News

White House

NY Freshman Dem Urges Party Not to Include Mueller Evidence in Impeachment Articles

Max Rose (D., N.Y.) is seen in this Max Rose for Congress campaign photo provided from Staten Island, N.Y., on November 7, 2018. (Max Rose for Congress/Handout via Reuters)

Representative Max Rose (D., N.Y.) pushed back Friday on efforts to include evidence from the Mueller Report in articles of impeachment against President Trump, saying that he “was very serious” when previously warning against impeaching Trump based on Mueller’s evidence.

“I was against going through with the impeachment previous to this Ukraine matter,” Rose told CNN. “So with the understanding that I’m not going to entertain any hypotheticals, I was very serious when I came out and said that.”

Earlier this week, Rose said he would wait to see the articles before deciding if he’d vote to impeach. House Democrats have been debating whether or not to include the Mueller Report in articles of impeachment, with progressives pushing for its potential inclusion.

“To me, you could make a case for bringing in some of the Mueller report because this is a pattern,” Pramila Jayapal (D., Wash.) told CNN. “What we’re seeing in Ukraine is the same pattern as what we saw with the Mueller report. And so, if it’s the same pattern, it might make sense.”

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi refused to rule out including Mueller evidence in the impeachment articles if House Judiciary Chairman Jerry Nadler recommended that course, saying during a town hall Thursday night that “we’re operating collectively” in coming up with articles.

Rose refused to budge Friday, reiterating that the instances of obstruction of justice detailed in the Mueller report do not warrant impeachment.

“This is the second most consequential thing I could do as a member of Congress, second only to declaring war,” Rose said. “. . . Unlike most of the people in this institution, I’m not going to just say something and forget about it.”

Rose, a freshman Democrat from Staten Island and a Republican target in the 2020 elections, wrote an op-ed in September against impeaching Trump, only to later reverse his stance and state that he intended “to fully support this impeachment inquiry” following the release of the whistleblower complaint based on the July 25 call between President Trump and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky.

Trump won Rose’s district in 2016, snagging over 54 percent of the vote. In his winning 2018 campaign, Rose focused mostly on local issues and promised to work with Republicans, even meeting with Trump during the month-long partial government shutdown that stretched into late January of this year.

“I have opposed a rush to judgment to date because the American people deserve to know that when this country is in crisis, we’re going to react responsibly and deliberately,” Rose said in October. “If the president is right and he has nothing to hide, then all we ask today is that he proves it.”

Reached for comment, Rose’s office told National Review that Rose “wasn’t referencing anyone or anything in particular” with his “people in this institution” barb. Rose did not respond when asked if he would vote for impeachment without Republican support.

On Thursday night, Pelosi confirmed she would have no regrets in impeaching Trump without Republican support, after saying in March that “unless there’s something so compelling and overwhelming and bipartisan, I don’t think we should go down that path, because it divides the country.”

“This isn’t about politics at all. This is about patriotism. It’s not about partisanship. It’s about honoring our oath of office,” Pelosi told Jake Tapper.

Most Popular

Law & the Courts

The March for Life Is a March for Truth

Pro-lifers are marching today, as they do every year, to commemorate a great evil that was done in January 1973 and to express solidarity with its innocent victims. The Supreme Court’s decision in Roe v. Wade eliminated legal protections for unborn children in all 50 states, and did so without any ... Read More
Law & the Courts

The March for Life Is a March for Truth

Pro-lifers are marching today, as they do every year, to commemorate a great evil that was done in January 1973 and to express solidarity with its innocent victims. The Supreme Court’s decision in Roe v. Wade eliminated legal protections for unborn children in all 50 states, and did so without any ... Read More

A Nation of Barbers

It seems almost inevitable that long hair is unwelcome at Barbers Hill High School. There’s a touch of aptronymic poetry in Texas public-school dress-code disputes. When I was in school in the 1980s, at the height of the Satanism panic, the local school-district superintendent circulated a list of ... Read More

A Nation of Barbers

It seems almost inevitable that long hair is unwelcome at Barbers Hill High School. There’s a touch of aptronymic poetry in Texas public-school dress-code disputes. When I was in school in the 1980s, at the height of the Satanism panic, the local school-district superintendent circulated a list of ... Read More
Law & the Courts

Clarence Thomas Speaks

Those who know Justice Clarence Thomas say that any perception of him as dour or phlegmatic couldn't be more off-base. He's a charming, gracious, jovial man, full of bonhomie and easy with a laugh, or so I'm told by people who know him well. On summer breaks he likes to roam around the country in an RV and stay ... Read More
Law & the Courts

Clarence Thomas Speaks

Those who know Justice Clarence Thomas say that any perception of him as dour or phlegmatic couldn't be more off-base. He's a charming, gracious, jovial man, full of bonhomie and easy with a laugh, or so I'm told by people who know him well. On summer breaks he likes to roam around the country in an RV and stay ... Read More
U.S.

Nadler’s Folly

Jerry Nadler must have missed the day in law school where they teach you about persuasion. The House Democrat made a critical error early in the trial of President Trump. He didn’t just say that Republican senators, who voted to begin the proceedings without calling witnesses, were part of a cover-up. He said ... Read More
U.S.

Nadler’s Folly

Jerry Nadler must have missed the day in law school where they teach you about persuasion. The House Democrat made a critical error early in the trial of President Trump. He didn’t just say that Republican senators, who voted to begin the proceedings without calling witnesses, were part of a cover-up. He said ... Read More