The battle to lead Trump’s potential impeachment

Reps. Zoe Lofgren and Jerry Nadler are vying to be the ranking member of the House Judiciary Committee — a potentially outsized role if Democrats win the House.

ed note–Given that Nadler has already one the spot, the underlying discussion taking place here as to which one will assume the role of ranking Democrat on the House Judiciary Committee is basically moot. What we do underscore here are the following tidbits of information contained herein betraying the underlying agenda that is deliberately kept under wraps until the political weather makes it possible for them to go forward with their plans, to wit–

1. ‘Both Nadler and Lofgren know they’re signing up to be Trump’s chief antagonist in Congress. But, in separate interviews, they also emphasized the importance of Democrats not overplaying their hand, being acutely aware that appearing too eager about impeaching the president could alienate voters and vulnerable incumbents in their caucus who cringe when the topic is raised.’

So in other words, whatever muted enthusiasm they may make NOW towards impeachment is only for show so as to not appear to be agenda driven vis a vis removing Trump from office.

2. ‘If you are actually going to remove a president from office, you are in effect nullifying the last election. Certainly the people who voted for him will think you’re nullifying the election,” Nadler said. “It’s OK to do that. It may be necessary to do that —as long as you have persuaded a sufficient fraction of the president’s former supporters, the people who voted for him, that you have to, that it’s necessary.’

Again, in other words, they understand the importance of schmoozing the electorate prior to something as politically traumatic as impeachment. As we have said here many times, no one ever accused the Jews of being stupid. They understand the importance of selling.

As we said, since Nadler has already been chosen as ranking Democrat, it is something of a moot point, but this piece does underscore however how things are done in DC. What has just taken place is the fact that all of the sudden, OUT OF THE BLUE, John Conyers, the ranking Democrat on the HJC was taken down after serving half a century in the HoR, 4 years as Chairman of the HJD and 18 years as ranking member, so that a deeply-connected NY Jew named Nadler who represents the most Jewish district in the United States could take over as ranking member and–in the event the House returns to Democrat control in 2018–will become the Chairman of the very committee responsible for Impeaching the President.

But hey, all of that must be just sheer coincidence, cuz’ as we know, there is no move on the part of organized Jewry to remove Trump as Prez, cuz’ they just LOVE him.

politico.com

House Democrats this week are set to resolve a seemingly insignificant standoff with deceptively big consequences: deciding who will lead potential impeachment proceedings against President Donald Trump should they take back the House.

Reps. Jerry Nadler (D-N.Y.) and Zoe Lofgren (D-Calif.), two longtime members who both hail from power centers of the Democratic Party, are competing to be the top Democrat on the House Judiciary Committee. That’s the panel that historically holds the keys to the impeachment process.

Both Nadler and Lofgren know they’re signing up to be Trump’s chief antagonist in Congress. But, in separate interviews, they also emphasized the importance of Democrats not overplaying their hand.

They’re both acutely aware that appearing too eager about impeaching the president could alienate voters and vulnerable incumbents in their caucus who cringe when the topic is raised.

“I’m not running as an impeachment candidate and I don’t think Jerry Nadler is either,” Lofgren said during an interview in her office.

She and Nadler have been jockeying for the top Judiciary spot for months. The internal election was not expected until after the midterms next November, but was hastened by the recent resignation of Rep. John Conyers (D-Mich.), the longtime top Democrat on the committee, over sexual harassment allegations. The full Democratic Caucus will hold an election for the post Wednesday.

For Lofgren — a Democratic staffer on the committee during Richard Nixon’s impeachment and a member of the panel during the investigation into Bill Clinton — the process would have to be bipartisan, with buy-in from Republicans and the public to be successful.

“By the time the vote was taken in the Judiciary Committee to impeach Richard Nixon, the country understood it and they agreed with it,” Lofgren said. “This should be a healing effort, not a divisive effort, if it happens.”

Lofgren hinted that that kind of support would likely come only if Special Counsel Robert Mueller uncovered documented evidence showing Trump took actions that were a threat to the country. Both Nadler and Lofgren recently voted against an impeachment resolution offered by Democratic Rep. Al Green (D-Texas), agreeing with other Democrats that the move was far too premature.

Nadler, too, said impeachment must have substantial buy-in from erstwhile Trump supporters to to be worthwhile. Partly, he said, because of the math: Though the House can impeach a president, the Senate requires a two-thirds vote for removal, which would be impossible without some Republican support.

“There’s not much point in impeaching a president and having him acquitted in the Senate as happened with Clinton,” he said.

Secondly, he said, for Democrats to pursue impeachment, they should have a reasonable belief that some segment of Trump voters will understand and support the push based on evidence.

“If you are actually going to remove a president from office, you are in effect nullifying the last election. Certainly the people who voted for him will think you’re nullifying the election,” Nadler said. “It’s OK to do that. It may be necessary to do that —as long as you have persuaded a sufficient fraction of the president’s former supporters, the people who voted for him, that you have to, that it’s necessary.”

Nadler said a few Democrats have discussed with him the prospect of impeaching Trump. But their more immediate concern is a constitutional crisis, should Trump attempt to fire or discredit Mueller.

“There’s a consciousness that that may happen. That may very well happen,” Nadler said. “I think I’d be better at the helm of the Judiciary Committee, in terms of forcefulness, in terms of constitutional issues.” He added that he took “a very [big] leadership role” in the development of a Democratic strategy to counter the GOP push to impeach Clinton even as a junior member.

The Democratic Caucus’ steering committee will meet Tuesday to pick its preferred candidate and the full caucus will vote using a secret ballot Wednesday. There’s little ideological daylight between Lofgren and Nadler, and Democrats say it could come down to a popularity contest.

“At the end of the day, these elections are … like a student body election,” said Rep. Gerry Connolly (D-Va.). “And so, a lot is really about personal relationships.”

While impeachment is certainly the thorniest issue the Judiciary Committee takes on, the top Judiciary Democrat will be tasked with navigating the caucus through a river of other political lightning rods. They include immigration, criminal justice reform, gun rights and abortion issues.

Lofgren, 69, is a former immigration lawyer and professor and the caucus’ leading expert on that issue, something she says she hopes the panel will take up if Democrats regain majority in the House next year.

“Jerry’s for immigration reform. I could write the bill,” she said. “It’s a matter of different life experiences.”

But Lofgren is also a fierce defender of the tech industry and has clashed with other Democrats over antitrust and copyright issues pitting Hollywood against Silicon Valley.

Nadler, 70, represents the district that includes ground zero and has been a vocal defender of civil liberties amid post-9/11 battles to expand law enforcement power. He argues that he’s uniquely positioned to combat Trump because the pair did battle over Trump’s various real estate development proposals in the 1990s.

This year, Nadler initiated the strategy adopted in several committees by House Democrats of forcing votes on “resolutions of inquiry” to probe matters uncomfortable to the Trump administration, such as the president’s potential business conflicts of interest.

While both members have served on the committee for nearly a quarter-century, Nadler has a two-year edge in seniority over Lofgren. Seniority is an important consideration for many Democrats, particularly the 49 lawmakers who make up the Congressional Black Caucus.

Nadler has spent the past few weeks essentially auditioning for the top job as acting ranking member. That’s given him a prominent platform to oppose GOP attempts to investigate Mueller’s probe and raise questions about the objectivity of the special counsel’s team.

Lofgren is making her own pitch that may resonate with many members, particularly as congressional leaders try to overhaul the Capitol Hill’s boys club atmosphere in the wake of a wave of sexual harassment-related resignations. Lofgren would be the first woman to lead the committee in its 200-plus year history.

“You’ve got the seniority dynamics. You’ve got the gender dynamics … And you’ve got West Coast and East Coast,” said Rep. Cheri Bustos (D-Ill.). “There’s a lot of dynamics — and I can tell you, personally, I’m not getting in the middle of it.”

The race also foreshadows what will likely be a messy Democratic leadership battle in November, as younger members grow increasingly restless and eager to upend the party’s old guard, which heavily weighs seniority when assigning plum committee posts.

A handful of members tried unsuccessfully to recruit a third candidate — both Reps. Hakeem Jeffries (D-N.Y.) and Ted Deutch (D-Fla.) were floated — in an effort to challenge the caucus’ seniority system. The effort failed, but the divisive issue of seniority is expected to be revisited after the November midterms.

Lofgren is a close ally of House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.). But both Pelosi and House Minority Whip Steny Hoyer (D-Md.) are staying out of the race, wary of drawing comparisons to the nasty battle for House Energy and Commerce ranking member in 2014 that pitted the two longtime Democratic leaders against each other.

Similarly, most members are keeping their vote close to the vest. Several members said they believe Nadler has a slight edge going into Wednesday’s contest but also said they wouldn’t be surprised if the race was close or if Lofgren won, given that they are both well-liked in the caucus.

Lofgren does have a significant fundraising advantage, which can be pivotal to winning over swing voters in the caucus. Since 1997, Lofgren has raised more than $4.4 million for House Democrats’ campaign arm and vulnerable members and candidates, according to data provided by Democratic aides. Nadler has raised more than $2.7 million during that time.

Taking back the House is a top goal for Democrats and fundraising is pivotal to that, said Bustos, who declined to say who she’s backing as she is friendly with both contenders.

But other Democrats say fundraising doesn’t matter as much. Nadler argued that candidates for leadership positions should be judged on whether they have done what they can to raise money, not their total haul, given that some members come from wealthier districts with more large donors than others.

If fundraising is a predominant factor, he said, “you rarely get minority members because they largely come from districts where there isn’t such fundraising capacity.”