Democrats have finally begun an official impeachment inquiry into President Donald Trump. And a big reason for that is that impeachment backers have swayed the most critical ally of all: Rep. Jerrold Nadler (D-N.Y.), the chairman of the House Judiciary Committee — one of the House’s key investigative bodies and the one responsible for debating articles of impeachment.
According to Politico, one person is still not sold on impeachment, however: House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA).
Pelosi recently fumed to members of her caucus that the Judiciary Committee is moving too fast and is laying out a roadmap to impeachment without having whipped the votes to do it. “Feel free to leak this,” she said.
Pelosi has made clear that she is not inherently opposed to impeachment, but that she believes it doesn’t make sense in the current political environment. The problem from her perspective is that several key Democratic freshman lawmakers, many of whom were elected to ancestrally GOP suburbs and dethroned powerful incumbents, promised their constituents not to back impeachment — and Pelosi worries that forcing them to go on the record either way about it would jeopardize their re-election, and Democrats’ House majority.
Some caucus members, however, have suggested that Pelosi doesn’t oppose the substance of what Nadler is doing — just the way it’s being sold politically.
“I think the speaker wants to be careful of all the different members of the caucus,” Congressional Progressive Caucus co-chairwoman Pramila Jayapal (D-WA) told Politico. “She doesn’t always want to use the word ‘impeachment’ but believe me, she signed off on every piece of what has been put forward.”
Rep. Jamie Raskin (D-MD) doesn’t believe the disagreement is damaging to Democrats — but said their is certainly daylight between Pelosi and Nadler.
“Nadler is talking about law, Pelosi is talking about politics,” said Raskin. “Nadler is looking at high crimes and misdemeanors, and we are inundated with them in the Judiciary Committee. But Pelosi is looking at the political side of it.”
Rep. Ilhan Omar asks judge to ‘show compassion’ for man who threatened to put bullet in her head
After a man accused of threatening her life pled guilty to the crime in a U.S. District Court, Rep. Ilhan Omar on Tuesday released publicly a letter she wrote asking the federal judge presiding over the case to "show compassion" in his sentencing.
Patrick W. Carlineo Jr., a 55-year-old man from upstate New York, pled guilty on Monday on gun charges and for threatening to murder Omar in phone calls he made to her congressional office in March of this year. But in her letter to Judge Frank P. Geraci Jr., Omar said that while the charges were quite serious she did not think that an overly punitive sentence was the answer.
Why saying ‘OK boomer’ at work is considered age discrimination – but millennial put-downs aren’t
The phrase “OK boomer” has become a catch-all put-down that Generation Zers and young millennials have been using to dismiss retrograde arguments made by baby boomers, the generation of Americans who are currently 55 to 73 years old.
Though it originated online and primarily is fueling memes, Twitter feuds and a flurry of commentary, it has begun migrating to real life. Earlier this month, a New Zealand lawmaker lobbed the insult at an older legislator who had dismissed her argument about climate change.
Academic experts analyze Johnson and Corbyn’s claims in first 2019 UK election debate
Boris Johnson, the UK prime minister, and Jeremy Corbyn, leader of the Labour Party, have answered questions from the public in a head-to-head debate as they prepare for the country’s general election on December 12.
A court ruling earlier in the day upheld ITV’s decision not to offer podiums to either the SNP or the Liberal Democrats. On stage, though, Johnson and Corbyn appeared strangely dwarfed in front of a set that appeared borrowed from Blade Runner.
The two candidates levelled numerous accusations at each other during their hour on stage – but which are to be believed? Conversation articles by academic experts provide informed perspectives, grounded in research. Here’s what they’ve had to say on the issues that arose.