Pelosi, Nadler tangle on impeachment, contempt vote

There is growing daylight between Speaker Nancy PelosiNancy PelosiJohnson eyes Irish border in Brexit negotiations Mueller report fades from political conversation Five key players in Trump's trade battles MORE (D-Calif.) and House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jerrold NadlerJerrold (Jerry) Lewis NadlerGOP memo deflects some gun questions to 'violence from the left' House Democrats urge Trump to end deportations of Iraqis after diabetic man's death French officials call for investigation of Epstein 'links with France' MORE (D-N.Y.) over the best strategy for combating a Trump administration that is flouting a flurry of congressional subpoenas at nearly every turn.  

The pair of powerful Democrats clashed in recent days over whether to launch impeachment proceedings against President TrumpDonald John TrumpFacebook releases audit on conservative bias claims Harry Reid: 'Decriminalizing border crossings is not something that should be at the top of the list' Recessions happen when presidents overlook key problems MORE and how soon to hold a contempt vote against Attorney General William BarrWilliam Pelham BarrThe Hill's Morning Report - Trump searches for backstops amid recession worries Mueller report fades from political conversation Barr removes prisons chief after Epstein death MORE.

Nadler, spurred by frustrated Judiciary Committee members, has been privately pushing leadership for both an impeachment inquiry and a contempt vote immediately after lawmakers return from their weeklong Memorial Day recess.

ADVERTISEMENT

Pelosi is still urging a go-slow approach, concerned that Democrats have not yet swayed public opinion about why such aggressive tactics are necessary. The Speaker is also pointing to a string of court victories over the Trump administration and business entities, bolstering Democrats’ arguments that the law is on their side as they methodically probe the president.

The Judiciary Committee “has to make a stronger public case for moving forward with contempt in a way that would persuade the public, that is disciplined enough to persuade the public, and box in the Republicans and really elevate their level of complicity in the president’s wrongdoing and his campaign of obstruction,” said a senior Democratic source tracking the fight playing out in the 235-member caucus.

“Trump has just given us a gift, and we have to use it to our advantage,” the source said. More public outreach “needs to be done before you take a vote on contempt or impeachment.”

In a closed-door emergency caucus meeting this week, Rep. Peter WelchPeter Francis WelchOvernight Health Care: Oversight chair plans to call drug executives to testify on costs | Biden airs anti-'Medicare for All' video | House panel claims Juul deliberately targeted kids Mueller agrees investigation did not 'fail to turn up evidence of conspiracy' Live coverage: Mueller testifies before Congress MORE (D-Vt.), a Pelosi ally, made a point many saw as pushing back at the pressure from Nadler and others on Judiciary, who are increasingly frustrated by the administration’s stonewalling.

Welch stood up and said that while Democrats may eventually have to move forward with impeachment, they should not do so just because of pique within the Judiciary Committee.

It seems it’s “just the Judiciary Committee that’s getting dissed” by the Trump administration, Welch said, according to a source in the room. Democrats, he added, cannot let that dictate the actions of the entire Congress.

Pelosi has consistently sought to tamp down calls for impeachment, believing the party is better off competing with Trump in the 2020 election over health care and other issues.

Polls bolster her position. Only 28 percent of Americans said starting impeachment proceedings should be a top priority for Congress, according to a recent Morning Consult/Politico poll.

Nadler, under pressure to show his committee is winning its war with Trump, has assumed a more aggressive posture in recent days.

In a private meeting with Pelosi and her top lieutenants this week, Nadler explained that the majority of his committee members were clamoring for an impeachment inquiry against Trump and that he, too, thought this was the best course of action now, sources familiar with the meeting said.

But Pelosi and others rebuffed him — a development Nadler later reported back to Democrats on his Judiciary panel during in a separate, closed-door gathering, committee members said.

Nadler has also challenged Democratic leaders on moving quickly to a contempt vote on the floor for Barr, who is refusing to testify to his committee.

During a Democratic whip meeting, he said the House should vote on June 4, according to Budget Committee Chairman John YarmuthJohn Allen YarmuthTrump signs two-year budget deal Lawmakers point to entitlements when asked about deficits House Problem Solvers are bringing real change to Congress MORE (D-Ky.), who attended that meeting.

Top Democrats were surprised that Nadler was floating a specific date when Pelosi and others had not yet settled on a strategy. Rules Committee Chairman Jim McGovern (D-Mass.), whose panel is nicknamed the "Speaker’s committee" because it works so closely with the Speaker, told The Hill it would be "odd" for lawmakers to vote on contempt as their first act after being away from Washington for 12 days.

The broader 235-member caucus needs to have more debate and discussion before taking such a serious step, he said, adding that Pelosi had not signed off on the June 4 vote.

Pelosi's office declined to comment, but the Speaker told colleagues this week she has “great admiration and respect” for Nadler. 

Nadler declined to comment about the contempt vote or impeachment as he left the Capitol for the long recess. His aides declined to comment for this story.

But appearing on MSNBC on Thursday night, Nadler confirmed earlier reporting by The Washington Post that he had pressed Pelosi to act more swiftly on starting impeachment proceedings.

“I urged the Speaker to speed things up and consider an impeachment inquiry,” Nadler told MSNBC host Rachel MaddowRachel Anne MaddowUS ambassador to Germany calls out journalists who blocked him on Twitter Frustrated liberals say Democrats aren't aggressive enough on courts Fox News closes out July as most-watched cable network for 37th straight month MORE, though he conceded that Democrats’ recent court victories had made his argument for impeachment “much weaker.”

The 14-term New York lawmaker is backed by an overwhelming majority of his fellow Judiciary Committee Democrats.

Rep. Madeleine DeanMadeleine DeanDemocratic leaders seek to have it both ways on impeachment Giuliani: Mueller should not testify before Congress Matt Gaetz ahead of Mueller hearing: 'We are going to reelect the president' MORE (D-Pa.) called it a “good sign” that Nadler is aggressively pushing for a contempt vote on June 4. The House plans to adjourn again on June 5 to allow for lawmakers to fly to France to commemorate the 75th anniversary of D-Day and the Battle of Normandy.

“We have to work with urgency. You can’t let people ignore subpoenas, obstruct justice, obstruct the American people getting the truth,” Dean told The Hill. “We have to act with the urgency that that demands.”

“I think the right strategy is to move on all of it as quickly as possible,” added Rep. Ted DeutchTheodore (Ted) Eliot DeutchHouse Democrats urge Trump to end deportations of Iraqis after diabetic man's death House conservatives call for ethics probe into Joaquin Castro tweet Democratic leaders seek to have it both ways on impeachment MORE (D-Fla.), another Judiciary Committee member. Trump is “melting down, and the world is starting to see that he just doesn’t intend to allow Congress to do its job; he just simply refuses to accept that there’s a separate and coequal branch of government at the other end of Pennsylvania Avenue.”

That sentiment for speedy action is shared by many other Judiciary Committee members, including Reps. Hank JohnsonHenry (Hank) C. JohnsonThe United States broken patent system is getting worse Why target Tucker Carlson? It's part of the left's war on the right The Hill's Morning Report - How will Trump be received in Dayton and El Paso? MORE (D-Ga.), Joseph Neguse (D-Colo.), Pramila JayapalPramila JayapalMedicare for all: fears and facts House Democrats urge Trump to end deportations of Iraqis after diabetic man's death 'KamalaCare' fails to address big problem: That we cannot trust insurance companies MORE (Wash.), Val DemingsValdez (Val) Venita DemingsTrump takes post-Mueller victory lap Trump attorney: 'Case is closed' after Mueller testimony Mueller agrees lies by Trump officials impeded his investigation MORE (D-Fla.), Ted LieuTed W. LieuCities are the future: We need to coordinate their international diplomacy George Conway opposes #unfollowTrump movement Puerto Rico resignations spur constitutional crisis MORE (D-Calif.) and Jamie RaskinJamin (Jamie) Ben RaskinHouse panel investigating decision to resume federal executions Pelosi, allies seek to keep gun debate focused on McConnell Pelosi backers feel vindicated after tumultuous stretch MORE (D-Md.). Lieu and Raskin are lower-ranking members of Pelosi’s leadership team.

“I support doing [contempt] at the earliest possible date,” Raskin, who also serves on the Rules panel, told The Hill.

But Judiciary Democrats are not unanimous. Some are deferring to the strategy detailed by Pelosi and Majority Leader Steny HoyerSteny Hamilton HoyerOmar says US should reconsider aid to Israel Liberal Democrat eyes aid cuts to Israel after Omar, Tlaib denied entry Lawmakers blast Trump as Israel bars door to Tlaib and Omar MORE (D-Md.) this month: Wait until Democrats have identified a group of individuals who are defying congressional subpoenas, and then vote on multiple contempt citations at once in a big package. That would also clear floor time so Democrats could pursue other legislative priorities.

Rep. David CicillineDavid Nicola CicillineFirst House Republican backs bill banning assault weapons Hillicon Valley: O'Rourke proposal targets tech's legal shield | Dem wants public review of FCC agreement with T-Mobile, Sprint | Voters zero in on cybersecurity | Instagram to let users flag misinformation Democrat calls for public review of T-Mobile-Sprint merger agreement MORE (D-R.I.), a Judiciary panel member who has called for the start of an impeachment inquiry, described waiting on contempt as a “strategic move.” He pointed to other House committees that are also pushing for documents and weighing contempt citations for those refusing to honor subpoenas.

Raskin, a former constitutional law professor and unabashed liberal, downplayed the disagreements over impeachment and contempt as simply a family discussion about the best way to proceed.

“The whole caucus is in a discussion about which strategy is going to move us forward to counter the lawlessness of the administration,” Raskin said in a phone interview with The Hill on Friday.

“I don’t see us in any way divided or polarized,” he continued, adding that “all of the tools in constitutional toolkit are on the table now.”