The congressional rush to reform national policing practices met its first test Wednesday: the sharply polarized House Judiciary Committee.

Lawmakers on the notoriously fractious panel are expected to advance Democrats’ sweeping proposal, which comes as a response to the surge of public support to confront police brutality and institutional racism. Their plan would ban chokeholds and no-knock warrants, lower the threshold for prosecuting officers, limit officers’ immunity from prosecution and establish a national database of police misconduct.

To Democrats, speed is of the essence — not only because of the realities of the political calendar but because after decades of failed efforts to implement sweeping reform, the national landscape has shifted and created an opening for genuine action.

"George Floyd mattered. Breonna Taylor mattered. Eric Garner, Amadou Diallo, Tamir Rice, Walter Scott, and LaQuan McDonald mattered. Rayshard Brooks mattered,” said Judiciary Committee Chairman Jerry Nadler (D-N.Y). “And the countless other people who have lost their lives at the hands of law enforcement mattered. For far too long, pleas for justice and reform have fallen on deaf ears in Congress. But that changes today.”

Though the measure is expected to pass the panel along party lines, it won’t happen until Republicans on the committee, led by Rep. Jim Jordan (R-Ohio), attempt to pepper the bill with amendments that will mirror a Senate Republican proposal that beefs up police reporting requirements and encourages reforms — but doesn’t mandate them.

By midday Wednesday, it was clear Judiciary members were preparing to settle in for a long day. More than three hours into the markup, the panel had only held one vote — voting down a GOP amendment related to recording interviews with suspects — before recessing for lunch. Republicans promised there were several more amendments, as many as 20, to come.

"The vast majority of police officers do a great job. They’re the individuals who rushed into the towers on 9/11 ...They’re the individuals who put on their uniforms every single shift and risk their lives," Jordan said, urging Democrats to support some of the GOP amendments. "It didn’t start off that way. Not one single Republican was consulted. I hope today that you will embrace our thoughtful amendments that we plan to offer."

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell announced Wednesday that the Senate will take up the GOP’s policing bill next week. But senior Democrats on the Judiciary panel were quick to dismiss to GOP bill during the midday recess.

"What Sen. Scott is offering is a sham," Nadler told reporters.

Congressional Black Caucus Chair Karen Bass (D-Calif.), who sits on the Judiciary Committee, also panned the Republican bill, saying it "mimics" Democrats' proposal "but without the teeth."

"In our bill we are concerned about chokeholds, 'no knock' provisions as well as a registry, so that if there is an officer that has committed violence, an officer that is corrupt, that would be a transparent process," Bass said.

"The registry that Sen. Scott calls for, there is no transparency there, it would only be known by law enforcement. On no knock [warrants], what Sen. Scott wants to do is compile data. On chokeholds, what he wants to do is study the situation."

And Speaker Nancy Pelosi called the GOP proposal "window dressing" and "toothless" in an interview on CNN Wednesday.

The effort by lawmakers in both chambers to quickly take action comes in the heat of a presidential election campaign that has suddenly seen police brutality surge to the front of voters’ consciousness, following the death of George Floyd, an unarmed black man, at the hands of a Minneapolis police officer who held his knee on Floyd's neck for nearly nine minutes.

The Judiciary Committee itself is part of the story: the Democratic side of the panel includes a slew of minority lawmakers, including Bass, the House’s fifth-ranking Democrat Hakeem Jeffries (D-N.Y.) and Rep. Cedric Richmond (D-La.), a former CBC chair and liaison to the campaign of Vice President Joe Biden.

The Republican side of the panel features an array of members closely allied with President Donald Trump, including Jordan, Freedom Caucus Chairman Andy Biggs (R-Ariz.) and Rep. Doug Collins (R-Ga.), who closely aligned himself with Trump during impeachment proceedings and is running for Senate.

Trump signed an executive order on Tuesday that sought to incentivize police departments to ban chokeholds but has repeatedly emphasized that he won’t sign measures that will offend law enforcement, a line that many of his allies on the panel are expected to echo.

Yet, unlike previous efforts at police reform, there appears to be room — however narrow — for bipartisan compromise. Members of the Judiciary Committee like Rep. Kelly Armstrong (R-N.D.), a former public defender, have engaged with Democrats to find areas of agreement on policies like police body cameras, qualified immunity and sentencing disparities.

Armstrong said he's had productive discussions with committee Democrats including Richmond, David Cicilline of Rhode Island and Joe Neguse of Colorado, on potential bipartisan legislation. But he noted that the committee, historically an emblem of congressional partisanship and strained this Congress by impeachment, has "a lot of trust problems."

And that was apparent in the panel's first vote Wednesday — with Democrats voting down Armstrong's amendment to require federal law enforcement agencies to record all interviews with potential suspects.

Democrats initially asked Armstrong to withdraw the amendment so they could work together on incorporating the idea into the final bill. But Armstrong refused as he and several other Republicans connected the proposal to the FBI’s 2017 interview with former national security adviser Michael Flynn, who Trump allies allege was railroaded by law enforcement.

Democrats slammed Republicans' repeated efforts to reignite the Flynn debate, saying this hearing was about the countless unarmed black men and women who have lost their lives at the hands of police.

"We're not here to talk about Michael Flynn. That's beneath the dignity of this institution and the lives that have been lost," Jeffries said.

Jeffries then gave powerful testimony about having to have "that conversation" with his teenage son before he participated in a Black Lives Matter protest in Brooklyn recently.

"Some may even look at you as a threat because of the color of your skin...Do not respond or react to any unjustified abuse against you," Jeffries recounted to the committee. "Even if you're completely in the right, you're being harassed, you're being abused, you can't respond — because it may result in your life being taken."

Though there’s a long road before any potential bipartisan compromise reaches Trump’s desk, the rush of activity belies the typical election-year gridlock that all but stifles major policy-making in the sensitive months before the vote. The ongoing coronavirus crisis, which already spurred lawmakers to enact multi-trillion-dollar legislation, seemed certain to sap the enthusiasm for additional major legislation this year.

Yet, Floyd’s death and the nationwide demonstrations that followed galvanized public opinion so rapidly that it spurred typically cautious lawmakers to action.

Wednesday’s Judiciary committee markup could become particularly fraught because of ongoing divisions in the House over the coronavirus pandemic. Though some lawmakers participated remotely, the meeting is the first following Pelosi’s Tuesday night order for the sergeant at arms to enforce a requirement that all members participating from the Capitol wear masks.

Republicans on the committee have pointedly defied the Capitol physician’s recommendation that lawmakers wear face coverings during official events and floor votes, prompting outrage among Democrats. But after Rep. Tom Rice (R-S.C.) confirmed this week that he had contracted coronavirus — and had been on the House floor without a mask in recent weeks — Pelosi opted to enforce the requirement.

In the first hours of the hearing, most Republicans all donned masks and appeared to be complying with Pelosi's requirement.

Caitlin Oprysko contributed to this story.

Mitch McConnell spent much of his life laboring to become Senate majority leader. And for the past six years, he’s used that position to become one of the most consequential party leaders in decades.

But it all could come to an end next January as Democrats’ chances of a Senate takeover increase. And the Senate map is so rough for Republicans in 2022 that a loss this cycle could make for a long-term stay in the minority.

Yet the 78-year-old McConnell is already vowing to serve as minority leader if it comes to that. Asked on Tuesday whether he planned to stay on as GOP leader regardless of the election's outcome, McConnell replied: “I do.”

There is widespread support for McConnell to remain atop the Senate Republican Conference no matter what the party’s status is. Rank-and-file GOP senators overwhelmingly back him, and none appear ready to blame McConnell if the party loses control of the chamber this November.

“I’d prefer to have him be my majority leader,” Sen. Mike Rounds (R-S.D.) said. “I have no objections to Sen. McConnell remaining the Republican leader in the Senate, majority or minority.”

Sen. Roy Blunt (R-Mo.) added: “I would expect him to be the leader whether we’re in the majority or the minority, and I’d support that.”

McConnell is keenly aware of his place in history, including the deep disdain those on the left feel for him. But whatever his critics say, McConnell sees himself as a guardian of the Senate as an institution and conservatism as a cause. And with the possibility that his onetime colleague Joe Biden might be in the Oval Office come January — and Democrat Chuck Schumer serving as Senate majority leader — McConnell and many Republicans believe that he shouldn't be going anywhere anytime soon.

McConnell, the longest-tenured senator in Kentucky history, is up for reelection himself this year. He’s likely to face either Amy McGrath, who is supported by most Senate Democrats, or insurgent liberal candidate Charles Booker. While McConnell is heavily favored for reelection, his opposition is well-funded. Plus, national Democrats are trying to use McConnell’s polarizing reputation to sink his most endangered members.

After POLITICO reported that McConnell planned to remain GOP leader after the election, the Senate Democrats' campaign arm declared that every vulnerable Republican should “answer whether they plan to vote to keep their toxic leader in charge if they are in the Senate next year.”

McConnell, who came to Capitol Hill as an intern in the early 1960s, won his first Senate race in 1984 and quickly rose through the ranks. He served as National Republican Senatorial Campaign Committee chairmen for two cycles beginning in 1998, followed by a stint as majority whip. After Republicans lost their majority in the 2006 Democratic landslide and Sen. Bill Frist (R-Tenn.) retired, McConnell became minority leader. The Republican victory in 2014 catapulted McConnell into his dream job as majority leader, and he’s been unchallenged ever since.

McConnell is already the longest-serving Republican leader in history, passing former Sen. Bob Dole (R-Kansas) for that honor two years ago. Now the record of 16 years for any party leader held by the late Sen. Mike Mansfield (D-Mont.) is within reach if McConnell can get reelected while continuing to win leadership races.

“If he were to serve another term, he would either tie or break Mike Mansfield’s record, I know that,” said Sen. Lamar Alexander (R-Tenn.), who is retiring and has been among McConnell’s closest allies.

The esteem for McConnell is so high among Republicans that those who could eventually replace him have no issue with him staying on as long as he wants. And that makes McConnell’s hold on leadership rock solid.

“Mitch McConnell will be our leader as long as he’s still interested in the job,” said Sen. John Cornyn (R-Texas). “After he leaves that position, I would be interested in succeeding him.”

“The leader’s made it clear that he wants to continue to serve and he enjoys great confidence in the conference,” said Senate Majority Whip John Thune (R-S.D.). “My expectation is that, irrespective of what happens in November, he’ll continue to lead the Republican Conference.”

Thune succeeded Cornyn in 2019 at the No. 2 position in GOP leadership, and the two men are considered the favorites to succeed McConnell in the future.

Cornyn is a former chairman of the National Republican Senatorial Committee and has raised gobs of money for the party. He’s also a sharp-edged partisan who has grown increasingly comfortable defending President Donald Trump, with whom he’ll share a ticket in November.

Stylistically, the lanky Thune is more subdued than Cornyn and more critical than McConnell or Cornyn of Trump’s more controversial statements, though Thune is always gentle in creating any difference with the president. Thune also considered running for president in 2012 and 2016 but decided against it.

“When I look at the presidential race, timing is everything in politics. At the moment, that’s not something I aspire to,” Thune said. He called aspirations of becoming Senate GOP leader “speculative and hypothetical” given McConnell’s lock on the conference. “At the moment, I’m doing what I think I can to help the team and hopefully get some results.”

With neither Thune nor Cornyn overtly maneuvering to succeed McConnell, the majority leader’s path to keeping his job is all the more assured. Whether he’d want to stay on as leader if Schumer becomes majority leader and Biden is president is another question.

As minority leader during Barack Obama's presidency, McConnell reveled in disrupting the Democrats’ agenda. But Senate majorities can be hard to break: It took McConnell eight years of toiling in the minority before he became the majority leader.

Schumer could also come under great pressure from the progressive wing of the party to end the legislative filibuster, one of the most cherished Senate traditions, which would make the job of minority leader much less pivotal.

Former Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) used the “nuclear option” to weaken the filibuster on nominations, and McConnell watered it down even further in the face of steadfast Democratic opposition to Trump’s nominees. With more power to steamroll the minority, McConnell and Trump have embarked on a concerted effort to remake the judicial branch. Trump has gotten two Supreme Court nominees confirmed — due in large part to McConnell’s blockade of Obama Supreme Court nominee Merrick Garland — as well as record-setting numbers of federal circuit court judges.

Under Trump, McConnell has had a mixed legislative record. Thanks to a stunning last-minute move by the late Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) in 2017, McConnell failed to repeal Obamacare as Republicans had long promised. There have also been several government shutdowns — which McConnell loathes — including the longest in U.S. history. The federal government's debt has soared as well, and this year’s budget deficit could approach $4 trillion.

Yet McConnell also was able to shepherd through a $2 trillion tax cut in 2017, as well as several trillion dollars in federal relief to counter the fallout from the coronavirus pandemic. McConnell touts that legislation as a key part of his “Team Mitch” reelection campaign.

McConnell also unabashedly embraces the mantle of being a hard-nosed conservative leader who has turned the Senate into a “graveyard” for bills passed by the Democratic House. And while Trump once openly criticized McConnell for failing to repeal Obamacare, the Kentucky Republican has become his most important ally in Washington despite their many differences in personality.

McConnell helped bring a quick end to Trump's Senate impeachment trial just four months ago, and now Senate committees are helping to litigate the origin of the 2016 Russa probe — an election-year push Trump has long sought from the GOP.

“He’s probably as good an inside player as I’ve seen in my years here,” said Sen. Richard Shelby (R-Ala.), who has spent more than 40 years on Capitol Hill.

* ABC News says Trump expected to file suit seeking injunction * The Room Where It Happened due for publication next weekDonald Trump is set to sue to stop the publication of a tell-all book by John Bolton, his third national security adviser, ABC News reported on Monday.At an event in the White House later in the day, Trump said it would be up to the attorney general, William Barr, to issue any charges, but he hinted that the matter would end up in court. “We’ll see what happens. They’re in court or they’ll soon be in court,” Trump said about the book.Trump accused Bolton of not completing a pre-publication review to make sure the book does not contain classified material. That contradicts statements from Bolton’s attorney, Chuck Cooper, who says his client worked painstakingly for months with classification specialists at the White House National Security Council to make changes to avoid releasing classified material.Barr echoed Trump’s accusation. The attorney general said administration officials who have access to sensitive information typically sign non-disclosure agreements that require them to go through a clearance process before they can publish something based on information they accessed in the job.“We don’t believe that Bolton went through that process, hasn’t completed the process, and, therefore, is in violation of that agreement,” Barr said. The Trump administration is “trying to get them to complete the process – go through the process – and make the necessary deletions of classified information,” he added.The Room Where It Happened was initially scheduled for publication earlier this year but was delayed when the White House said it contained classified information.Last week, publisher Simon & Schuster announced the 23 June release of “the book Donald Trump doesn’t want you to read”. Bolton has already recorded an interview with the ABC anchor Martha Raddatz, which is due to be broadcast on Sunday night.Bolton, a former ambassador to the United Nations, was national security adviser between April 2018 and September 2019. Controversially, Bolton did not testify in impeachment proceedings against Trump which focused on Ukraine and Trump’s attempts to bully the government there to investigate his political rival Joe Biden. Trump was acquitted by the Republican-controlled Senate in February.“What Bolton saw astonished him,” his publisher said. “A president for whom getting re-elected was the only thing that mattered, even if it meant endangering or weakening the nation.“Bolton argues that the House committed impeachment malpractice by keeping their prosecution focused narrowly on Ukraine when Trump’s Ukraine-like transgressions existed across the full range of his foreign policy – and Bolton documents exactly what those were, and attempts by him and others in the administration to raise alarms about them.”When news of Bolton’s book plans first broke, Trump reportedly called him a “traitor” and said he wanted to sue to stop publication.It is not clear the current threat will work. In January 2018, Trump threatened to sue to stop the publication of Fire and Fury, a book by Michael Wolff, after the Guardian broke news of its sensational content. Publisher Henry Holt responded by rushing the book to the public.Bolton’s lawyer, Chuck Cooper, wrote in the Wall Street Journal last week of “a transparent attempt to use national security as a pretext to censor Mr Bolton, in violation of his constitutional right to speak on matters of the utmost public import.“This attempt will not succeed, and Mr Bolton’s book will be published [on] 23 June.”His predecessor as national security adviser, HR McMaster, has a book due out in September.Trump books have become big business. On Sunday night, the Daily Beast reported that the president’s niece, Mary Trump, will publish one in August. It is expected to contain revelations about Trump family relationships and its tax affairs.The Associated Press contributed to this report

Sen. Ron Johnson wouldn’t appear to be one of President Donald Trump’s closest allies at first glance.

The Wisconsin Republican doesn’t flood the airwaves to defend the president. He isn’t a fixture in the conservative media world, and he hasn’t seen his political stock boosted by a barrage of tweets and retweets from the president. In 2018, he even criticized Trump’s mix of tariffs and bailouts as a “Soviet-style economy.”

But Johnson, the chairman of the Senate’s chief oversight body, is playing a major role in advancing a key theme of the president’s reelection bid — that he and his associates were targeted unfairly by the outgoing Obama administration.

He is also investigating corruption allegations involving Hunter Biden, the son of the Democratic presidential nominee, stemming from the younger Biden’s role on the board of the Ukrainian gas company Burisma. Trump and congressional Republicans have claimed the former vice president sought to shield his son from a Ukrainian-led investigation into Burisma — though Biden denies the allegation.

In both instances, Democrats have accused Johnson of abusing his power, misusing the Senate’s oversight resources to boost Trump’s political prospects, and even operating a Russian disinformation front that jeopardizes U.S. election security — all serious allegations, even in today’s hyperpartisan Senate. But Johnson insists it’s just the opposite.

“I’m a very nonpartisan guy. I just am,” Johnson said in an interview. “I like using the word nonpartisan.”

Privately, Senate Republicans are worried that the efforts to relitigate the Russia investigation and the events of 2016 could backfire, according to a GOP senator who was granted anonymity to candidly address the situation. Republicans are especially concerned about the perception that their priorities are not in order as the country is reeling from the coronavirus pandemic, staggeringly high unemployment and unrest over recent police killings of unarmed African Americans.

Despite the partisan tensions and the intensifying harshness of the disputes, Johnson is unfazed by the criticism — even as he increasingly finds himself on defense.

“I’m not doing anybody’s bidding,” said Johnson, who has chaired the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee since 2015. “I am doing this because I’m concerned about this democracy, and I’m concerned about what happened starting before the election, during the transition, and what continued certainly through the impeachment trial.”

According to Johnson, the Homeland Security panel’s probe has uncovered information that shows the incoming Trump administration was “sabotaged” by the outgoing Obama team. Johnson portrays his investigation as an honest effort to find the truth and reform the presidential transition process to ensure a peaceful transition of power.

“I’m just a straight shooter. I call them as I see them,” he said.

Democrats contend that’s far from the truth. They note that Johnson intends to release reports in the summer and the fall on his twin investigations, which would thrust the issues back into the spotlight as Election Day nears. They also point to his comments earlier this year in which he said former Vice President Joe Biden “has not adequately answered” for his son’s role on the board of a Ukrainian energy company, adding: “If I were a Democrat primary voter, I’d want these questions satisfactorily answered before I cast my final vote.”

And after Johnson released a declassified list of former Obama administration officials who potentially “unmasked” former national security adviser Michael Flynn’s name in intelligence reports, the Trump campaign seized on the fact that Joe Biden’s name was on the list — even as Biden’s precise involvement was not clear.

“We’re in the middle of a pandemic and a peaceful uprising against police brutality, and [Johnson is] running errands for the Republican National Committee,” Sen. Brian Schatz (D-Hawaii) said in a brief interview. “And it’s a misuse of his position.”

Minutes later, Schatz ran into Johnson outside the Senate chamber and told him: “Hey Ron, somebody asked me about your investigations and I wasn’t that nice.” Johnson laughed and replied, “That’s OK.”

Johnson later dismissed the interaction as being representative of the “collegial” nature of the Senate. But it also underscored the reality of how investigations into Trump’s political enemies that began after the Senate’s impeachment trial have been gripping the body ever since.

As he defended himself, Johnson contended that Democrats are simply “afraid of the truth.”

“Anybody that could take a look at what we already know and say, well we should just close our eyes and ears to this, let’s stop looking at this — I would say doesn’t really care about the fact that the transition was corrupted,” Johnson said.

“I’m just tenacious. I’m dedicated to getting the information,” he added. “And the question I have for my Democratic colleagues — what are you afraid of? What part of the truth that I hope we can reveal are you worried about?”

Johnson’s allies say his concerns are legitimate and require appropriate congressional oversight — an area in which Johnson has distinguished himself among conservatives, in particular during the saga over Hillary Clinton’s email server and the attack on a U.S. diplomatic facility in Benghazi, Libya. Both of those probes were led by Republicans.

“I think he’s genuinely upset about what happened,” said Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), who is conducting a similar investigation into the origins of the Russia investigation and the appointment of Robert Mueller as special counsel. “Now, how could you have Hunter Biden milking the most corrupt company in the Ukraine for millions of dollars while you’re trying to have, you know, Joe Biden there to reform corruption?”

“So I think [Johnson] is just sort of a good-government guy, and that’s driving his passion,” Graham added.

Graham also pushed back against the allegation that he and Johnson are simply doing Trump’s bidding, citing recent revelations that call into question the genesis of the counterintelligence investigation into alleged ties between the Trump campaign and the Kremlin.

“Nobody said that about me when I supported the Mueller investigation. I was a great guy,” Graham said. “Now that I want to know how it got so off the rails and got so corrupt, I’m shilling for Trump. Not gonna work.”

Trump has mentioned Johnson by name on Twitter just twice — both coming in the past two months, when the senator’s investigations intensified and gained new momentum. In one tweet, Trump wrote: “America is proud of Ron Johnson. He never gives up!”

Still, that’s a stark contrast to the number of times Trump regularly boosts his top House defenders on Twitter, including Reps. Devin Nunes (R-Calif.) and Jim Jordan (R-Ohio).

But unlike Nunes and Jordan, Johnson has a committee gavel — and he’s using it in a way that is, wittingly or unwittingly, advancing the president’s political interests.

His role has also strained his relationship with Michigan Sen. Gary Peters, the Homeland Security Committee’s top Democrat. Peters, one of the most bipartisan senators, rarely engages in the types of spats that have overtaken the committee in recent weeks, but he has been forced into that role given his seniority on the panel. As a result, he has treaded carefully so as to not further inflame his relationship with Johnson.

“Certainly, I would say it is more difficult. But I’ve tried not to let that get in the way,” said Peters, who is up for reelection this year. “It makes no sense to me. We’re in the middle of a pandemic, dealing with a whole host of threats to our national security. That’s where we should be focused. Not on what basically looks like a political witch hunt.”

Even some of Johnson’s fellow Republican senators have put the Wisconsin Republican in an awkward spot by warning him — directly and indirectly — that the investigation itself could be a front for Russian disinformation.

Sen. Richard Burr (R-N.C.), who chaired the Senate Intelligence Committee until stepping aside last month amid a federal probe into his stock trades, privately warned Johnson in December that going after Hunter Biden could aid Russian efforts to sow chaos and distrust in the U.S. political system. Burr’s temporary replacement as chairman, Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.), has expressed similar concerns about Russian disinformation, though he has declined to specifically call out Johnson.

And the Intelligence Committee is notably in the dark about the investigations. “I just hope that, when all the facts come out, the committee’s not being unwittingly used by Russia,” Sen. Mark Warner (D-Va.), vice chairman of the Intelligence Committee, said in a brief interview.

Those tensions boiled over during a classified election security briefing in March, during which several Democratic senators confronted Johnson over his Biden investigation, POLITICO previously reported.

Johnson was accused of playing politics with national security and enabling a repeat of Russian interference in the presidential election, especially as he was initially relying on disputed pro-Russia Ukrainian sources of information. One of those sources, former Ukrainian diplomat Andrii Telizhenko, had leveled unsubstantiated allegations about coordination between the Ukrainian government and the Democratic National Committee during the 2016 campaign. Concerns over Telizhenko’s credibility prompted Johnson to scrap a scheduled subpoena vote for him in March.

And at least one committee member, Sen. Mitt Romney (R-Utah), said it’s “apparent on its face” that the Hunter Biden probe is politically motivated, given that the elder Biden is the Democratic presidential nominee. Romney chose his words carefully, declining to explain why he has voted for Johnson’s subpoena authorizations targeting former Obama officials despite his criticisms. When asked if Johnson is doing a good job, he declined to answer.

In recent days, Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) has dubbed the GOP the “conspiracy caucus” over its election year investigations, arguing that Republicans are more consumed with helping Trump get reelected than working to solve the country’s problems.

Rank-and-file Democrats have largely echoed that message, though some Democrats are privately frustrated that the party has not responded to the investigations more substantively. But Schatz suggested that it might not be breaking through the partisan jabs, which have become increasingly vitriolic.

“Let me just be as crystal clear as I can — nobody cares. I don’t think the public is paying any attention to this,” an animated Schatz said. “This is a fool’s errand for them, and my response is: ‘Meh.’”

Burgess Everett contributed to this report.