Pelosi is Choosing Schiff over Nadler to Run Impeachment Investigation

[mucifer]

The confluence of two otherwise coincidental events — the embarrassing Lewandowski hearing followed in quick succession by the explosion of the Ukraine story — handed Pelosi an opening to sideline Judiciary Committee Chairman Jerrold Nadler (D-N.Y.) in favor of the more widely trusted head of the Intelligence Committee, Rep. Adam B. Schiff (Calif.), as Democrats launch the formal impeachment inquiry. And Pelosi has made clear that the investigation will focus narrowly on the Ukraine matter, a scandal she believes could be easily understood by the public.

Schiff, in concert with other chairmen, moved swiftly Friday to issue subpoenas for documents from Secretary of State Mike Pompeo and set up depositions next week with State Department officials who would have knowledge of Trump’s engagements with Ukraine. One official, Kurt Volker, suddenly resigned Friday as Trump’s special envoy on Ukraine, the first casualty of the burgeoning scandal.

Nadler has accepted the change in leadership, according to lawmakers and aides. In a show of unity, the two men appeared side by side at a Congressional Progressive Caucus meeting Thursday, promising a swift and thorough investigation. Through a spokesman, Nadler declined to comment.

With a seemingly endless string of TV appearances, Schiff earned his Democratic colleagues’ trust as a public messenger early in the Trump administration, leading the party’s response to allegations of Russian interference in the 2016 election and possible obstruction of justice by the president.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/pelosi-turns-to-schiff-to-lead-house-democrats-impeachment-inquiry-of-trump/2019/09/28/ed6c4608-e149-11e9-8dc8-498eabc129a0_story.html

Makes sense to use the man with the most prosecutorial experience.

[dewsgirl]

1. I love Adam Schiff, always been my favorite congressman.

[ananda]

17. I wish Schiff could be our next president!

He is so great!

[dewsgirl]

19. I know. Maybe someday.

[Fiendish Thingy]

36. Nah, he should be the next speaker nt

[pangaia]

38. I tend to agree.

[empedocles]

2. Good choice. Sciff is really sharp and quick.

[Takket]

3. this impeachment is a matter of national security. Schiff should lead the effort

and Nadler should continue to expose collusion from 2016

[klook]

4. Thank you. Painting this as a Dem infighting story is missing the point. (nt)

[onetexan]

13. Exactly. The MSM always has to spin it in some negative fashion

For ratings/readership. It makes more of an intriguing story if Dems were fractured i suppose, but since this explosive story broke ive mostly seen stories that say Dems are united, thanks to Nancy's cautious, decisive & deliberate approach, and moving it so fast she's giving Dumpster & his enablers whiplash

[mucifer]

16. The WaPo story has it as amicable not fractured

[onetexan]

20. There are overtones of it being somewhat of a diss on Nadler

Which is incorrect.

[lunatica]

44. There they go creating a divisiveness that isn't there.

The fact is our House leaders are totally united and the Washington Post can’t stand that.

[TheRealistRealist]

5. I am confident Adam Schiff is right for the job.

But I am bit perturbed by his mock reading of the transcript summary. Yes I know Trump is a joke and I want him removed more than anyone. But why give Trump and his thugs anything to use against him? I suspect more GOP members will call for his removal due to perceived bias. I don't understand why he would do that during one of the most important times in history

Focus on the job at hand Mr. Schiff. Our country is relying on you

[dem4decades]

9. They would have found something else. I'm fine with the republicans publicizing Schiff's comments.

They were powerful and need to be seen by everyone.

[Mars and Minerva]

24. I agree, I watched it live and I knew Trump would make hay with it.

It was unnecessary, especially when the actual memo was very easy to understand and shocking as well.

Let's hope he is done improvising and goes back to acting like a lawyer.

When he's good, which is most of the time, he's great. That was a rare stumble.

[lunatica]

45. LOL!

That’s funny!

[hlthe2b]

6. Of course. He's decisive, quick-thinking, cautious yet very good at articulating issues and it is

(right now) focused on intelligence and foreign affairs.

Nadler isn't sidelined more than temporarily, but Schiff must take the forefront. He'll also handle the constant abusive RW attacks better, I think, on those occasions that he needs to engage the press.

[bucolic_frolic]

7. Nothing irritates Trump like a Californian

[mucifer]

8. Except a Chicagoan.

[Harker]

12. That toddlin' town...

[Takket]

41. or a Baltimorian LOL

[sharedvalues]

10. This is fine. But BARRY BERKE-- STAFF COUNSEL!

The Judiciary committee passed a rules resolution that allows staff counsel 30 min to question witnesses, not just the useless 5-min rounds for members.

That’s how we got Barry Berke questioning Levandowski.

The Intel committee must do this too!!!!

The hearing they had with the acting DNI Maguire this week didn’t have staff counsel questioning. That was bad.

Schiff needs to fix that now.

[True Blue American]

14. That is so important!

[Poiuyt]

15. I was thinking the same thing

Berke, or any other pit bull prosecutor. Someone who could take a line of questioning from beginning to end.

[SMC22307]

32. Exactly. We need a f*cking army of Barry H. Berke's. (n/t)

[ancianita]

46. That was exactly my first reaction while watching. Schiff DEFINITELY has to fix that.

The problem is in their vetting for classified clearance that the committee has. Because that's much of the background they can use, even though publicly revealed information has sufficed.

There's a level about what's been going on that the public has to be made aware of.

[uponit7771]

50. OMG ... This should be screamed to the highest hills !!

[LiberalFighter]

11. I don't think it should be limited to just Ukraine.

[Ligyron]

21. I'm mixed on that.

At first I thought it was a mistake to concentrate on just one act. Trump has done so much other shit and since it's doubtful the Senate will convict at this point, the main purpose of an Impeachment inquiry is to 1. be able to actually obtain the subpoenaed material this time around, and 2. Educate the American public.

But then I thought about it and considering how ignorant the average citizen has become and the fact that Trump, etc. just flat out admitted to committing the crime in queston (again) it will marvelously concentrate their little minds on that one simple, irrefutable fact and make it hard for anyone in the RW media or Senate to deny it took place.

I just hope Barr, Pompeo and Ghouli anna can be somehow brought down too for their participation in this crime and the whole secret server gets exposed. Meanwhile, other committees are coming up with more bad stuff that happened in the Trump W.H. Maybe if we get a Dem Executive they can be prosecuted eventually and meanwhile bad press for the Trump GOP.

[lostnfound]

42. Impeach more than once. Two simpler investigations and votes. Why not?

Might be easier to eat the elephant one bite at a time.
Erosion can tear down a mountain.

[regnaD kciN]

54. Because, if you impeach once and fail to convict...

...public sentiment will likely turn against Democrats. It will be easy to paint them as “sore losers” grasping at straws.

They can approve articles of impeachment that include various different offenses, but it really has to be a one-shot deal.

[lostnfound]

59. Or else, it could be easy to paint trump as a walking talking high crime and misdemeanor

Republicans seem much better at shaping public sentiment.
They don’t worry half as much about what people will think of them. They just keep repeating the same stuff 47,000 times.

[regnaD kciN]

56. The problem with focusing on Ukraine...

...is that I think you’re going to get a lot of Americans who, even if they understand the case, will shrug it off with “Who gives a f*ck about what happens in the Ukraine? I certainly don’t.” Whereas Russia is a far more-understandable matter.

In a way, we may have been handed a gift with the revelation that the same top-secret server was also used to store similar conversations with Putin and MBS. I think we need to find out just what other conversations with foreign leaders needed to be hushed-up, and why?

[Texin]

18. Well "choosing" might have been moot. This involves an intelligence breach by tRump.

As the leader in the House of the Intelligence Committee, Schiff would normally be the one to chair the proceedings.

[Pepsidog]

22. Schiff is the right choice. This is a grueling process. Nadler has done a fine job but Schiff is

better suited to take over.

[jcgoldie]

23. Good choice

Schiff is the person for the job.

[malaise]

25. Well Lawrence Tribe just gave Schiff high praise

[zentrum]

26. Great news.

[corbettkroehler]

27. Schiff Would Have Left Lewandowski Trembling In His Boots

I like Chairman Nadler well but, as the Speaker put it regarding Lewandowski, "I would have held him in contempt right then". Had Lewandowski's lying hide been dragged before House Intel, it would be in contempt today.

[kozar]

28. I like this call

Shows that Nancy isn't playing political games, She is focused.

Koz

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

29. I don't think Nadler was being dissed; it's just that Schiff's committee

is the one in charge of the primary subject matter. When it's time to draw up articles of impeachment it all goes back to Judiciary.

[Fla Dem]

30. I just hope the Dem members use their time efficiently.

Not too much grandstanding and preambles before asking direct and pointed questions.

Examples:

Kamala Harris

Elizabeth Warren

Amy Klobuchar

Maxine Waters

[PatrickforO]

34. Thanks for posting these vids. Each one of these people did an

outstanding job. Made me like both Klobuchar and Harris that much more.

[PatrickforO]

31. I liked how Schiff handled the questioning of Joseph

Maguire. I have confidence in Schiff. Nadler is a good man, but he really looked confused during the Lewandowsky hearings, and the stakes here are really, really high.

These impeachment hearings must educate the American people about the criminality and utter corruption of Trump and his henchmen, and Schiff's incisive questioning and they way he ran Maguire's testimony really got the ship going.

[CaptainTruth]

33. With all due respect to Nadler, I think Schiff is the better choice.

[marble falls]

37. I like Nadler, but Schiff is the right choice between the two. I believe Schiff can connect the ...

dots better and quicker.

[Python boot]

39. Maquire questioning

When Adam Schiff made his closing remarks to Maguire you could see by Maguires face he knew what he did was treasonous and he was ashamed. Basically Schiff told him that he let a bully force him into double-crossing the American people.

[DeminPennswoods]

40. It's the difference in committees, too, not just Schiff

The Intel Cmte is much smaller, just 26 members, only 9 of whom are Republicans.

OTOH, Judiciary has 41 members of which 17 are Republicans including total tools like Doug Collins, Jim Jordan, Matt Gaetz and Louis Gohmert. The worst Intel R is probably Nunes and he's not even in the same league with the Judiciary looney toons Rs.

So which committee gives the Rs the best chance to turn hearings into a circus? It's not the Intel Cmte.

Schiff's definitely an able and no nonsense questioner, but so is Nadler. The difference is that Intel Cmte isn't as partisan or as unwieldly.

[ancianita]

47. The main difference is that Intel Comte gets intel and Judiciary does not -- which

makes the R's there less prone to story telling and more cooperative about not lying to the public.

The facts will impeach Trump. No RW story (from foraging in Ukraine for fabrication material) about the facts will stop it.

[DeminPennswoods]

48. Definitely agree. Trump has admitted he did it.

What else is there, really?

[ancianita]

49. Exactly. Facts over evidence fabrication as the basis of political drama stories.

[dem4decades]

51. That worries me. Evidence that is secret can't be used to persuade the American people.

[ancianita]

53. That worries me, too. The fact that lawyers in Congress can see the intel, however, in a

room designated for their read-only access, might inform their change of mind in the Senate trial. Or not.

Evidence, seen wholly, can still be denied. Some faith and loyalty are unchangeable. We see that constantly over abortion law (denying free will support of Roe v Wade) and climate science (denying patterns and expertise).

There's a congressional group who are like the American population. Their minds are so made up by "official stories" they so want to believe, that secrecy or sunlight hasn't made any difference in their politics, anyway.

Yet most of 45 voters who cling to their guns and bibles were SO insulted when Obama described them truthfully as "clinging to their guns and bibles."

We'll see if there are the rumored 30 Republicans in the Senate who can be persuaded by straight fact and evidence when the Senate trial vote is taken. I doubt that Chief Justice Roberts will allow McConnell or Graham to "jury tamper" that group.

[dem4decades]

55. And there seems to be leaks when all else fails.

[DeminPennswoods]

58. Again, the evidence is in plain sight. Trump. Admitted. It.

All the depositions and testimony simply will be to corroborate Trump's admission.

[WinstonSmith4740]

43. Great move.

I know it's been maddeningly slow, and a lot of us were frustrated as hell with the Speaker's resistance to impeachment. But, damn when she moves, she does it right. She gave him enough rope to hang himself and he did just that. Putting Schiff in charge is brilliant.

[Thomas Hurt]

52. Nadler's committee drafts Articles, Schiff gathers the evidence.

[Sanity Claws]

57. Glad to see that Nadler took it well

and didn't let ego dominate.
Nadler also had a health issue about two months ago.