the clown show continues

House Democrats continue to be plagued by infighting and dysfunction as Nancy Pelosi’s band of socialists demand baseless impeachment proceedings be brought up.

The efforts come despite the Mueller report making it crystal clear no collusion occurred.

While voters wait for solutions, the socialist Democrats have shown they’d rather throw all reason aside to please their rabid socialist base.

In case you missed it…

Pelosi’s leadership team rebels on impeachment, presses her to begin an inquiry
The Washington Post
Rachel Bade and Mike DeBonis
May 20, 2019
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/pelosis-leadership-team-rebels-on-impeachment-presses-her-to-begin-an-inquiry/2019/05/20/263c11de-7b5b-11e9-a66c-d36e482aa873_story.html

Members of Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s own leadership team confronted her in a contentious Monday night meeting and argued that it was time to begin an impeachment inquiry into President Trump, according to multiple sources in the room.

At least five members of Pelosi’s leadership team — four who also sit on the House Judiciary Committee with jurisdiction over impeachment — pressed Pelosi to allow the panel to start the inquiry, which they argued would help investigators attain documents and testimony Trump has blocked.

Pelosi, according to sources in the room, pushed back on the idea with senior leaders, including House Majority Leader Steny H. Hoyer (D-Md.). Pelosi has also long been an impeachment skeptic and tried to tamp down impeachment talk in her caucus as recently as last week by encouraging members to focus on their legislative agenda.

“It’s a fact-finding process,” said Rep. David Cicilline (D-R.I.), one of the members in the meeting who also took to Twitter and TV Monday to make the case for an impeachment inquiry. “There’s no doubt that opening an inquiry strengthens the hand of Congress in forcing compliance with subpoenas whether it’s for documents or individuals.”

The meeting underscores the first time Pelosi’s rank-and-file members — including members of her leadership team — have lobbied her to change her long-held position on impeachment. Judiciary members for days have discussed how to move the speaker toward their thinking, but few have been willing to break with her publicly.

However, a core group of Judiciary Democrats on Tuesday plans to begin calling for an impeachment inquiry if former White House counsel Don McGahn does not show for subpoenaed testimony at 10 a.m., according to multiple sources familiar with the plan. The White House on Monday moved to block McGahn from showing up, arguing that he is exempt from testimony.

“We should be having the conversation about … how this will help us break through the stonewalling of the administration,” said Judiciary panel member Rep. Ted Deutch (D-Fla.) of an inquiry. Deutch was not in the meeting but agreed with those who made the case to Pelosi Monday night. “If the answer is, ‘No, you can’t talk to anyone, you can’t have anything, we’re simply not going to cooperate,’ then at that point the only avenue that we have left is the constitutional means to enforce the separation of powers, which is a serious discussion of impeachment.”

During the Monday night leadership meeting, Pelosi was speaking about how Democrats’ messaging isn’t breaking through because everyone is talking about corruption, special counsel Robert S. Mueller’s report and impeachment. That’s when Rep. Jamie Raskin (D-Md.), a subcommittee chairman on Judiciary, jumped in to say something along the lines of “Madam Speaker, you’ve just made a great case for an impeachment inquiry,” according to sources in the room who summarized his words.

Raskin argued that an inquiry would allow leadership to centralize all of the investigations into one inquiry and then allow everyone else to focus and talk about the Democratic agenda items that won them the majority in 2018.

Hoyer pushed back, arguing that the panel shouldn’t cut off other committee investigations, which he said are bearing fruit. Judiciary, after all, is not the only panel investigating Trump. Five others are as well, and an impeachment inquiry might undercut those probes, some think.

That’s when other Judiciary panel members — including Cicilline, Rep. Ted Lieu (D-Calif.) and freshman Rep. Joe Neguse (D-Colo.) — joined in. Neguse argued that the Judiciary’s role in investigating Trump is severely being impeded because of all the stonewalling. The White House is blocking more than 20 Democratic investigations into Trump, his finances or his policies. 

At one-point Rep. Rosa DeLauro (D-Conn.), a fierce Pelosi defender and ally, grew angry and scolded the members that an impeachment inquiry would further distract from legislating. Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee Chairwoman Cheri Bustos — who has argued that it is time for members to move on from impeachment talk before — pushed back as well, arguing that the DCCC did focus groups on topics voters cared about and said Mueller’s inquiry ranked among the bottom.

It wasn’t just Judiciary panel members, however. When the top leaders argued that voters don’t care about this issue, Rep. Barbara Lee (D-Calif.) defended the group of Judiciary panel members. While she said she agreed that her constituents were more focused on things like prescription drug prices, she argued they elected members to come to Washington and take care of big problems. She said voters put trust in leaders, that they will tell hard truths — including hard truths against Trump. 

Pelosi’s office did not respond to request for comment. 

Panel members are arguing that there is a distinction between an impeachment inquiry and impeachment proceedings that necessitate a vote. Lieu, in an interview, declined to comment on the meeting, but said that an inquiry “could lead to nothing” — or it could lead to impeachment.

“That inquiry is also what happened during Watergate,” he said. “It’s not like the House Judiciary Committee just dropped article of impeachment. There was an investigation that preceded it. This inquiry could lead to impeachment or it could lead to nothing. But I think if McGahn doesn’t show, we have to at least start it.”