So, will Nancy Pelosi finally give her imprimatur to this move to impeach?

[Poiuyt]

For this to succeed, she needs to be on board and fully invested. Democrats need to show a united front on this.

House panel to take formal steps on impeachment probe next week

The House Judiciary Committee is prepared to vote next week on a resolution laying out the procedures for its investigation now that it is actively considering moving to impeach President Donald Trump, a major step toward formalizing its sweeping probe, according to multiple sources familiar with the effort.

https://www.cnn.com/2019/09/06/politics/house-panel-impeachment-probe-steps/index.html

[JI7]

1. it's not Pelosi, it's the congress members from moderate districts especially the flipped districts

they are the ones that need to be convinced.

[FBaggins]

6. That comes closest to being true

But it's still Pelosi doing it. She's the one keeping it from coming to a vote in the full House.

It's because of those members most in danger of losing their seats. Pelosi is doing her best to shield them from having to put their names to a "real" impeachment effort (by whatever label we choose to apply).

But she'll allow the committee to do whatever they can within their own powers to make it seem as real as possible - with the goal of convincing the courts to back their moves to get more information... with the hope that the new information will sway public opinion.

So she's always been right where the party leader should be.

[StarfishSaver]

7. What do you think the full House should be voting on right now?

And how do you define a "real impeachment effort" and why doesn't what the Judiciary Committee is doing now qualify as one?

[FBaggins]

8. Me? Not a blessed thing related to impeachment

But then... I'm one of the ones that think it's more likely to harm our electoral chances than not. And I'm not getting more confident as they start talking about things like Trump's trolling them with intentions on holding the next G7 meetings at his resort. I'm just saying that if they want to use "impeachment (fill in formal-sounding language here)" to get grand jury information... it should be something that the courts will accept as "a judicial proceeding".

And how do you define a "real impeachment effort"

I clearly distinguish between efforts (like solo resolutions) that merely contain the word "impeachment" and those that are the real deal (TM).

Two simple principles. First - The House has impeachment powers. Committees (and certainly committee chairmen) on their own do not. A majority vote in the full House is needed. "Some subset of us are considering recommending..." doesn't cut it.

Second - A "judicial proceeding" must include due process rights for the defense. They don't look like legislative/oversight hearings. Both Nixon and Clinton were afforded the opportunity to have attorneys question witnesses, view evidence, and make a defense. The House doesn't need to do that in order to impeach. A member could propose a resolution tomorrow and a majority decide to impeach without any hearings or evidence at all. But if it's going to pass muster for a court? It can't just be "I used the word 'impeachment' didn't I???"

My guess is that without those two things they probably get past Judge Howell (though I have started to question that given the ruling on McGahn's case being combined with the grand jury content efforts... and this most recent move to buff up the "officialness" of their proceedings)... then I expected it to be shut down by the DC circuit (depending on the panel). My guess would be a 7-2 loss at SCOTUS if it ever got that far.

[StarfishSaver]

9. Interesting

Last edited Sat Sep 7, 2019, 11:10 PM - Edit history (2)

"I clearly distinguish between efforts (like solo resolutions) that merely contain the word "impeachment" and those that are the real deal (TM)."

There isn't any such thing as a "solo resolution" in Congress. A resolution introduced and passed by the Judiciary Committee, sent to the floor and voted on by the full House is just as valid as a resolution introduced on the floor, referred to Committee, voted on and sent back to the floor for a full House vote.

"A "judicial proceeding" must include due process rights for the defense. They don't look like legislative/oversight hearings. Both Nixon and Clinton were afforded the opportunity to have attorneys question witnesses, view evidence, and make a defense. "

Where did you get that notion? Impeachment proceedings are not defined by whether or not "the defense" has "due process rights." Congress defines what an impeachment proceeding is. If it states that it is conducting an impeachment inquiry/investigation/proceeding, it is pursuing impeachment. And please cite exactly where Clinton and Nixon's attorneys questioned witnesses in their impeachment proceedings in the House. Which lawyers appeared in the hearings and whom did they question? Please be specific.

Also, you might want to read Rule 6(e) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure which authorizes a judge to release grand jury materials “preliminarily to or in connection with a judicial proceeding.”

[FBaggins]

11. No such thing as a solo resolution?

What do you think Al Green submitted back in July?

A resolution introduced and passed by the Judiciary Committee, sent to the floor and voted on by the full House is just as valid as a resolution introduced on the floor,

True. But also irrelevant. They don't obtain the powers of the full House because they're contemplating sending something to the House. They can have hearings all day long and they can submit articles of impeachment tomorrow if they want to (and if a majority votes for it... he's impeached). They are equally valid... which is to say not much for purposes of arguing before a court that an impeachment is under way. By that path, the impeachment begins and ends with the vote. What we're debating is what does it take to persuade a court that grand jury testimony should be turned over.

Where did you get that notion? Impeachment proceedings are not defined by whether or not "the defense" has "due process rights."

Perhaps you should read it again. I never said that they were.

Congress defines what an impeachment proceeding is.

And the courts define what judicial proceedings are. In the most relevant case, the DC circuit granted access to grand jury materials in the Nixon impeachment. They didn't say "you have used the magic word 'impeachment' and Ali Baba's cave is now open to you!" They didn't say "any time someone in the House says that they're thinking about recommending impeachment". They determined that that specific scenario qualified for the judicial proceedings exception. And in that scenario, the full House had voted to create the hearings and the president was represented by counsel.

Now... I think impeachment inquiries should include such protections in order to combat the obvious claims of acting in a partisan fashion... but it wouldn't fail to be an impeachment inquiry for such lack (other officers have been impeached without it)... it just wouldn't convince me (if I were the judge) that the proceedings were sufficiently "judicial" to warrant the exception.

If it states that it is conducting an impeachment inquiry/investigation/proceeding, it is pursuing impeachment.

Yes! But Nadler isn't "it"... and neither is the committee... and neither is Nancy Pelosi. "The House" can only speak by a majority vote.

[StarfishSaver]

13. Hmm

No such thing as a solo resolution?
What do you think Al Green submitted back in July?

He introduced a "resolution." It had the same force and effect as the resolution that the House Judiciary plans to pass this week - the only difference is that his resolution was treated as "privileged" and therefore voted on without being referred to Committee. As I said, there's no such thing in Congress as a "solo resolution."

It's not yet clear whether the Judiciary Committee is going to mark up and vote on one of the impeachment resolutions that has been introduced in the House and referred to the Committee or whether it will draft an original resolution. Either way, the resolution, once voted out of Committee, will likely be sent to the floor for a vote by the full House. According to reports, the resolution will lay out the parameters and powers for the Committee's conduct of the impeachment inquiry.

And, fyi - it isn't necessary for the resolution to be voted on by the full House in order for the Committee to hold impeachment proceedings. The Chairman of the Judiciary Committee can initiate impeachment proceedings without a House vote. Not only do the House rules expressly give the Chairman power to do so, previous Judiciary chairmen have done it.

As for your concern about whether the Committee's investigation is sufficient to fall within the grand jury materials exception, I again suggest you read the rule that applies to this matter and pay particular attention to the language, including use of the words "preliminarily to."

[TreasonousBastard]

2. How can they impeach without getting Moscow Mitch to go along?

An unsuccessful impeachment could be worse than no impeachment.

[abqtommy]

3. Hey, impeach Bolshevik Barr and Moscow MItch the Tovarich at the same time!

Nobody said we couldn't multi-task!

[SlogginThroughIt]

10. If it isn't sent to the senate then why do it at all?

It will be looked at as political theater. If you are going to do it you damn sure better be sending it to the senate and it had better be strong enough that when people see the senate discarded it that EVERYONE knows they did it for political reasons.

[FBaggins]

12. I disagree that the Senate could be skipped after impeachment

If there's a majority vote for impeachment... the Senate must hold a trial.

However - the House could receive the articles of impeachment and hold public debates on the matter... then choose to censure or admonish the president. Basically saying that they thought he was guilty but they were electing not to prosecute.

I'm not sure what effect that would have since the Senate could still pick up the same resolution and vote it down... and Trump could claim that he hadn't even been impeached (insert spin re: why they couldn't get him). But they can do something after an impeachment inquiry that keeps the Senate from acquiting him.

[StarfishSaver]

5. The fact that it's happening means that Pelosi has already put her imprimatur on it

Funny that a few weeks ago, people were insisting that the only reason the Judiciary Committee wasn't moving forward with impeachment was that Pelosi wouldn't let them and everyone knows that nobody does nothing unless Pelosi lets them. But now that the Judiciary Committee IS moving forward on impeachment, people seem to think that they're doing it, not just without Pelosi's approval, but over her objections.

This is happening because Pelosi is fully on board and fully invested.