“The emphasis is on the litigants, the emphasis is on comfort in the courtroom,” Pelosi said of his elections.
Here are who they are and why Pelosi probably chose them for the most important part of the entire political trial process.
Adam B. Schiff, chairman of the House Intelligence Committee and senior manager
Why Pelosi probably chose it: When Pelosi embraced a political trial investigation of Trump in September, he chose Schiff as the face of the Democrats. From 2017-2019, the California congressman fought with the Trump administration and his allies in the House as the main Democrat in the Republican-led committee investigating Russian electoral interference, and Pelosi’s close ally has been in contact with the speaker since they retaken the majority. Schiff has shown a special ability to distill complicated issues clearly and a willingness to pursue Trump’s weaknesses, such as his campaign connections with Russia. Schiff’s role in the investigation of political judgment made him a more recognizable national figure.
Schiff has been a member of Congress for almost two decades, and on the Intelligence Committee frequently handles sensitive issues and government secrets. Before becoming a member of Congress, he was a federal prosecutor in Los Angeles, where he prosecuted several high profile cases.
His big moment in the accusation so far: All of them. Four committees participated in this process, but it was Schiff, through his committee, who led most of the political trial investigation. He was the last supervisor of the citation decisions, the strategy of the Democrats to fight the White House in search of information and convince current and former national security officials to challenge the White House bans and talk to Congress. He directed statements of those witnesses for weeks behind closed doors, and his committee was the one who held public hearings with a dozen witnesses who shaped what the nation knows about Trump’s intentions about Ukraine.
The committee reported on what he found, claiming that Trump “subverted US foreign policy towards Ukraine and undermined our national security in favor of two politically motivated investigations that would help his presidential reelection campaign.”
Schiff emerged relatively unscathed from being the face of the opposition of the Democrats to Russia’s investigation of the committee led by the Republican Party and then as the face of Trump’s impeachment by the Democrats. At first, Republicans accused him of deceptively paraphrasing Trump’s phone call to Ukraine. (He paraphrased it, precisely if it is unnecessarily dramatic.) Schiff also gave a false statement about whether he had a warning that there was an explosive denunciation of whistleblowers, knowledge that gave him a tactical advantage by pressuring the administration to publish it. Republicans and Trump have made it the object of their criticism perhaps more than Pelosi, even when Schiff’s investigation confirmed many of the accusations in the whistleblower complaint.
Jerrold Nadler, president of the Judicial Committee of the Chamber
Why Pelosi probably chose it: The New York Democrat leads the committee traditionally in charge of the recall. He took Schiff’s political trial investigation on the way back, turning it into a real political trial by helping to draft the two articles of political trial against Trump and then debating them and passing them out of his committee for the full House to finally approve.
Nadler has served in Congress for almost three decades and has many scars to show: from fighting the National Security Agency on wiretapping to Americans, being an open opponent of recent cases of police brutality in New York and writing amicus writings of House Democrats In two important cases of the Supreme Court on same-sex marriage, Nadler knows how to get around a contentious fight. He and Trump also have a dispute that goes back decades ago over Nadler opposing a development that Trump wanted in New York City. Nadler was also in Congress for the political trial of President Bill Clinton and openly opposed him, which earned him national attention.
His big moment in the accusation so far: Passing the articles of political judgment through Congress, he first had to survive a 14-hour debate on his committee. The Democrats were on a tight and self-imposed calendar to approve the items before the Christmas holidays, so they wouldn’t be accused of trying to accuse a president in an election year.
Zoe Lofgren, chairwoman of the House Administration Committee
Why Pelosi probably chose it: The California Democrat is a principal member of the House Judicial Committee and is serving her 13th term in Congress. She is one of the most experienced members of Congress in political trial. He was a member of the Judicial Committee during the political trial proceedings of President Richard M. Nixon and a member of the Judiciary Committee during the Clinton political trial. In addition, the steering committee has experience in presidential election supervision.
His great moment in the political trial: It occurred when the Judiciary Committee was discussing the articles of political judgment. Republicans tried to argue that the president should be charged with a crime for being accused, because Clinton was charged for things that matched the criminal code, such as perjury. Lofgren tried to rephrase that argument to say that what Trump is accused of is more serious: “Somehow, lying about a sexual relationship is an abuse of the presidential power, but the misuse of the presidential power to obtain a benefit somehow does not it matters, “he said. , in a comment that was collected in the national media.
Hakeem Jeffries, president of the House of Democratic Representatives
Why Pelosi probably chose it: The New York Democrat is number 5 in the leadership of the House and a member of the House Judiciary Committee. Pelosi has said he was “a litigant consummated in private practice” before running for office, and that he has experience with the other side of the courtroom since he worked for a federal judge in New York.
His great moment in the political trial: During the full House debate on Trump’s impeachment, Jeffries tried to connect the moment with the main moments of civil rights, arguing that the political trial was more unifying than a divisor and that Republicans were on the wrong side of history. :
There are those who cynically argue that the dismissal of this president will further divide an already fractured union. But there is a difference between division and clarification. Slavery once divided the nation, but emancipation emerged to clarify that all men are created equally. Suffrage once divided the nation, but women rose to clarify that all voices should be heard in our democracy. Jim Crow once divided the nation, but civil rights defenders rose to clarify that everyone is entitled to equal protection under the law. There is a difference between division and clarification.
Val Demings, member of the intelligence and judiciary committees
Why Pelosi probably chose it: The Florida Democrat is one of the few new members of Congress to be appointed manager; She is serving her second term. She was the first female police chief in Orlando, and on Wednesday, Pelosi cited her police record as a fortress. You are probably also familiar with the evidence, since you sat on the two committees that handled the main parts of the political trial.
His great moment in the political trial: She had a partner. At first, he got two diplomats to confirm that they did not believe that Trump’s personal lawyer, Rudolph W. Giuliani, was serving American interests with his work in Ukraine. Then, while the Judicial Committee discussed its articles of political judgment, Demings delivered one of the most emotional and emotional speeches of the two-day process. She talked about growing up in Florida as a poor black girl and how her story of the American Dream could only work in a nation of laws: “I come before you tonight as an African-American woman. I come before you tonight as a slave descendant. The slaves who knew they would not achieve it but dreamed and prayed that one day they would succeed. I come before you tonight proclaiming that despite the complicated history of the United States, my faith is in the Constitution. “
Jason Crow, member of the House Armed Services Committee
Why did Pelosi probably choose it?: The Colorado Democrat is in his first term as Congress. Prior to Congress, he served as Army Rangers, leading combat units in Iraq and Afghanistan. He was also a partner in a law firm in Colorado. According to the American Policy Almanac, he was not a prosecutor, but “he conducted internal investigations throughout the country, responded to emergency events and handled a wide range of government consultations.” It also represents the type of district, a suburban one in a decisive state: Democrats will have to hold on in November to maintain their majorities.
His great moment of political judgment: He is the only manager who is not part of any of the political trial investigation committees, but had the role of influencing Pelosi to authorize the political trial investigation. He was one of seven freshmen in the House of Representatives with a national security record who co-authored an opinion piece from the Washington Post that describes Trump’s actions in Ukraine as impeccable, a move that signaled a major momentum shift. within the democratic group. Pelosi announced the political trial investigation one day after publication.
Sylvia Garcia, member of the Judicial Committee of the Chamber
Why Pelosi probably chose it: The first Texas Democrat was a municipal judge in Houston, she became the first woman and Latina elected to the Harris County Commissioner Court and then became a state senator. In 2018, she became one of the first Latinas elected to the Texas Congress, along with her Latin partner Veronica Escobar (D).
His great moment of political judgment: In addition to serving on the Judiciary Committee and discussing the articles of political trial, Garcia was a guest on cable television, including Fox News, defending the Democrats’ political trial investigation of Republican attacks. “I did not come to Congress to accuse the president, I did not come to Congress to have to sit in this type of audience. I’m just a boy from South Texas who believes in the American dream and believes in our democracy and the Constitution, “he told Fox’s Neil Cavuto in December.