众议院民主党周三继续搅浑该党对唐纳德·特朗普总统的调查，就司法委员会是否正在进行弹劾调查发出相互矛盾的信息。
该党最高成员否认民主党正在进行这样一项调查的说法，这与该委员会主席最近的言论直接矛盾。该委员会主席表示，自7月份以来，他们一直在进行弹劾调查。
这一消息喜忧参半，因为国会本周结束了为期六周的夏季休会，并让民主党有机会在弹劾问题上发挥他们认为合适的立场。这让更温和的成员有能力宣称该党推迟了这一重大举措，而更自由的成员则指出，委员会的工作证明他们正朝着强行罢免特朗普迈出一步。
“不，”当被提示司法民主党人是否正在进行弹劾调查时，众议院议员斯坦尼·霍耶在办公室告诉记者，“因为划界应该是他们是否在考虑弹劾决议。”他解释说，他认为，为了使委员会的工作得到如此考虑，弹劾决议需要得到委员会的审议和/或众议院的表决。
目前这两种情况都没有发生，也没有正式投票宣布委员会开始弹劾调查。但该小组将于周四投票决定一套关于正在进行的“弹劾听证会”的指导方针这在党内引起了进一步的混乱和混杂的信息。这是设定参数和进一步界定司法民主党调查的第一个正式举措。
周一，司法机构主席杰罗德·纳德勒(纽约民主党)告诉记者，自今年夏天早些时候向法院提交文件以来，他和他的委员会同事一直在进行“调查，寻求对弹劾条款进行投票表决的可能性”，在该文件中，他们寻求强制执行向前政府官员发出的证人传票，以获取证词。你可以称之为弹劾调查，也可以称之为调查。这是一回事。”
在与记者谈话后发表的一份声明中，霍耶反驳了他关于弹劾调查没有发生的评论。他表示，他误解了这个问题，即“众议院是否正在积极考虑弹劾条款，而我们目前没有。”
“我强烈支持纳德勒主席和司法委员会民主党人继续他们的调查‘决定是否向众议院全体议员推荐弹劾条款’，正如决议所说的那样，”霍耶说。
民主党党团主席、第五大民主党众议员哈基姆·杰弗里斯周三两次拒绝称之为弹劾调查，但表示他也同意纳德勒一直在做的工作。
杰弗里斯告诉记者:“我同意主席的观点，我们正在司法委员会的调查中，这是适当的，将考虑来自宾夕法尼亚大道1600号的妨碍司法、滥用权力和腐败文化的问题。”。“当然，正如杰瑞·纳德勒所说，作为调查的一部分，在未来的某个时候，我们将不得不确定总统是否犯有重罪和轻罪。”
当被进一步追问核心小组是否已经在进行弹劾调查时，杰弗里斯也是司法部门的一员，他说他不想“被语义所束缚”
“委员会应该被允许做他们的工作而不被语义上的区别所困扰，”他补充说。
众议院外交事务委员会主席埃利奥特·恩格尔(纽约州民主党人领导的小组是六个小组之一)和正在调查特朗普政府的司法部门也向记者提出了类似的论点，称“在很大程度上，这是语义上的”
“坦率地说，我认为有许多成员强烈认为穆勒报告表明存在罪责，至少我们应该向前推进，”他说，但不清楚他将如何描述弹劾的现状。
从夏季休会回来后，一些支持弹劾调查的民主党人承认，公众中可能存在误解。
“我认为肯定有一些混淆，因为人们在使用不同的语言，”司法机构成员大卫·奇西林众议员说新闻周刊星期二。罗德岛民主党人也负责核心小组的政策信息。
他说:“我认为[周四委员会投票的目标之一]是明确司法委员会正在积极参与一项程序，以决定是否向众议院全体议员推荐弹劾条款。”。奇西林补充说，人们是否想称之为弹劾“调查”、“质询”或“诉讼”都不重要。
众议院议长南希·佩洛西的一名助手表示，这位加州民主党人支持委员会的决议，该决议将为未来调查弹劾可能性的程序设定参数。然而，由于公众情绪，佩洛西仍然坚决反对弹劾。
佩洛西告诉福克斯新闻本周早些时候，众议院民主党人继续“共同努力”，该决议是“我们一直在做事情的延续”，而不是宣布正式弹劾调查。
但是，尽管支持调查的民主党人，如纳德勒，同意这是他们当前工作的继续，但很明显，并不是每个人对这意味着什么都有相同的定义。
“我们正在做的事情非常清楚。已经很清楚了。这仍然非常清楚，”纳德勒周一说。“关于我们是否应该向众议院推荐弹劾条款的调查，我们正在采取另一个步骤，你可以称之为弹劾调查，弹劾调查，无论你想用什么简称。”
MIXED MESSAGING PERSISTS AS HOUSE DEMOCRATS CAN'T DECIDE WHETHER THEY'RE CONDUCTING AN IMPEACHMENT INQUIRY
House Democrats continued to muddy the water Wednesday on the party's ongoing investigations into President Donald Trump, offering conflicting messages as to whether the Judiciary Committee is in the midst of an impeachment inquiry.
The party's top members denied the notion that Democrats are conducting such an inquiry, directly contradicting recent remarks by the panel's chairman, who has said since July they've been conducting an impeachment inquiry.
The mixed messaging comes as Congress returned from a six-week summer recess this week and allows Democrats the opportunity to play the party's stance on impeachment as they see fit. It gives more moderate members the ability to claim the party is holding off on taking such a consequential step while more liberal members point to the committee's work as evidence they're taking one step closer to forcibly removing Trump from office.
"No," Rep. Steny Hoyer (D-MD) told reporters in his office when prompted whether Judiciary Democrats were conducting an impeachment inquiry, "because the delineation ought to be whether or not they're considering a resolution of impeachment." He explained his belief that in order for the committee's work to be considered as such, an impeachment resolution would need to be under consideration by the committee and/or voted to proceed by the House.
Neither is currently happening, and no formal vote has ever taken place to declare the committee is opening an impeachment inquiry. But the panel will vote Thursday on a set of guidelines regarding its ongoing "impeachment hearings," which has drawn further confusion and mixed messaging among the party. It's the first formal move to set parameters and further define Judiciary Democrats' investigation.
On Monday, Judiciary Chairman Jerrold Nadler (D-N.Y.) told reporters that since a court filing earlier this summer, in which they sought to enforce witness subpoenas to former administration officials for testimony, he and his committee colleagues have been conducting "an investigation looking toward the possibility of voting on articles of impeachment. You can call that an impeachment inquiry, you can call that an investigation. It's the same thing."
In a statement issued after speaking with reporters, Hoyer walked back his comments about an impeachment inquiry not occurring. He stated that he misunderstood the question to be whether the "full House is actively considering articles of impeachment, which we are not at this time."
"I strongly support Chairman Nadler and the Judiciary Committee Democrats as they proceed with their investigation 'to determine whether to recommend articles of impeachment to the full House,' as the resolution states," Hoyer stated.
Rep. Hakeem Jeffries (D-N.Y.), the No. 5 Democrat as chairman of the Democratic Caucus, declined twice on Wednesday to call it an impeachment inquiry but said he also agreed with the work Nadler has been doing.
"I agree with the chairman, that we're in the midst of the Judiciary Committee investigation, which is appropriate, that will consider the obstruction of justice, abuse of power and culture of corruption that has come out of 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue," Jeffries told reporters. "And as part of that investigation, of course, as Jerry Nadler has said, at some point in the future, we're going to have to determine whether the recommend charges that the president has engaged in high crimes and misdemeanors."
Pressed further on whether the caucus was already conducting an impeachment inquiry, Jeffries, who also sits on Judiciary, stated he did not "want to get caught in semantics."
"The committee should be allowed to do their work without getting caught up in semantical distinctions," he added.
House Foreign Affairs Committee Chairman Eliot Engel (D-NY), whose Democratic-led panel is one of six, along with Judiciary, that is investigating the Trump administration, made a similar argument to reporters, saying "to a large degree, it's semantical."
"I think there, frankly, are a lot of members who feel strongly that the Mueller report indicates that there is culpability and at the very least, we should push forward," he said, leaving it unclear as to how he would describe the current state of affairs regarding impeachment.
Since returning from summer recess, some pro-impeachment inquiry Democrats have acknowledged there may be misconceptions among members of the public.
"I think there's definitely some confusion because people are using different language," Rep. David Cicilline (D-R.I.), a Judiciary member, told Newsweek on Tuesday. The Rhode Island Democrat is also in charge of policy messaging for the caucus.
"I think one of the objectives of [Thursday's committee vote] is to make it very clear that the Judiciary Committee is actively engaged in a proceeding to determine whether or not to recommend articles of impeachment to the president of the president to the full House," he said. And whether people want to call it an impeachment "investigation," "inquiry" or "proceeding" shouldn't matter, Cicilline added.
An aide to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi has said the California Democrat supports the committee's resolution that will set the parameters for future proceedings looking into the possibility of impeachment. However, Pelosi remains dead set against impeachment due to public sentiment.
Pelosi told Fox News earlier this week that House Democrats continue to "all work together" and that the resolution was a "continuation of what we have been doing," rather than it being a declaration of an official impeachment inquiry.
But while pro-inquiry Democrats, such as Nadler, agree it's a continuation of their current work, it's clear that not everyone has the same definition for what that means.
"What we're doing is very clear. It's been very clear. It continues to be very clear," Nadler said Monday. "We're taking another step in our investigation as to whether we should recommend articles impeachment to the House, which you can call an impeachment investigation, an impeachment inquiry, whatever term you want as shorthand."
