Democrats are torn over what steps they should take in response to Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s report, and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi seems to have sided with members of her caucus who are reluctant to impeach President Trump. It’s sorta like debating the best way to defeat Godzilla when he’s moments away from stomping on your building.
Pelosi acknowledged and described the rift in a Monday letter to her caucus. “[O]ur views range from proceeding to investigate the findings of the Mueller report or proceeding directly to impeachment,” she wrote.
In other words, House Democrats disagree with each other about how to answer two critical questions:
- Where should investigations stemming from the Mueller report begin?
- Should they conduct those investigations explicitly under the umbrella of an impeachment proceeding?
On one end, some Democrats essentially want to re-investigate everything Mueller meticulously documented in his report before considering impeachment; on the other end, some Democrats believe that the report speaks for itself, and could form the basis for passing articles of impeachment without further investigation.
The most pro-impeachment Democrats are right that the Mueller report, which is the product of a multi-year investigation, establishes behavior—obstructing an investigation of an attack on a U.S. election—that doesn’t need to be re-investigated, is cut-and-dry impeachable, and even that at some point the House has the obligation to vote on articles of impeachment.
But the House also has the obligation to persuade the public that impeachment is a necessary step, and since most people will never read the Mueller report, it makes sense for Democrats to air out its contents in public hearings. That’s why House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jerrold Nadler just issued a subpoena to former White House Counsel Don McGahn, who supplied Mueller with the bulk of the evidence that Trump obstructed justice.
Pelosi suggested in her letter that these hearings should not be convened as impeachment hearings. “It is also important to know that the facts regarding holding the President accountable can be gained outside of impeachment hearings,” she wrote.
This may sound like an unimportant distinction, but it’s actually critical. Declining to respond to the facts laid out in the report by acknowledging that they appear to be impeachable will convey a message that the conduct Mueller documented isn’t so bad, and will create a void that Trump and his loyalists will fill with false claims of vindication and efforts to exact revenge for the Russia investigation.
That’s a bad opening to create when Trump’s criminal lawyer Rudy Giuliani has argued it is fine for Republicans to solicit dirt on Democrats from Russian intelligence, and his attorney general, and allies in the Senate are eager to launch investigations of the investigators.
It will also eat up time Democrats don’t have. If Democrats spend months re-tracing Mueller’s steps, then by the time they reach a conclusion, it may be too close to the 2020 election to begin a credible impeachment process. It’s good that Democrats want to make McGahn and Mueller testify, but they should do so at an impeachment hearing.