Trump Rage-Tweets About Being Calm

The president claimed that Pelosi and Schumer had fabricated their characterization of the abruptly canceled infrastructure meeting.

Douglas Christian/ZUMA

Let our journalists help you make sense of the noise: Subscribe to the Mother Jones Daily newsletter and get a recap of news that matters.

As the debate over whether to begin impeachment proceedings against President Donald Trump intensifies, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi on Wednesday directly accused President Donald Trump of engaging in a “cover-up” by continuing to defy congressional subpoenas and requests for information.

She stopped short, however, of endorsing the growing calls to impeach the president.

“We do believe that it’s important to follow the facts,” the top Democrat told reporters after a closed-door meeting with House Democrats. “We believe that no one is above the law, including the president of the United States. And we believe the President of the United States is engaged in a cover-up.”

The accusation has clearly rattled the president. “I don’t do cover-ups,” Trump later said on Wednesday from the Rose Garden, in what appeared to be off-the-script comments. “You people know that probably better than anybody.”

According to Pelosi and Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, the president had just walked out of a planned meeting on infrastructure at the White House out of anger over the “cover-up” line. “To watch what happened in the White House would make your jaw drop,” Schumer said after the meeting was canceled.

“I pray for the president of the United States, and I pray for the United States of America,” Pelosi added.

Trump hit back at the characterization—twice—claiming instead that he had been “extremely calm” while abruptly canceling the meeting.

The intense back-and-forth comes one day after former White House counsel Don McGahn, at the direction of the president, defied a House Judiciary Committee subpoena to testify before lawmakers as a part of the investigation into Trump’s potential attempts to obstruct justice. For some Democrats, McGahn’s no-show signaled the final straw in what they were willing to accept from the president’s disregard for congressional processes, and that impeachment proceedings were the only path left to hold him accountable.

But Pelosi’s remarks on Wednesday made clear that she intended to keep holding the line in her effort to avoid impeachment, as she believes it would appear overtly political and potentially cost Democrats in future elections. “Impeachment is so divisive to the country 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,” she told the Washington Post in March. “And he’s just not worth it.”

While the ongoing resistance from Pelosi to start impeachment proceedings may frustrate some Democrats, those who have vocally supported impeachment, including Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, emerged from Wednesday’s meeting appearing united with the caucus.

“I was satisfied with the openness of the conversation and the discourse that we’re having as a caucus,” Ocasio-Cortez said after the meeting. 

“I think we’re having thoughtful conversations about it and that’s the most important part,” she continued when pressed on impeachment.

This post has been updated.


Headshot of Editor in Chief of Mother Jones, Clara Jeffery

It sure feels that way to me, and here at Mother Jones, we’ve been thinking a lot about what journalism needs to do differently, and how we can have the biggest impact.

We kept coming back to one word: corruption. Democracy and the rule of law being undermined by those with wealth and power for their own gain. So we're launching an ambitious Mother Jones Corruption Project to do deep, time-intensive reporting on systemic corruption, and asking the MoJo community to help crowdfund it.

We aim to hire, build a team, and give them the time and space needed to understand how we got here and how we might get out. We want to dig into the forces and decisions that have allowed massive conflicts of interest, influence peddling, and win-at-all-costs politics to flourish.

It's unlike anything we've done, and we have seed funding to get started, but we're looking to raise $500,000 from readers by July when we'll be making key budgeting decisions—and the more resources we have by then, the deeper we can dig. If our plan sounds good to you, please help kickstart it with a tax-deductible donation today.

Thanks for reading—whether or not you can pitch in today, or ever, I'm glad you're with us.

Signed by Clara Jeffery

Clara Jeffery, Editor-in-Chief

payment methods

We Recommend