It wasn’t a coincidence that moments after Nancy Pelosi promised progressive House leaders more power in the next Congress, a host of liberal groups announced they were supporting her for speaker.

Rep. Pramila Jayapal, who is expected to co-chair the House Progressive Caucus next year, left a Thursday night meeting with Pelosi in the Capitol and proclaimed that her members would have more seats on powerful committees and more influence over legislation.

Story Continued Below

The Washington state Democrat then phoned MoveOn and Indivisible with the news, and they promptly tweeted out support for Pelosi. Then, on Friday morning, Jayapal, previously uncommitted on whom she would back for speaker, gave Pelosi a full-throated endorsement.

“No one can really doubt Pelosi’s progressive chops,” Jayapal told POLITICO in an interview. “And I do think, for the next two years, as we lead into 2020, and are coming off this big wave, we need someone who is smart and strategic and has done this.”

She went on to note that the 15 to 20 Pelosi critics trying to oust her are more centrist in their ideology and goals than the rest of the caucus. If Democrats remove her, Jayapal argued, they would effectively be turning their backs on the voters who swept Democrats into power.

“That drive is not going to take us in the direction that we should go,” Jayapal said of the effort to depose Pelosi. “It’s going to be the opposite of what the election really told us, which is a much more diverse, progressive, bold agenda.”

Pelosi’s overtures also speak to progressives’ growing influence in the Democratic caucus. The Progressive Caucus will increase its membership by at least 20 members next year, and comprise about two-fifths of the caucus. Its leaders intend to use those numbers to boost their power and agenda — starting first with committee assignments and leadership positions but then expanding into legislation.

Adding to that heft is their relationship with powerful groups on the outside — organizations that Jayapal argues are the main reason Democrats retook the majority.

“We coordinated very closely with them and they actually told Pelosi that they won’t come out for her until [after] our meeting,” Jayapal said. “So we are leveraging our power in different ways within the caucus but also with our allies on the outside.”

Thursday’s meeting included Jayapal and current Progressive Caucus Co-Chair Mark Pocan (D-Wis.) on one side, and Pelosi and her no. 2, Rep. Steny Hoyer (D-Md.) on the other.

One request that Pelosi agreed to was to give the Progressive Caucus proportional representation on what lawmakers call the “A committees”: the Appropriations, Ways and Means, Energy and Commerce, Financial Services committee and Intelligence committees.

Jayapal and Pocan also asked for “expanded leadership that allows for more progressives in the top spots,” Jayapal said. While progressives would still have to run for and be elected to the positions, it would at least ensure there would be positions for progressives to run for.

Pelosi agreed with the idea, though it is unclear if she will create a new position in leadership, as is being discussed behind the scenes now, according to several Democratic leadership sources. Since Pelosi, Hoyer and Assistant Leader James Clyburn have been leading the caucus for 15 years, there haven’t been many openings in leadership for progressives.

One progressive lawmaker, Rep. David Cicilline (D-R.I.), is running for assistant leader, the No. 4 position. But he is expected to be defeated by Rep. Ben Ray Lujan (D-N.M.), who helped win back the House as head of the caucus’ campaign arm, lawmakers and aides predict.

A new leadership spot would create an opening for Cicillini, in theory, though he would have to be elected.

Pelosi did commit to enhancing the heft of the House Democratic Policy and Communications Committee, a panel recently created to give rank-and-file members more leadership opportunities — and stocked with progressive lawmakers. Pelosi agreed to a Progressive Caucus demand that those positions include a budget and staff; they currently have neither. Several progressive lawmakers are running for these positions again next year.

The group leaders also registered their concerns about “pay-go” rules with Pelosi. Under those rules, certain bills cannot be considered if they aren’t paid for. Progressive have long run on policy positions that would be expensive, from “Medicare for all” to free college tuition. Pelosi didn’t make any commitments, but she promised to bring those rules up for debate.

In a sign of the rising influence of the Progressive Caucus leaders, outside groups specifically held off on endorsing Pelosi until she committed to these asks. After the meeting the progressive leaders called these groups to give them the green light to back Pelosi.

While the Progressive Caucus as an entity has not endorsed Pelosi, the promises were enough for Jayapal.

“It wasn’t that we doubted [Pelosi’s] credentials as a progressive,” Jayapal said. “But we felt that we really needed to have some assurances around her commitment to making sure that the blue wave, which in our mind has been fueled by progressives across the country,” continues in Congress.

About 30 minutes after that meeting, progressives weighed in on Twitter.

“We strongly support and call on all members of the Democratic caucus to support @NancyPelosi for Speaker,” MoveOn.org tweeted at around 6:30 p.m.. “Were it not for her skilled and effective leadership, the ACA would not be law today. Dems must reject attempts to defeat her and move caucus to the right.”

“Mr. Kellyanne Conway” isn’t confined to a 280-character limit anymore.

Instead, George Conway, the outspoken husband of counselor to the president Kellyanne Conway, stepped out from behind his Twitter persona and op-ed writing to participate in an 80-minute wide-ranging discussion on Yahoo News’ Skullduggery, where he continued to take digs at President Donald Trump.

Story Continued Below

Conway, who said he was finally worn down by requests from the podcast’s co-host Michael Isikoff, hit on why he withdrew his name from a top position at the Justice Department, when the tides began to turn in regards to his view on Trump, and the relationship with his wife given his harsh criticism of her boss.

Here’s a round-up of top moments from Conway’s interview.

Checks and Balances

Conway said the group he created to encourage conservative lawyers to speak out against the Trump administration, entitled Checks and Balances, is not about “any single individual,” adding that their mission statement does not specifically “use the ‘T’ word.”

“It’s about the principals, it’s about the rule of law,” he said. “You don’t have to stay silent when you see something that you don’t like that is inconsistent of these timeless principals.”

Conway added that there are aspects of the administration that conservatives, such as himself, like. He said that he has liked the judges Trump has nominated and confirmed, including Supreme Court Justices Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh.

However, he also said that he’s found the president’s tweets disturbing, especially when he criticized then-Attorney General Jeff Sessions on indictments issued to Reps. Chris Collins and Duncan Hunter.

“To criticize the attorney general for permitting justice to be done without regard to political party is very disturbing,” he said.

‘I call myself Mr. Kellyanne Conway’

Trump last week said he did not know George Conway, referring to him as “Mr. Kellyanne Conway,” and that his criticisms towards the president were to get attention.

George Conway agreed with the president on two of the three points.

“I call myself Mr. Kellyanne Conway,” he said. In addition, Conway said that he did not know the president well.

But he said that he doesn’t want attention with his criticisms, adding that “if I wanted to get attention, I wouldn’t be on this podcast.” Conway said he has been asked to speak on a number of news networks, but has declined those invitations.

When asked about how Kellyanne Conway feels, George Conway said he doesn’t “think she likes it.”

“I’ve told her that I don’t like the administration, so it’s even,” he said. “It’s one of these things that if I had a nickel for everybody in Washington who disagrees with their spouse about everything that happens in this town, I wouldn’t be on this podcast, I would probably be on a beach somewhere.”

“The fact of the matter is, when it comes down to things we disagree about, we agree on most policy things, virtually all ever, it’s just though, this is the one thing we really disagree about,” he added.

Dodged a bullet

Conway believes he dodged a bullet by not joining the Trump administration.

The lawyer was undergoing a background check to be the chief of the civil division at the Justice Department, which he said he believes was nearly completed when he withdrew his name.

“It’s like the administration is like a shitshow in a dumpster fire, and I’m like, I don’t want to do that,” he said.

He added that following Trump’s firing of FBI Director James Comey and Comey’s comments about the Russia probe, he knew that the relationship between the president and the Justice Department was going to be tense.

“I realized, you know, that this guy is going to be at war with the Justice Department,” he said. “He’s going to be at one end and if I get this door prize, I’m going to be in the middle of a department he’s at war with. Why would anybody want to do this?”

Election night tears … of joy

The night of Trump’s win in 2016, it was reported that George Conway cried due to how happy he was about the election results.

Conway said that he was happy at the time that Trump won, adding that he didn’t like the Clintons and did not want Hillary Clinton to win. Conway was a lawyer representing Paula Jones in her lawsuit against Bill Clinton.

On Trump, he said at the time: “My view was he was the lesser evil.”

But he also said that he was happy for his wife, and the outcome of all the work she did to get Trump elected.

“My wife did an amazing thing, she basically got this guy elected,” he said. “And other people like to take credit for it, but she got this guy elected.

“She steadied that vote. She did it. She went on television, she imposed message discipline on that campaign, I mean he was in the crapper when she took that campaign over,” he said.

Conway, however, said that he does not know whether Trump is now the lesser of two evils.

“Faced with the choice again, I would probably move to Australia,” he said.

Grounds for impeachment

Conway said that discussions of impeachment should happen after all the evidence from special counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation is complete.

Only then, he said, could there be a judgment and he believes that the House and Senate should make the decision on what to do next.

“I’m open to supporting what’s constitutionally appropriate, and if any constitutional officer commits an impeachable offense, then they should be subject to potential impeachment and removal under the Constitution,” he said.

When asked if that includes Trump, he said: “Including any president.”

Goodbye to the party of Trump

In March, Conway changed his voter registration from Republican to “unaffiliated,” citing the state of the Grand Old Party.

“I don’t feel comfortable being a Republican anymore,” he said. “I think the Republican Party has become something of a personality cult.”

When asked whether he would support Trump in his re-election in 2020, Conway immediately said no. He wouldn’t confirm whether he would support a Democrat in 2020 or a Republican who chooses to run against the president. In addition, Conway also said he has no comment on whether he believes Trump is “stable.”

“I don’t know, we’ll have to see. I don’t know who’s going to run,” he said.

The turning point

Although Conway said he cannot pinpoint the moment his views soured on Trump, he said that the president’s continued attacks on Sessions really irked him.

“I think the things that really bugged me the most was the tweets at Sessions, and the Justice Department, those things bugged me the most,” he said. “I don’t know if there was any one moment but it was sort of a gradual thing.”

When asked whether he thinks Trump poses a threat to the United States’ fundamental institutions and the rule of law, Conway said he thinks “that we have a strong constitutional order, and I think that’s what we’ve seen thus far.”

“I don’t think there’s been actual, functional damage,” he said. “In a sense, we have a weak president because the president wasn’t able to fire his attorney general, he was only able to tweet at his attorney general for so long.

However, Conway added that the perceptions that Trump creates, such as his tweets calling Mueller’s investigation a “witch hunt,” could have a long-term effect on Americans.

“They’re corrosive,” he said. “And even if they don’t actually have a legal effect and they’re not executed with an order of any sort, they have a corrosive effect, I think, over the medium to long term perceptions, I think, of the public on what is how the system operates, and that’s disturbing.”