in respect of his disagreement with Nadler on the impeachment. Opening an impeachment investigation, as Nadler privately advocated with Pelosi, would amount to "jumping off a cliff," according to a source close to the speaker.

The quarrel has severely tested a generally cordial and respectful relationship.

They have served together in the House for almost 30 years. Nadler, a New Yorker, supported Pelosi, a native of California, when she challenged Rep. Steny Hoyer (D-Md.), Now Democrat Number 2, in their bitter battle to become the minority whip. in the House in 2001, a critical moment in his rise to the president's chair. Forged alliances still resonate today and creep into almost all internal caucus policies.

Pelosi, in turn, stayed out of the race between Nadler and Rep. Zoe Lofgren (D-Calif.), A close ally of the speaker, to become the largest Democrat of the Judiciary Committee in 2017. Silence from Pelosi was interpreted as a gift. to Nadler and a blessing for him to take the hammer after the resignation of Rep. John Conyers (D-Mich.) in the midst of a scandal of sexual harassment.

In the seven weeks since the publication of Mueller's findings, House Democrats have focused almost exclusively on the Trump administration's fight to determine the number of subjects that legislators can consult in the Mueller report; when and if Mueller testifies; the conditions of Barr's testimony; and other fights related to the process.

These protracted judicial battles escaped Nadler's control, largely because of the Trump Administration's refusal to comply with Congressional summonses. At Monday 's hearing, Nadler discussed the reluctance of the administration to face Nixon' s lawyer, the White House, John Dean, and former federal prosecutors.

"It is true that the White House ordered the witnesses not to appear before this committee," Nadler said. "But we will have them."

Nevertheless, the committee's Democrats have privately complained that process struggles do little to educate the public, and even Monday's audience with Dean has hardly caused a sensation. Instead, most news networks on Monday covered a fatal helicopter crash in New York.

"Obviously, it will not be effective if they do not see it," said Ted Lieu (D-Calif.), A member of the Judiciary Committee and a member of management who is in favor of opening an impeachment investigation.

"I expressed my personal opinions to the speaker," said Lieu. "It will be a decision of the chair and the caucus. And I respect that decision. In the meantime, I will hold these hearings [and] educate the American people on the report. "

Judiciary Commission, the Democrats largely remain behind Nadler, privately declaring themselves to be in an impossible position – taken between the majority of the Democrats on the panel who support an indictment investigation and the speaker who remains firmly opposite.

"To a certain extent, they are on the same page," said Cedric Richmond (D-La.), Member of the judiciary and ally of Pelosi, about the disagreement between the speaker and Nadler. "But the American people must do it. And from now on as Democrats, the White House has been able to hijack the Mueller report and hide, because we have a president and an attorney general who co-conspire to deprive the American people of the real facts. "

Kyle Cheney contributed to this report.