Pelosi’s caution on impeachment upsets her party’s progressives

WASHINGTON - House Speaker Nancy Pelosi's assertion that impeaching President Trump would not be worth the ensuing political firestorm has split Democrats, upsetting some progressive members and triggering a debate about the threshold for removal from office.

The California Democrat's comments to The Washington Post came amid an aggressive push by House committees to investigate Trump and his administration - and in the midst of Republican efforts to cast Democrats as obsessed with ousting the president.

If Pelosi's intent was to push back on suggestions that Democrats were only interested in Trump's scalp, her words also prompted concern from some in her party who argue that they should not worry about the political ramifications of holding Trump accountable.

While the chairmen of several powerful investigative committees backed Pelosi, a crop of members on the left disagreed with her insistence that Republican support was a key ingredient for impeachment.

"If the [reports] indicate that that's become necessary, then we must fulfill our oath and proceed with impeachment," said Rep. Ilhan Omar, D-Minn., a freshman progressive firebrand.

Pramila Jayapal, D-Wash., co-chairwoman of the Congressional Progressive Caucus, agreed, arguing that voters "really are angry about what is perceived to be happening in the White House" and that Congress has an "obligation" to see where the facts lead.

"I don't think it's something we decide whether or not it's 'worth it,'" Jayapal said Monday night. "If it's a consistent pattern of abuse of power, of obstruction of justice . . . then that to me seems like it will be impeachable."

Pelosi told The Post in a magazine interview conducted March 6 that impeachment would be divisive unless "there's something so compelling and overwhelming and bipartisan." Otherwise, she said, "I don't think we should go down that path, because it divides the country. And he's just not worth it."

Her comments brought to the fore a debate that has been raging inside the party for months. At its crux is whether Democrats should proceed with impeachment hearings if Republicans refuse to join in that endeavor.

"The question we really have to ask ourselves is whether the country is worth it," Rep. Al Green, D-Texas, said during an interview Tuesday morning on CSPAN. "We in the House have to take up our responsibility."

Green, who has forced votes on previous impeachment resolutions, said he plans to do so again but wouldn't discuss timing.

During her Post interview, Pelosi spoke at length about how the impeachment of President Bill Clinton divided the country. The public - and some Republicans - must support impeachment to proceed, she warned.

But other Democrats pointed to the GOP's refusal to challenge Trump over the past two years. They worry that compelling evidence of wrongdoing from special counsel Robert Mueller - who is probing Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election - would not change Republicans' minds, and they say Democrats need to be prepared to act on their own.

"I took an oath to the Constitution, not to the Democratic Party," said Rep. Gerald Connolly, D-Va., a senior member of the House Oversight and Reform Committee. "If I feel that I have a constitutional obligation to follow that procedure, then I have a legal and moral obligation to do so - even if no Republican wants to do anything."

Pelosi's comments are expected to take center stage at a closed-door House Democratic caucus meeting Tuesday morning. But difficult questions about how and whether to proceed with impeachment will likely drag out for weeks, as Mueller's investigation comes to a close and as House Democrats ramp up their own investigations.

Pelosi, for her part, has told lawmakers that they should not impeach the president for political reasons, nor should they refuse to impeach him for political reasons. And yet in the Post interview, Pelosi was clearly sensitive to political head winds that await the party should Democrats fail to garner public support for such divisive action.

For moderate Democrats in swing districts fearful of accusations of partisan overreach, Pelosi's cautious approach to impeachment has been a welcome dose of reality.

Others argue they should move forward even if there is little chance that the GOP-controlled Senate would remove Trump from office following impeachment by the Democratic-majority House.

"We've got to look at the evidence and the reports; let's not prejudge the issue," said Rep. Ro Khanna, D-Calif. "Let's look at all the evidence . . . then assess whether it rises to the level that the Constitution calls for" to impeach a president.

Pelosi appears likely to be able to count on support from some top oversight chiefs in the House. Oversight and Reform Committee Chairman Elijah Cummings, D-Md., who is conducting a slew of investigations into controversies surrounding Trump, told reporters Monday night that "I support Speaker Pelosi."

"Keep in mind that impeachment is a political process. . . . What does that mean? We've got to get bipartisanship," Cummings said. "And right now, she's speaking from a very clear-eyed standpoint that you've got to look at the [evidence]. . . . Right now, you've got 40-some percent of the country pleased, I guess, with what the president is doing."

Cummings proudly noted that not a single Democrat on his panel had used the word "impeachment" on the day less than two weeks ago that Trump's former attorney Michael Cohen testified before Congress that Trump was a racist and a liar and had reimbursed him for illegal hush-money payments aimed at silencing women during the 2016 election.

Cummings said it is still too early to go there.

"I think Pelosi realizes this: We can't spend all of our time concentrating on what we're fighting against," Cummings said. "We need to concentrate on what we're fighting for."

Pelosi's move to tamp down impeachment discussions comes as some freshmen with large national followings embrace talk of ousting Trump.

Rep. Rashida Tlaib, D-Mich. - who made headlines on her first day in office with a profane declaration that Congress should impeach Trump - said Monday that she is representing the will of voters who sent her to Washington.

"They always say, 'Represent your district.' I'm representing my district," Tlaib said.

Outside Washington, progressive billionaire Tom Steyer, who is funding ads pressing Democrats to impeach Trump, was aghast at Pelosi's assertion. The speaker, he said, has "prejudged" the findings in the Mueller report before it has even been finished.

"I thought we were waiting for the Mueller report! I thought we were waiting to get the information!" he said, frustration apparent in his voice. "There's more than enough information to show that this president is the most lawless president. He has easily met any criteria for impeachment, and the question is: Are we going to do the right thing and stand up for the Constitution and American people?"

It's not just progressive lawmakers who had reservations about Pelosi's statement. Connolly, for example, is hardly considered far-left.

In an interview off the House floor, he mused that Pelosi's comments were probably "designed to remind people that loose talk about impeachment is not helpful, that it distracts from our agenda and even from the intrinsic value of the oversight hearings."

But while Connolly agreed with Pelosi's move to quell such comments, he said she might have gone too far.

"I felt that her statement didn't leave much wiggle room, and on that part, I respectfully demur," he said.

Speaking to reporters Monday night, Pelosi doubled-down on her comments to The Post. She noted that some in the party wanted her to consider impeaching President George W. Bush in 2007 and 2008 for invading Iraq on faulty intelligence purporting that the nation had weapons of mass destruction.

"I didn't believe in it then; I don't believe in it now," Pelosi said. "It divides the country unless there's some conclusive evidence that takes us to that place."

Pelosi said she also wanted to keep the party's focus on the Democratic legislative agenda.

"We have run on a platform that talked about an agenda to lower health-care costs, by lowering the cost of prescription drugs and saving the preexisting condition benefit . . . bigger paychecks by building the infrastructure of America, and cleaner government," she said. "That's our agenda. That's our focus. To take our eye off that ball is not worth it. And that's why I say impeachment is not worth it."

- - -

The Washington Post’s John Wagner contributed to this report.