Why Pelosi and his party finally adopted the impeachment

Hoyer said he had reached the same conclusion over the weekend after a wave of staggering reports of Trump's attempts to pressure Ukraine – and possibly suspend US military assistance. – to his political advantage.

"The facts determined the timing and the decision," said Pelosi during a brief interview at POLITICO. And that's what I've always said: when we get the facts, we'll be ready. And we are ready. "

Pelosi's decision follows months of democratic internal struggles. She had also faced a wave of criticism from the party's activist base, which had begun to question her, while her progressive qualifications were flawless.

And the move involves risks. For the moment, public opinion is still opposed to dismissal, and the investigation could jeopardize its majority in 2020 while giving Trump a boost in his re-election bid.

But Pelosi had also maintained his keen caucus and knew that the Democrats were erupting just days after the start of the scandal in Ukraine.

Returning to Washington that evening, Pelosi flipped through an editorial in the Washington Post, released a few minutes earlier, by seven vulnerable Democratic freshmen – and long-standing charges – impeachment proceedings aimed at dismissing Trump of his duties. The platform emphasized the speed with which the political terrain evolved among the Democrats.

In fact, Pelosi had spoken to the group at a teleconference Monday night, offering advice before the publication of their podium.

She then began taking notes, the first draft of her own speech endorsing an investigation – words that would formalize the House's investigation, but could also change the course of the nation and define her career.

But there was a hiccup: "I put some notes in the plane at 10 pm. at night but then I left it in the plane, "Pelosi said.

Less than 24 hours later, after informing her 235-member caucus for the first time of the decision at a private meeting, Pelosi headed for the podium on the speaker's balcony. a wall of American flags, and addressed the country.

"The president must be held responsible. "No one is above the law," Pelosi said, describing Trump's actions as "a betrayal of his oath."

And then Pelosi went to a place where she was not willing to go publicly: "That's why I am announcing today that the House of Representatives is launching an official investigation into impeachment."

For Democrats who had been calling for an impeachment investigation for several months – sometimes feeling the wrath of Pelosi – the speaker's words were astounding. Barely a week ago, these same Democrats lamented privately that Trump's impeachment campaign was about to run out quickly after several attempts to gain public support were unsuccessful.

Now, pro-impeachment forces feel justified.

"I've always thought it was unavoidable," said Rep. Jamie Raskin (D-Md.) About Trump's dismissal. "Here, he's basically touted what he's been doing. And the truth is obvious. The Latin phrase is res ipsa loquitur – the thing speaks for itself. "

"Leave all MUELLER STUFF GO"

Four months earlier, Democratic leaders feared they were about to lose control of the impeachment story.

It was May 22 and two days earlier Trump had banned Don McGahn, a former White House lawyer, from testifying before the House Judiciary Committee about the alleged obstruction of justice by the President.

Angry at Trump – and missed opportunity to hear the star witness of special advocate Robert Mueller – some members of Pelosi's management team clashed privately on this issue and were now preparing to break with the interlocutor and openly request an impeachment proceeding against the President.

So, Pelosi, who keeps a notorious grip on his members, summoned his lieutenants to curb the revolt in favor of dismissal before it was too late.

It was then that representative Cheri Bustos, a moderate from Illinois who presided over the Democrats' campaign arm, delivered a speech that knocked the room down.

"We just have to let all this Mueller stuff disappear," said Bustos, according to three sources who attended the meeting.

Bustos's comment reflects an increasingly deep sense among senior House leaders and a faction of moderate Democrats who do not want to have anything to do with the discourse on impeachment. Bustos said publicly that she supported House investigations into the Mueller case, but she also argued for a long time that voters were more concerned about kitchen table issues.

But for the faction of Democrats seeking a formal impeachment procedure, Bustos' suggestion came precisely when they needed to be more aggressive in the face of a hostile White House. The Trump administration would soon block Congress on a host of subpoenas of witnesses and documents, effectively flouting legislators' constitutional control powers.

This meeting was the beginning of a break that consumed the Democratic caucus for months. It was one of the first times that Pelosi attempted to make the tightrope between the Liberals who helped her to be elected president and the moderates who presented the Democrats project to the House in 2018 – a delicate balance that has become increasingly difficult to manage.

It is also when the Democrats who support the impeachment make a conscious choice: they will not simply align themselves with the leaders of their party and continue to organize colleagues to join the impeachment cause.

"I think we've had enough to file impeachment right after the [Mueller] report was made public at the beginning, "said the representative Val Demings (D-Fla.), one of three legislators to sit on the judiciary and intelligence committees.

In the weeks and months following the publication of the Mueller Report, pro-impeachment Democrats felt that caucus advocates underestimated Trump's ability to "self-defeat" by his actions and his avenging penchant political enemies.

"I felt we were undecided and overly cautious," said Rep. Jared Huffman (D-Calif.), Early Defender of the Dismissal. "And frankly, we did too much political analysis when we should have taken this obvious bomb, we add it to the many other obvious impenetrable bombs we already had and started doing our job."

But the caucus was divided and the fracture became more and more difficult to ignore.

Pelosi and House Judiciary Committee Chair Jerry Nadler (D-N.Y.) Had been fighting over the issue for months. Just last week, Pelosi criticized the trial committee's handling of the indictment process behind closed doors and even encouraged those in the room to disclose his complaints.

And then, just when the impeachment effort turned out to be sputtering, everything changed.

On 13 September, House of Representatives Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff (D-Calif.), Issued a late press release in the night. revealing the existence of an intelligence whistleblower according to which the Trump administration had refused to let Congress speak. In a few days, the Trump-Ukraine scandal erupted in Washington.

PELOSI MOVES

The calls began to arrive seriously in Pelosi last Friday night.

Earlier that week, the Washington Post revealed details of a mysterious whistleblower complaint not disclosed by Congress. It was a "promise" made by Trump while talking to a foreign leader.

A few days later, a follow-up report published in the Wall Street Journal then revealed that Democratic leaders were delicately trying to undermine the opening of a dismissal investigation. The report described how Trump had "repeatedly" lobbied the Ukrainian president to investigate former vice president Joe Biden and his son on a phone call in July, while by simultaneously retaining military aid from the country.

For many Democrats, it was what was missing in previous Trump scandals. Trump reportedly used his office to extort a foreign leader to help him in his re-election campaign, which was Richard Nixon's time with many party members.

"We are talking about potentially serious and ongoing abuse of power. We are talking about a sitting president and not a presidential candidate. And we're talking about the current campaign, not a past campaign, "said representative Raja Krishnamoorthi (D-Ill.) In an interview just minutes after reviewing the classified whistleblower complaint in the bunker underground of the Intelligence Committee on Capitol Hill, Wednesday evening.

While the scandal in Ukraine has risen rapidly, progressive activists have become agitated. Saturday night, Liberal Republican Alexandra Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) Wrote on Twitter that the Democratic leaders' refusal to dismiss Trump was "the biggest national scandal" than the "violent behavior of the president."

But Pelosi did not hasten to make a decision. She was a backlogged MP when the House removed President Bill Clinton in 1998, and she knew that Mr. Trump's impeachment procedure would be a divisive factor in the country.

Pelosi was also convinced that it would distract attention from his party's legislative priorities regarding the costs of health care and drugs, gun violence and other key issues. The national Democratic agenda – and Trump's growing unpopularity in the suburbs – led the party to a huge victory in the House in November and sent Pelosi back to the presidency after eight years of minority rule.

The California Democrat also knew that Trump's dominance over the GOP meant that no Republican would support the impeachment process except in cases where there would be an airtight lawsuit against the president. And she feared that indicting Trump on partisan lines was a risk for the Democratic majority.

Pelosi resisted the resistance of the Democratic base – and his own caucus – against the indictment. She has sometimes been exasperated by critics, clashing privately with members of her management team while publicly claiming that Trump "is not worth it" to be dismissed.

Another important factor weighed heavily on Pelosi: its "front-line" members in the most difficult districts overwhelmingly opposed Trump's dismissal, and some had directly said so. It was her duty to represent the entire caucus, so Pelosi did what she felt she should do as a speaker: Say no to dismissal.

But the scandal in Ukraine has upset all that.

On Saturday morning, Pelosi informed her staff that she was ready to prepare a statement approving a dismissal investigation. She continued to respond to calls from dozens of Democrats throughout the weekend, delivering end-to-end praise, first for veteran journalist Cokie Roberts on Saturday, then for Ms. Clyburn in South Carolina on Sunday.

Dozens of other Democrats in the House also traveled to South Carolina to pay tribute to Emily, Clyburn's 58-year-old wife. But on the sidelines of weekend commemorative events, debating discussions dominated the discussions.

"Over the past few days, she has had regular contact with all members of the House's democratic caucus," said Speaker of the House Democratic Caucus Hakeem Jeffries (D-N.Y.).

In the meantime, thousands of miles away, other Democrats were also drawing their own painful conclusions about Trump's alleged behavior and what to do.

"I did my job"

For two vulnerable Democrats in Minnesota, the decision to support Trump's indictment was a deeply personal decision made at 30,000 feet.

Representative Dean Phillips sent an e-mail to his staff informing him that he had decided to approve a dismissal investigation during a flight to Washington Sunday. Representative Angie Craig, sitting in a neighboring district, said her thoughts would also crystallize in the air.

When the two men spoke Monday in front of a group of experts on Capitol Hill, Craig then put Phillips aside to inform him of his decision to request the opening of an investigation. Imputation – and learned that he had already drafted a similar statement to be published this afternoon.

A few hours later, the two freshmen from Minnesota became the first democrats in the battlefield to support the impeachment after Trump admitted to pressuring the Ukrainian authorities to investigate Biden. This was the beginning of a wave of support that would have finally pushed the number of supporters of impeachment investigations to the House by a majority – 218 members – by the middle of the week.

"At the end of the day, I wondered, whether it was a Democratic president having exactly the same set of admissions or behaviors, would I have the courage to to speak up and ask for an inquiry about my own Democratic president? "Craig said in an interview.

In Washington, much of the attention to change in the caucus was focused on the seven first-year students on the battlefield who published the tribune Monday night. This 427-word statement came after nonstop text days and teleconferences among a very tight group of legislators who all have national security histories. , including in the army and the CIA.

But Trump himself contributed to the dynamic for impeachment too. Many Democrats said Sunday that Trump's remarks were provocative, directly acknowledging that he had held talks with Ukrainian officials about an investigation into Biden, which led lawmakers to believe they could no longer ignore the situation.

Some called senior members of their national delegations and spoke with Pelosi on the way forward. Others decided at home with their family or in their neighborhood. Representative Haley Stevens (D-Mich.), Who endorsed Tuesday a dismissal investigation, spoke at a Democratic picnic near a playground where she grew up.

Some freshmen were still deliberating when they returned to Washington on Tuesday, where the problem was addressed during a closed meeting of the Blue Dogs' Moderate Coalition and resistance to destitution persisted.

Representative Henry Cuellar (D-Texas), who survived the mid-2010 democratic war, warned new undecided students in the room.

"Do not get caught up in the party," warned the conservative Democrat. Elders from other parties, like representatives. Kurt Schrader (D-Ore.), Acquiescèrent head, according to several people in the room.

Cuellar and Schrader are among the few Blue Dogs who survived the party's humiliating defeat eight years earlier, as the ranks of the moderate caucus ran out in half after a series of tough votes, including Obamacare.

This time, if the Democrats were to take a vote that could annihilate them, Cuellar said that they needed to vote according to their conscience.

Several new freshmen in competitive districts said that they had tried to put politics aside. But they could not totally ignore the idea that indictment could cost them their siege.

"If I serve a mandate and do it with honor and principle, and lose because of it, so be it. I did my job, "Phillips said. "Has it crossed my mind? Of course. But it's very liberating to reflect my truth, and I think the truth of the nation. "

"GIVE A MESSAGE TO GODDAMN"

A few hours before his historic announcement on Tuesday, Pelosi received a call from Trump. The conversation apparently focused on gun control, but Trump shifted into controversy in Ukraine.

Trump then told Pelosi that he did not personally hold the whistleblower's complaint. "Well, then cancel it," she told him, passing the conversation to lawmakers later in the day.

But even after it became apparent that an indictment investigation was inevitable, the Democrats were still far from an agreement on the actual mechanisms of he.

Lawmakers in Swing District, in particular, were actively pushing Democratic leaders to adopt a completely new strategy during the Mueller era – a strategy that did not involve what they considered to be overly aggressive members. of the Judiciary Committee of the House.

On Tuesday morning, a handful of members of the Judiciary Committee met with first-year national security students who had written this article the night before. The meeting was hosted by Representative Debbie Mucarsel-Powell (D-Fla.), Another vulnerable first-year Democrat who also sits on the Judiciary Committee.

The members of the judiciary had a key objective: to convince these influential newcomers that their group was best equipped to carry out impeachment proceedings, rather than a select committee chosen by party leaders, as advocated by some moderate legislators the last days.

The week before the hearing, former Trump campaign director, Corey Lewandowski, still worried a lot for a circus. He had quarreled with the Democrats and had defiantly refused to answer questions regarding his role in the Mueller case investigation.

The Democrats privately described this confrontation – the first public hearing with a Mueller report witness – as an embarrassment, and they accused Nadler of being responsible for the mess. Pelosi herself said at an in camera meeting that she would immediately have held Lewandowski in contempt, a comment that several participants saw as a dig at Nadler.

Members of the Judiciary Committee reacted at the meeting with key interlocutors, saying that they understood the seriousness of the Ukrainian scandal and why it was different from the myriad of other investigations conducted by Democrats against Trump.

In reality, Democratic leaders now unite around a strategy to reduce the problem of their impeachment investigation to the Ukrainian scandal, in part because it unified the scandalized party.

In the end, the judiciary was successful and Nadler's main role in the impeachment campaign was preserved. Pelosi held a private meeting with six committee chairs on Tuesday afternoon and asked them to present their best dismissal cases and send them to the Judicial Commission for a possible review of articles on dismissal.

Yet even after Pelosi helped the party conduct a dismissal investigation, keeping its members united over the next few weeks and months could prove difficult.

An in-camera session with the entire caucus on Tuesday was clear, while some moderates complained that they did not receive the clear message of telling voters why it was necessary to remove them for Trump's maneuvers. Ukraine.

Representative Elissa Slotkin (D-Mich.) Was the most colorful complaint of Democratic leaders to "give us a damn message to stay," according to lawmakers and assistants in the room.

"I think we all know we're at a historic moment," later, Slotkin told reporters. "Obviously, many investigations are already underway. But I think it's important that we focus on this one. It's clear, it's understandable, it's strategic, and we have to take the country with us. "