Speaker Nancy Pelosi told senior Democrats that she’d like to see President Donald Trump “in prison” as she clashed with House Judiciary Chairman Jerry Nadler in a meeting on Tuesday night over whether to launch impeachment proceedings.

Pelosi met with Nadler (D-N.Y.) and several other top Democrats who are aggressively pursuing investigations against the president, according to multiple sources. Nadler and other committee leaders have been embroiled in a behind-the-scenes turf battle for weeks over ownership of the Democrats’ sprawling investigation into Trump.

Story Continued Below

Nadler pressed Pelosi to allow his committee to launch an impeachment inquiry against Trump — the second such request he’s made in recent weeks only to be rebuffed by the California Democrat and other senior leaders. Pelosi stood firm, reiterating that she isn’t open to the idea of impeaching Trump at this time.

“I don’t want to see him impeached, I want to see him in prison,” Pelosi said, according to multiple Democratic sources familiar with the meeting. Instead of impeachment, Pelosi still prefers to see Trump defeated at the ballot box and then prosecuted for his alleged crimes, according to the sources.

They said she was expressing solidarity with pro-impeachment Democrats who want to hold the president accountable while disputing the idea that it is now time to take that step. Pelosi has long argued that certain conditions must be met before Democrats begin impeachment — public support and strong bipartisan backing, neither of which have so far materialized.

Other Democrats said Pelosi’s comment wasn’t that surprising given her previous criticisms of the president, including saying Trump “is engaged in a cover-up,” that his staff and family should stage an intervention and that the president’s actions are “are villainous to the Constitution of the United States.”

Ashley Etienne, a Pelosi spokeswoman said Pelosi and the chairmen “had a productive meeting about the state of play with the Mueller report. They agreed to keep all options on the table and continue to move forward with an aggressive hearing and legislative strategy, as early as next week, to address the president’s corruption and abuses of power uncovered in the report.”

House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff (D-Calif.), Oversight Committee Chairman Elijah Cummings (D-Md.), Ways and Means Committee Chairman Richard Neal (D-Mass.) and Foreign Affairs Committee Chairman Eliot Engel (D-N.Y.) were all also present for the meeting. Financial Services Committee Chairwoman Maxine Waters (D-Calif.) — a vocal impeachment supporter whose panel is probing Trump’s finances — was not in attendance.

In Tuesday’s meeting, some committee chairs expressed frustration about the appearance that rank-and-file members — rather than party leaders — were leading the caucus’ oversight strategy, including what they do on impeachment, according to one source familiar with the meeting.

But not all committee leaders were supportive of the impeachment inquiry. Both Schiff and Neal argued that if Democrats are going to open an inquiry, they should also be prepared to impeach Trump, which the caucus isn’t ready to do, they said. Cummings also sided with Pelosi, according to a source.

Neal also grumbled about Democrats who have come out in favor of impeachment, saying it puts pressure on members in bordering congressional districts to explain why they don’t feel the same way. House Rules Committee Chairman Jim McGovern (D-Mass.) – whose district touches Neal’s – came out for impeachment last week.

The meeting is just the latest example of the impeachment debate that is roiling the Democratic Caucus. Pelosi is facing continued pressure both publicly from some rank-and-file members and privately from committee leaders like Nadler, who are unhappy with the current strategy.

The gulf between Nadler and Pelosi was on full display on Wednesday as the New York Democrat dodged questions about whether he and Pelosi were in agreement on Democrats’ impeachment strategy.

“We are investigating all of the things we would investigate, frankly, in an impeachment inquiry,” Nadler said on CNN. He then paused for several seconds when asked if he and Pelosi were “on the same page.”

“When that decision has to be made, it will be made not by any one individual, it will be made probably by the caucus as a whole,” Nadler added. “Certainly Nancy will have the largest single voice in it.”

Pelosi, meanwhile, is trying to publicly project unity – going so far as to defiantly declare Wednesday that “there is no controversy” within the caucus over impeachment.

“Make no mistake, we know exactly what path we’re on. We know exactly what actions we need to take,” Pelosi told reporters earlier Wednesday, hitting her palm on the podium for emphasis.

In reality, the speaker and her top lieutenants have been trying to tamp down a rebellion within the caucus, as close to 60 members have publicly declared they want to begin impeaching Trump.

Trump, meanwhile, has continued to stonewall Democrats’ every attempt to investigate his administration, personal finances and charges of obstruction of justice outlined by special counsel Robert Mueller.

Party leaders have tried to relieve some of the pressure by taking more aggressive public action against the White House’s repeated defiance, including scheduling a contempt vote on the House floor next week against Attorney General William Barr and former White House counsel Don McGahn.

And Democratic leaders continue to emphasize that their methodical, step-by-step oversight process is working, pointing to recent federal court victories Democrats have secured against Trump’s efforts to block them. Nadler is also still trying to secure Mueller’s testimony before his committee.

But for a growing number of Democrats, including several members of the Judiciary Committee, opening impeachment proceedings is the only recourse.

Reps. David Cicilline (D-R.I.), Jamie Raskin (D-Md.) and Joe Neguse (D-Colo.), all members of Democratic leadership and the Judiciary panel, first raised the idea of launching an impeachment inquiry during a private leadership meeting late last month only to be shot down by Pelosi.

Pelosi, House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-Md.), House Majority Whip Jim Clyburn (D-S.C.) and other top Democrats met with Nadler separately that night as he again unsuccessfully argued for opening an impeachment inquiry.

Nadler, Raskin and other lawmakers say opening an inquiry doesn’t necessarily result in impeachment and would strengthen their legal case as Democrats pursue Trump in court in an effort to force him to comply with their investigations. But other Democrats argue that the public wouldn’t understand the difference between an inquiry and actual impeachment, which would only further muddle the party’s message in the run up to the election.

Pelosi has repeatedly said she doesn’t think trying to impeach Trump is “worth it,” arguing that without the public on their side, the best way to beat the president is to convince voters to kick him out of office in 2020. She and some other top Democrats worry that pursuing impeachment would swamp their legislative agenda and embolden the Republican base, possibly costing them the House next year and ensuring Trump’s reelection.

“I’m not feeling any pressure,” Pelosi told reporters Wednesday.

Republicans are split over a new Democrat-led antitrust investigation of the tech industry, highlighting tensions between the GOP’s growing criticism of companies like Google and Facebook and the party’s traditional aversion to regulating business.

The House Judiciary Committee launched the probe Monday to look at whether Silicon Valley’s tech titans have engaged in anti-competitive conduct — and some Republican lawmakers were quick to cheer their Democratic colleagues on.

Story Continued Below

“I’m all for it,” Senate Judiciary Chairman Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) said of the House probe, while fellow Senate Judiciary member John Neely Kennedy (R-La.) told reporters that it’s about time for Congress to examine how the online industry’s growing power affects consumers.

“Look I’m very proud of the large social media companies,” Kennedy told reporters. “They’re all American companies. They’ve been extraordinarily successful. That’s why they’re so big. But they’re not companies anymore — they’re countries.”

Other congressional Republicans tempered their enthusiasm, however. And others responded with distinct caution to the idea of Congress taking on an antitrust role that’s normally in the hands of the Justice Department and the Federal Trade Commission — both of which have lately taken an interest in tech giants such as Google and Amazon.

“Antitrust is a highly technical inquiry, not something that lends itself to easy generalizations or blanket condemnations,” said a statement from Utah Sen. Mike Lee, who chairs the Senate Judiciary antitrust panel that would be in a prime position to oversee a probe. “This is why such investigations are best left to the antitrust agencies rather than Congress.”

Sen. Josh Hawley (R-Mo.), a leading critic of the tech industry, agreed that federal regulators would be “more effective” than Congress in policing the issue. He suggested that lawmakers should instead focus on issues like protecting consumers’ data privacy.

The reactions underscore the dueling impulses of Republicans when it comes to tech in the Trump era. Many have railed against internet giants like Google, Facebook and Twitter, particularly over what they see as an anti-conservative bias in the way the companies manage content. Some have dangled the prospect of taking away the industry’s longtime liability protections. But most Republicans also hew to the party’s instinctive distaste for anything that smacks of regulation — let alone trust-busting.

The GOP’s more hawkish tech critics include Graham, who has complained about the unregulated “wild wild West” of social media companies and said he’s “certainly willing to look into their business model” as well. Another is Texas Sen. Ted Cruz, who has accused digital platforms of suppressing conservative speech.

“I was glad to see the House launch that investigation and I’d love to see Senate Judiciary Committee do the same,” Cruz said.

House Democrats have yet to lay out the full scope of the probe. But Rep. David Cicilline (D-R.I.), chairman of the House Judiciary antitrust subcommittee that is spearheading the congressional investigation, specifically named Google, Facebook and Amazon as a “significant part” of it during his announcement Monday. He said he’s prepared to issue subpoenas and compel witnesses to testify if needed.

House Judiciary’s top Republican, Doug Collins of Georgia, and Jim Sensenbrenner of Wisconsin, the top Republican on its antitrust panel, initially praised the Democrats’ probe, with Collins calling the effort a “bipartisan” opportunity to explore whether the tech industry remains competitive and “if necessary, to take action.”

But a GOP committee aide later sought to draw some boundaries around that support, suggesting the two Republican lawmakers are leery of some of the more aggressive tactics Cicilline mentioned.

Collins and Sensenbrenner have agreed to “less formal oversight activity to look into big tech,” said the aide, who spoke anonymously because they were not authorized to speak on the record. The aide added that “there has not been bipartisan agreement to scrutinize, subpoena, compel testimony from or start a critical investigation” into specific companies.

That reluctance contrasts with some of the fiery rhetoric Republicans have brandished as they take aim at perceived bias on the part of Google, Facebook and Twitter, which deny any political favoritism in the way they manage their platforms.

Several GOP lawmakers, including Cruz and Hawley, have even floated the idea of revisiting a 1996 law that gives websites immunity from lawsuits over content their users have posted. It’s a critical provision for the internet industry, shielding companies from expensive litigation if something libelous pops up in a search result, YouTube video or Facebook post, for example.

The tech antitrust issue isn’t likely to dissipate for Republicans anytime soon, with the topic taking center stage in the Democratic presidential field. Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) has called for a breakup of Facebook, Google, Amazon and Apple, and Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) is backing calls to split up Facebook.

Meanwhile, the Justice Department has opened the door to its own possible antitrust investigation of Google, although it has yet to say whether it will launch such a probe. People familiar with DOJ’s activities confirmed to POLITICO and other news organizations last week that the department has taken jurisdiction over any potential Google probe as part of a recent agreement with the Federal Trade Commission.

The Justice Department has also claimed jurisdiction over any antitrust claims involving Apple, while the FTC would handle any investigations of Facebook and Amazon, according to news reports and sources familiar with the cases. The two agencies periodically get together to divide up companies in industry groups and determine which agency will handle an investigation, should there be infractions that would warrant investigation, an FTC official has told POLITICO.

Whether any of these procedural moves will blossom into full-blown investigations, or result in fines or other penalties, is still unclear. But all four companies have faced complaints in both the U.S. and Europe from rivals who accuse them of abusing their dominant roles.

President Donald Trump’s threats to impose blunt new tariffs on Mexico has unleashed a circular firing squad among Republicans in Congress.

A bloc of Senate Republicans is threatening to put up a veto-proof majority to block the tariffs if Trump moves forward by using his national emergency powers. But most House Republicans and another faction of GOP senators say their colleagues are making a mistake by undercutting the president on one of his signature issues.

Story Continued Below

“I’m disappointed that so many of my colleagues are quick to announce their opposition,” said Sen. Kevin Cramer (R-N.D.). “By so publicly rebuking the president’s strategy you undermine the very leverage that could end this thing quickly. That’s the irony to me.”

The public split not only risks embarrassing the president and his party. It undercuts the shared goal Republicans have in avoiding the tariffs that Trump seems eager to deploy.

At issue is a conflict over strategy. Some GOP lawmakers hope to pressure Trump with the prospect of a rebellion that far exceeds the dozen defections on his national emergency declaration this winter, while others argue for a quieter persuasion campaign.

The dual approaches are scrambling ideologies and voting blocs on Capitol Hill. Take Sens. Joni Ernst (R-Iowa) and Thom Tillis (R-N.C.), both up for reelection in red-hued states but who have far different conclusions about the president’s tactics.

“I’m not in favor of this. The president needs to rethink it,” warned Ernst, who backed Trump’s national emergency on the border. “The president needs to understand that we’re opposed to these tariffs. We don’t think it’s a smart way forward. The president has his own opinion, he’s a tariff guy but I think we have a lot of folks in opposition.”

Tillis made clear his disagreement with his colleagues’ critiques of the tariffs.

“We’re making a mistake if we oppose the tariffs. Because we’re already seeing positive movement,” said Tillis, who vowed to oppose the last national emergency declaration before ultimately voting to uphold it. “You could lead Mexico to believe that all they have to do is wait out a resolution of disapproval. So I think it slows down the pace of negotiations.”

Tariffs are the longest-running GOP dispute with the president, particularly among Senate Republicans, and the president’s vow to impose 5 percent tariffs each month until Mexico tightens up the border has alarmed them more than ever given the broad economic impacts. Fundamentally, most Republicans hate tariffs and do not believe they are effective tools, and many would join Democrats to overturn a national emergency declaration from Trump.

“Why suffer a losing vote that maybe they’d put up here in the Senate?” said Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.), who is close to Trump. “I think [new tariffs are] a bad idea and I think there’s a possibility that there could be a veto proof-majority,”

But congressional Republicans are not coordinating to send the president a unified message about what the consequences might be if Trump moves forward. Even if the Senate is able to muster 67 votes to override a presidential veto, it would be all for naught if the House Republicans are working in the exact opposite direction.

“There would be a few [Republicans voting against the president], but nowhere near the 55 threshold,” said Freedom Caucus Chairman Mark Meadows (R-N.C.), one of Trump’s top allies on Capitol Hill. “Absolutely not.”

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) did not hide his caucus’ displeasure on Tuesday after meeting with Trump administration officials about the tariffs. After that huddle at a party lunch, McConnell observed that “there is not much support” in the Republican Conference for Trump’s proposal, though he did not pledge to help block it.

House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy has acknowledged that his caucus shares the Senate GOP’s concern over the Mexico tariffs. But the California Republican has taken an entirely differently approach to the situation.

The GOP leader is not only urging his members to rally around the president, but he is even turning his fire on his Senate colleagues for undermining Trump.

“We should empower the president to be able to have a strong hand in negotiation,” McCarthy told reporters Wednesday. “If members here were undercutting him, it only hurts.”

“We should be united so there won’t be tariffs,” he added.

And it’s clear that Trump feels like McCarthy is in his corner. The president appeared to erroneously attribute a quote to McCarthy on Twitter that offered a far stronger defense of Trump than what McCarthy has actually said. McCarthy, however, did not push back.

The different approaches within the House and Senate GOP reflect a broader contrast with how Republicans in each chamber have dealt with Trump as well as their different incentives.

House Republicans have been far more reluctant to publicly rebuke the president than their Senate colleagues. Representatives are elected every two years, and those worried about job security have less room to maneuver politically. Most of them are more concerned about pro-Trump primary challengers rather than a Democrat in a general election.

“Republicans are primarily free-traders. Trump is obviously tariffing a lot of things, it’s hurting some of our producers, some of our manufacturers,” said Rep. John Shimkus (R-Ill.). “But he’s also well-loved in many districts. So it will be a tough vote for some folks… We struggle with this tariff issue.”

Senators, who serve six-year terms and represent entire states, seem to have far fewer reservations about panning Trump’s tariffs or going after him on other matters as well. And harsh tariffs on Mexico are far more alarming than the steel and aluminum tariffs on allies that Republicans have already repeatedly threatened to block.

“I’m not for the tariffs,” said Sen. Johnny Isakson (R-Ga.). The number of Republicans in opposition “is significant.”

“Tariffs are not the right way to go and there’s no reason that millions of farmers and ranchers and manufacturers and small businesses in Texas should pay the price and face billions in additional taxes,” said Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas).

At the Tuesday lunch with administration officials, no senator spoke in support of the president’s position. But that doesn’t mean Senate Republicans are united. Far from it.

Some Senate Republicans are disappointed their colleagues are resorting to such public warnings. They feel that the president has tried everything he can on Mexico, with no help from Congress, so that panning the tariffs does little to make positive change.

“I understand what the president is trying to do, and I understand where he’s coming from. I would say to my colleagues and others: ‘If you have a better idea, fantastic,’” said Sen. Josh Hawley (R-Mo.).

For McConnell and his deputies, the divergent views in the caucus makes for an awkward spot. Like McCarthy, they know their leadership roles mean they generally must be supportive of the president.

McCarthy, who has faced challenges from the conservative Freedom Caucus and could face a leadership fight one day from Minority Whip Steve Scalise, has clung particularly close to Trump.

But it’s clear Republican leaders don’t like the tariffs either. And the last thing they want to do is referee another intraparty feud about the president’s unilateral actions on the border as the primary season draws ever closer for their members.

“The message was pretty clear coming out of the lunch that there are a lot of concerns about it,” said GOP Sen. John Thune of South Dakota, the party whip. “Hopefully we’ll see coming out of the next couple of days whether or not this idea can be turned off.”