Pelosi Is Considering a New Committee for Trump’s Ukraine Scandal. Progressives Are Suspicious.

Is this a way to sideline impeachment advocates?

Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) meets with reporters just after the House Judiciary Committee approved guidelines for impeachment hearings on President Donald Trump, at the Capitol in Washington on Sept. 12, 2019.J. Scott Applewhite/AP

Fight disinformation: Sign up for the free Mother Jones Daily newsletter and follow the news that matters.

Update, 5:30 p.m. ET: House Speaker Nancy Pelosi announced Tuesday evening that the House will move forward with an impeachment inquiry. Pelosi reportedly decided not to create a select committee specifically to investigate Trump’s Ukraine scandal. Instead, she said she will direct six House committees to “proceed with their investigations under that umbrella of impeachment inquiry.”

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, who has so far resisted Democratic calls for impeachment, is considering setting up a select committee to investigate President Donald Trump’s interactions with Ukraine, according to several House sources. Progressive Democrats are concerned that this move might be an attempt to remove the Ukraine scandal—in which Trump allegedly threatened to withhold aid from Ukraine if its government did not investigate former vice president Joe Biden—from the ongoing impeachment inquiry being mounted by the House Judiciary Committee, chaired by Rep. Jerry Nadler (D-N.Y.).

Some progressives within the House caucus are wondering why Pelosi would not follow a different course: allow the House Intelligence Committee, chaired by Rep. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.), to probe the Ukraine controversy and then share its findings with Nadler’s committee for possible inclusion into that panel’s consideration of impeachment. Setting up a select committee on this matter, the progressives fear, could distance Nadler—who is more eager to pursue impeachment than Pelosi is—from what could possibly be another foundation for impeachment. “We don’t want Nadler to be sidelined,” said a senior aide to a member of the Congressional Progressive Caucus, the influential group of nearly 100 liberal House Democrats. Nadler’s committee includes many fiery progressives who have been at the forefront of the impeachment push. 

Reps. Pramila Jayapal (D-Wash.) and Mark Pocan (D-Wisc.), who co-chair the CPC, oppose the creation of a new committee. “A select committee will take a long time,” Jayapal, a member of Judiciary, told reporters Tuesday afternoon.

According to one aide to a member of House leadership, conversations with members and staff suggest that many within the caucus support creating a select committee on the Trump-Ukraine scandal and that many Democrats would like the membership of this new committee to represent the diverse political viewpoints within the caucus. That is, some Democrats see this action as a way to shift a piece of the impeachment story away from Nadler and his progressive-dominated committee.

An aide to a different member of House leadership said the concern wasn’t about the progressives on the Judiciary Committee but instead reflected a lack of confidence in Nadler’s staff to orchestrate a successful impeachment inquiry. Both aides cited the recent Judiciary hearings involving special counsel Robert Mueller and former Trump campaign manager Corey Lewandowski as failed attempts to clearly convey allegations against Trump. “We haven’t been able to create a clear message about what we’re doing,” the second aide said. “People don’t have faith in being able to course-correct right now. We need to be able to show the American people that we can take this seriously by holding Trump accountable for his actions.”

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

Details on the possible select committee have been sketchy. There has been no word on who would chair the panel or who exactly would be part of it. (Pelosi has the authority to name committee chairs and members.) On Tuesday afternoon, Pelosi is scheduled to huddle with the six committee chairs who have led investigations of the Trump administration and then hold a members-only, closed-door meeting with the entire Democratic caucus to gauge its willingness to proceed with impeachment. This conversation is expected to include consideration of the select committee. Afterward, progressives will presumably be in a better position to determine if there’s a reason to oppose its establishment. The full House would have to vote on a resolution to establish the select committee.

* This story has been updated.

WE'LL BE BLUNT

It is astonishingly hard keeping a newsroom afloat these days, and we need to raise $253,000 in online donations quickly, by October 7.

The short of it: Last year, we had to cut $1 million from our budget so we could have any chance of breaking even by the time our fiscal year ended in June. And despite a huge rally from so many of you leading up to the deadline, we still came up a bit short on the whole. We can’t let that happen again. We have no wiggle room to begin with, and now we have a hole to dig out of.

Readers also told us to just give it to you straight when we need to ask for your support, and seeing how matter-of-factly explaining our inner workings, our challenges and finances, can bring more of you in has been a real silver lining. So our online membership lead, Brian, lays it all out for you in his personal, insider account (that literally puts his skin in the game!) of how urgent things are right now.

The upshot: Being able to rally $253,000 in donations over these next few weeks is vitally important simply because it is the number that keeps us right on track, helping make sure we don't end up with a bigger gap than can be filled again, helping us avoid any significant (and knowable) cash-flow crunches for now. We used to be more nonchalant about coming up short this time of year, thinking we can make it by the time June rolls around. Not anymore.

Because the in-depth journalism on underreported beats and unique perspectives on the daily news you turn to Mother Jones for is only possible because readers fund us. Corporations and powerful people with deep pockets will never sustain the type of journalism we exist to do. The only investors who won’t let independent, investigative journalism down are the people who actually care about its future—you.

And we need readers to show up for us big time—again.

Getting just 10 percent of the people who care enough about our work to be reading this blurb to part with a few bucks would be utterly transformative for us, and that's very much what we need to keep charging hard in this financially uncertain, high-stakes year.

If you can right now, please support the journalism you get from Mother Jones with a donation at whatever amount works for you. And please do it now, before you move on to whatever you're about to do next and think maybe you'll get to it later, because every gift matters and we really need to see a strong response if we're going to raise the $253,000 we need in less than three weeks.

payment methods

WE'LL BE BLUNT

It is astonishingly hard keeping a newsroom afloat these days, and we need to raise $253,000 in online donations quickly, by October 7.

The short of it: Last year, we had to cut $1 million from our budget so we could have any chance of breaking even by the time our fiscal year ended in June. And despite a huge rally from so many of you leading up to the deadline, we still came up a bit short on the whole. We can’t let that happen again. We have no wiggle room to begin with, and now we have a hole to dig out of.

Readers also told us to just give it to you straight when we need to ask for your support, and seeing how matter-of-factly explaining our inner workings, our challenges and finances, can bring more of you in has been a real silver lining. So our online membership lead, Brian, lays it all out for you in his personal, insider account (that literally puts his skin in the game!) of how urgent things are right now.

The upshot: Being able to rally $253,000 in donations over these next few weeks is vitally important simply because it is the number that keeps us right on track, helping make sure we don't end up with a bigger gap than can be filled again, helping us avoid any significant (and knowable) cash-flow crunches for now. We used to be more nonchalant about coming up short this time of year, thinking we can make it by the time June rolls around. Not anymore.

Because the in-depth journalism on underreported beats and unique perspectives on the daily news you turn to Mother Jones for is only possible because readers fund us. Corporations and powerful people with deep pockets will never sustain the type of journalism we exist to do. The only investors who won’t let independent, investigative journalism down are the people who actually care about its future—you.

And we need readers to show up for us big time—again.

Getting just 10 percent of the people who care enough about our work to be reading this blurb to part with a few bucks would be utterly transformative for us, and that's very much what we need to keep charging hard in this financially uncertain, high-stakes year.

If you can right now, please support the journalism you get from Mother Jones with a donation at whatever amount works for you. And please do it now, before you move on to whatever you're about to do next and think maybe you'll get to it later, because every gift matters and we really need to see a strong response if we're going to raise the $253,000 we need in less than three weeks.

payment methods

We Recommend

Latest

Sign up for our free newsletter

Subscribe to the Mother Jones Daily to have our top stories delivered directly to your inbox.

Get our award-winning magazine

Save big on a full year of investigations, ideas, and insights.

Subscribe

Support our journalism

Help Mother Jones' reporters dig deep with a tax-deductible donation.

Donate