House Judiciary panel preparing vote to define Trump impeachment probe

[pnwmom]

Source: Politico

The House Judiciary Committee is preparing to take its first formal vote to define what Chairman Jerry Nadler calls an ongoing "impeachment investigation" of President Donald Trump, according to multiple sources briefed on the discussions.

The panel could vote as early as Wednesday on a resolution to spell out the parameters of its investigation. The precise language is still being hammered out inside the committee and with House leaders. A draft of the resolution is expected to be release Monday morning.

The issue was raised Friday during a conference call among the committee's Democrats. A source familiar with the discussion said any move next week would be intended to increase the "officialness" of the ongoing probe, following a six-week summer recess in which some Democrats struggled to characterize to their constituents that the House had already begun impeachment proceedings. Democrats are hopeful that explicitly defining their impeachment inquiry will heighten their leverage to compel testimony from witnesses.

Though the language of the resolution is still in flux, some sources said it could incorporate elements of traditional impeachment probes, such as offering access to the president's attorneys or providing for more time to question witnesses. There was discussion among some Democrats on Friday's call about the strength of the language in the resolution, according to sources briefed on the call.

Read more: https://www.politico.com/story/2019/09/06/house-judiciary-dems-impeachment-trump-1484435

---

https://www.cnn.com/2019/09/06/politics/house-panel-impeachment-probe-steps/index.html?fbclidIwAR2ap-yx2BfcK87ivjAGRAyJUjHImQ5QcQWzAfIRsdDwmiHi1vNm3W8C_Qo

The resolution, sources say, is expected to make clear that future House Judiciary hearings can be conducted in ways different from most congressional hearings since the panel is considering impeachment. For instance, the resolution is expected to authorize committee staff counsels to question witnesses, something that is typically not done at congressional hearings.

The resolution also will spell out how secret grand jury information can be reviewed in closed-door sessions. And it will say that the President's counsel can respond in writing to the committee.

The exact legislative language is still being drafted and could be introduced as soon as Monday. The committee Democrats discussed the matter on a Friday conference call, which Politico first reported. CNN is first reporting new details on the resolution.

These new procedures could be on display in mid-September, when former Trump campaign manager Corey Lewandowski is scheduled to testify, along with two former White House aides -- Rob Porter and Rick Dearborn -- who have all been subpoenaed by the panel to testify over allegations of obstruction of justice.

[DeminPennswoods]

1. Good

nt

[Kurt V.]

2. sure.

[Ramsey Barner]

3. "Officialness" - is that like "Truthiness"?

First: "We have an impeachment inquiry."
Now: "We need to increase its officialness."

What's a court supposed to think when it rules on subpoenas and contempt charges?
Trump's attorneys (including Barr): "Your Honor, we received the subpoenas but did not respond to them, because the House proceedings, in its own words, lacked sufficient "officialness."

[FBaggins]

6. It does highlight the problem, doesn't it?

Providing for defense attorneys (presuming they can question witnesses, call rebuttal witnesses, etc.) would get them almost halfway there...

... but they can’t get the other half with committee action, no matter how many “officially sounding” terms they invent.

[brutus smith]

4. Time to get this show on the road.

[bucolic_frolic]

5. Mitch would have had this off to the Supreme Court and Obama out of office months ago

We are playing by 1970s laws and rules. When does the scrimage start?

[dalton99a]

7. +1

[pnwmom]

8. That's because the R's controlled both the House and the Senate. Duh.

And the rules we're playing by are a lot older than the 70's. They're in the Constitution.

[Hotler]

9. Yawn. nt.

[ffr]

10. Given that members of the house know full well the level of tRump taxpayer grifting

is it any wonder why KGOP members are heading for the exit in record numbers. Even they have a limit to how far they're willing to take our country down the "dictator" corruption path.

LOCK THEM UP!

[Dem2theMax]

11. They need help with language? Here, let me help.

IMPEACH THE MOTHERFUCKER, RIGHT FUCKING NOW!

[bucolic_frolic]

12. Prepare for total stonewall

total lack of cooperation. Democrats must continue to think serveral steps ahead.