Does Pelosi need a majority in the House to start Impeachment hearings?

[ProfessorPlum]

never mind the vote to impeach - that comes at the end of the hearings process.

A lot of posters here keep writing that Pelosi needs to have the votes for impeachment, and that's why she's waiting.

But - how do impeachment hearings actually start?

thanks in advance

[Autumn]

1. Not enough votes is what I keep hearing but I think Nancy could persuade enough

of them to vote her way if she chooses.

[ProfessorPlum]

2. maybe not enough votes now, at the beginning of the process

but they don't need to take that vote until the hearings are done.

Can any committee chair initiate the hearings?

[Autumn]

3. I would think that any committee chair could initiate the hearings but I think they would look to

Nancy for approval. But I'm not sure

[sweetloukillbot]

6. I don't think so, otherwise why did they hold the vote last week?

I’m admittedly not sure either, but if it just has to come from committee, then why the vote last week?

[StarfishSaver]

16. This may be kind of in the weeds, but

Most resolutions are immediately referred to committee upon being introduced on the floor. The Committee considers it, marks it up, votes on it and, if it passes, it's sent to the floor for a full House vote.

One exception, however, to this referral rule is when a Member raises a "question of privilege," asserts that the measure addresses a situation affecting "the rights of the House collectively, its safety, dignity and the integrity of its proceedings."

If a resolution is deemed "privileged" by the chair, it doesn't go to Committee, but is voted on immediately by the full House. Last week, immediately upon introducing his impeachment resolution, Green raised a question of privilege and asked for a ruling by the chair that the motion was privileged. The chair ruled that it was privileged and it was put on the calendar for a floor vote. But then a motion to "table" it was made and when that was approved by majority vote, the measure was set aside and not voted on.

Does that make sense?

[StarfishSaver]

12. There are actually two separate votes

The first would be to authorize the start of an impeachment inquiry in the Judiciary Committee. The second would come at the end of the inquiry when the Judiciary Committee drafts and votes on Articles of Impeachment, which would then be referred to the full House for a vote. If one or more of the Articles are approved, the president is impeached.

And, yes, the Judiciary Committee chair can initiate an inquiry on his own, but that is a very rare move and not one Nadler is likely to do unless and until there is stronger support in the full House for impeachment.

[Pachamama]

36. I don't believe that there aren't enough votes -Look at the list of Democrats that haven't announced

Names like Adam Schiff, John Lewis, Jerry Nadler etc.

There are so many that would vote to impeach but they are following a plan. I firmly believe that.

I have faith and I believe the votes are there. Timing is the key.

I believe that "Impeachment Inquiry hearings" will begin after the recess. I also believe that there is a lot more coming down the pike - especially as more gets revealed about the Russian hacking, other crimes including but especially related to Epstein.

As soon as Trump's finances and taxes are reviewed then it will be very clear. And when documents and info related to Epstein is made public.

Just my thoughts...

[SouthernProgressive]

4. Some good information to educate yourself.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/17/us/politics/how-the-impeachment-process-works-trump-clinton.html

[ProfessorPlum]

7. firewall, can't see it

but from what I can find elsewhere on the internet, the investigations and hearings really aren't part of the impeachment process. At the end of the hearings, the committee (usually Judiciary) refers the case for impeachment to the house body, and the vote is made, usually for each article of impeachment.

But maybe you can sum up what is in the NYT article about how investigations start.

[SouthernProgressive]

8. No firewall.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impeachment_in_the_United_States

[ProfessorPlum]

11. thanks, that's a better wikipedia article than the one I was looking at

so, as I read it, the House Judiciary committee just has to decide to start investigations. So, there is no need for any "votes" at all.

What are they waiting for?

[Demsrule86]

27. you don't bring something to the floor without the votes...and there is a very real chance

impeachment could cost us the house...and if Trump wins and he could he has the House and the Senate... We have an election in just over a year...that is the time to work hard to remove Trump from office which impeachment won't do...and we could take the Senate maybe too...McConnell will never convict so there is no purpose in impeachment.

[SouthernProgressive]

9. This also has some good info as to how it might move along.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impeachment_of_Bill_Clinton

[uponit7771]

5. No, they can start hearings that head towards impeachment and have damn near the same

.... power that impeachment hearings have in regards to Red Don's stone walling.

[StarfishSaver]

14. They're doing that now.

And they've very strategically framed these hearings as "preliminary to impeachment" which gives them the same standing to seek grand jury materials as an impeachment inquiry has. That's what they're doing in court today.

[uponit7771]

17. Yep, its starting to look like this. Pelosi has an uphill climb because of not holding BushCo ...

... accountable for Iraq, I can understand peoples trepidation in regards to Red Don.

Benedict Donald and Moscow Mitch effectively called off the 2020 election, well timed and executed impeachment process's is about all we got.

[StarfishSaver]

19. No, they haven't "called off the 2020 elections" - and that will happen ONLY if enough Democrats

believe that to be the case and don't bother to vote.

[uponit7771]

21. Correct, that's why I type "effectively" ... they don't have enough minerals to call off the ...

... election outright.

Moscow Mitch not taking effective mitigating steps to secure the election and Benedict Donald outright saying he's going to cheat doesn't leave America with an election process that's free and fair.

No one in their right mind is going to believe Red Don won without cheating seeing he's done it before and announced he's going to do it again.

Impeachment is about all we got

[StarfishSaver]

26. If you think "impeachment is about all we got" you're really saying they've called off the election

That kind of thinking is self-fulfilling. I can't go along with it.

[uponit7771]

30. ... effectively ... yes, I don't see how 2020 is going to be more free and fair than 2016 or 18

... senate races in GA or FL that got hacked.

If there's some empirical information regarding securing our elections then of course we have other means including the vote, that's not the case.

Moscow Mitch and Benedict Donald are making sure to leave the front door open for interference.

[StarfishSaver]

32. I know. You keep saying that

I just hope people aren't buying it since that would mean you've influenced people to not exercise their power and turn over the election to Trump.

[uponit7771]

33. How would that be influencing people not to excecise their power to call their reps and demand

... more election security?

Or even go out and vote?!

If Red Don's approval numbers are around Nixon's post impeachment process and he wins he gets thrown out of office by some legal protesting hopefully.

Its a fact that Benedict Donald and Moscow Mitch are leaving our election wide open to more hacking, there's nothing wrong with stating that.

[Demsrule86]

28. He will stonewall impeachment too...he doesn't care about prececdent or laws...and the moderates

who gave us the house could lose their seats...impeachment is not popular.

[uponit7771]

29. Moderates can do the right thing and keep their seats if there's justificaton for their actions.

If there's reasonable justification for their votes and they still lose their seats then they were going to lose it anyway.

What's someone going to do, run against removing the crooked person?!

This seems like an M$M bubble thought that makes no sense in the end.

Impeachment has never been a positive for the party of the impeached when it comes to controlling the government in the history of the US.

NEVER !!

[Demsrule86]

52. Sorry that is completely unrealistic...if impeachment is unpopular and moderates do it anyway...

and then Trump is exonerated by Mitch which he will be or even if he is not ...and remains in office...it will never be seen as anything but a waste of time and money. We could lose the house and you can't compare this to decades ago impeachment...the closest thing we have is Scott Walker who went on to win two more terms after he was impeached. We could end up with Trump for four more years with the courts, the house and the Senate...if that doesn't make you think twice about impeachment, I don't know what to say ...how about we simply win in 20...we have a little over a year until the election...there is no reason to risk handing Trump another term and losing the house. We will not remove him from office any other way but to win the 20 election.

[uponit7771]

53. Nixon impeachment 40% Trump impeachment 45%, ... the polls are either lying or they're not

[StarfishSaver]

37. He can't stonewall impeachment

Impeachment is a magical process - and just by calling a process an "impeachment" will cause witnesses to march to the Hill like Stepford wives, loosen tongues, open up the floodgates of documents that will flow into the hands of investigators, and immediately and completely rivet the attention of millions of Americans who will suddenly rise up and demand Trump's ouster.

You didn't know that?

[StarfishSaver]

10. Yes and no

The standard way for an impeachment inquiry to start is for the House of Representatives to vote to authorize the Judiciary Committee to begin an inquiry. This would be initiated with an impeachment inquiry resolution introduced on the floor by any Member, which would immediately be referred to the Judiciary Committee, where it would be "marked up" (essentially amended/edited, if necessary), voted on by the Committee, and then referred back to the floor for a vote by the full House. If a majority of Members vote yes, the Judiciary Committee would begin hearings and other proceedings related to impeachment.

That would be the normal procedure. However, it is also possible for the Judiciary Committee chairman to begin an inquiry in committee without first getting the full House approval. However, that would be an unusual course of action taken only under extraordinary circumstances. At this point, I think it unlikely that Nadler would unilaterally begin an inquiry without House approval BUT I see a scenario where that could take place:

If it gets to the point that a critical mass of Members strongly support impeachment and they are very close to a majority, but they just can't quite get to the 218 needed to approve a resolution to start the inquiry AND if Pelosi and Nadler believe that they will be able to convince that handful of recalcitrant Members to vote to impeach AFTER more evidence comes out in hearings, it's possible that Nadler would start proceedings in Committee without a House vote.

[ProfessorPlum]

13. Thanks

that clarifies the ambiguity

[StarfishSaver]

15. Great!

Glad that helps!

[uponit7771]

18. +1, I wonder if it was like this during beginning of Nixon impeachment process

[StarfishSaver]

20. My recollection is that it was

People started screaming for impeachment soon after Nixon was sworn in to his second term. But the House took it's time, waited for the evidence to be gathered and THEN - and only then - in February 1974 authorized an impeachment inquiry.

[uponit7771]

22. Cool, and impeachment became more popular after the process began it looks like. I pray Red Dons

... numbers dip into the low 20s like Nixon's but with FAUX News as their loudspeaker I doubt that.

[StarfishSaver]

23. Actually, impeachment became more popular BEFORE the impeachment inquiry was opened

The inquiry itself was conducted mostly behind closed doors - only the first 20 minutes of the first hearing in May was done in public - and had little impact on public opinion. Other factors outside of the impeachment proceedings - including the Senate Watergate hearings, criminal prosecutions and convictions, the Saturday Night Massacre, Agnew's conviction and resignation, Nixon's continued defiance of the courts, and the Supreme Court order to turn over the tapes, were much more influential than the impeachment inquiry itself, which turned up no new information and people weren't privy to for until the very end when the Articles of Impeachment were drafted, debated and voted on. And by the time the inquiry was opened to the public, support for impeachment was well over 50%.

[NewJeffCT]

24. I was a kid at the time

and remember coming home from school to the Watergate hearings on TV almost every day for a while. Were those those public hearings BEFORE impeachment proceedings?

[StarfishSaver]

25. Yes - those were the Senate Select Committee hearings in the spring and summer of '73

That's what most people remember - although many think they were impeachment hearings. The actual impeachment hearings the following spring and summer weren't televised.

[FBaggins]

31. One modification to that

There was reportedly some internal debate immediately following Mueller's testimony. Some Democrats put forward the theory that there had already been some impeachment resolutions brought to the House floor that had been passed to Judiciary for review. Sure... the intent at the time was for them to go there to die... but that doesn't mean that they couldn't decide to pick one up and treat it like it was the real deal.

The idea apparently didn't get traction with leadership. But I don't know that this was because it couldn't work. I think it would depend on the wording of what was sent to the committee.


Ok... a second disagreement. Of course, a committee can decide to start their own hearings... but their chances of convincing a court that they qualify for consideration as (for instance) "preparatory to a judicial proceeding" or similar would be hampered if they weren't begun by a vote of the full House.

[StarfishSaver]

34. I think you're basing this on the Politico story

Which I believe to be pure bs.

But I think when the House is ready to move toward impeachment, a well-drafted resolution will be introduced either by Nadler or by the Speaker as the lead sponsor. It won't be a random bill by a just any Member and it won't be based on any of the bills currently pending in committee, most of which aren't very well drafted or suited for further proceedings.

As for your second disagreement - two things. First, the committee has already positioned the current hearings as "preliminary to" impeachment - that's the basis on which they're asking for the grand jury materials today. But if the Chairman were to unilaterally institute impeachment hearings in committee, it would be a valid impeachment proceeding - there is no requirement that the full House approve an inquiry in order for the committee to start impeachment proceedings or for its proceedings to be deemed such.

[FBaggins]

40. On what basis do you believe it's "pure bs"?

The quote was:

Nadler indicated that the committee could launch proceedings on its own. Articles filed by Rep. Brad Sherman (D-Calif.) at the outset of this Congress have already been referred to the panel, giving Democrats a vehicle to begin proceedings. The technical discussion also included a question about how an impeachment case is presented to the Senate.

Are you saying that you think it didn't happen? Politico just made it up? I think the Daily Caller independently reported the same thing.

[StarfishSaver]

41. Here's why

https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=12319777

[FBaggins]

42. Not buying it

It has been reported by too many outlets for it to just be made up. And the argument goes back to May.

You're putting too much weight on your own interpretation of what the process is and assuming that House leadership agrees with you. Re: your "For example, the impeachment process isn't started by "drafting articles of impeachment." - We just saw that this was incorrect with Green's proposed articles. If the House had decided to vote directly on those (and pass them of course), it would be all over. It isn't the normal process, but that doesn't mean that it can't happen that way. The House makes its own rules.

From the NYTimes. Note my emphasis at the end.

Against that backdrop, some Democratic staff members and lawmakers have been arguing that it is unnecessary to gain the full chamber’s approval to launch an inquiry, in part because the Judiciary Committee chairman has already gained the power to issue subpoenas and take depositions — authorities that earlier impeachment inquiry resolutions had granted.

The Judiciary Committee has been flirting with the topic of impeachment for months, subpoenaing witnesses and holding hearings designed to better understand Mr. Trump’s behavior and potentially develop charges against him. In a hearing focused on Mr. Mueller’s report earlier this month, Mr. Nadler said that “articles of impeachment are under consideration as part of the committee’s investigation, although no final determination has been made.”

By formally declaring that the panel is doing that in a court filing, Democrats are trying to get past the internal debate without forcing members from moderate districts to vote on whether to do so. Ms. Pelosi approved the language in the lawsuit, according to a person familiar with its drafting.

[StarfishSaver]

43. ""For example, the impeachment process isn't started by 'drafting articles of impeachment.' We just

saw that this was incorrect with Green's proposed articles.

Did the impeachment process get started as a result of Green's draft articles of impeachment and we somehow missed it?

I stand my point.

[FBaggins]

45. That's circular

Care to try again?

What would have happened if his articles were voted on and passed? Would Trump be able to claim that they were invalid?

[StarfishSaver]

47. But they weren't voted on and they didn't pass. That's the thing

I never said that would have made them invalid. My point is that that's not how the House starts an impeachment process. And the only reason that resolution was put on the floor was because there was never any chance that it would have passed. If the House leadership intended to start an impeachment inquiry, they wouldn't have done it with a poorly-drafted set of Articles of Impeachment voted on before an impeachment inquiry had even begun.

But think what you want to think. As they say, facts and my experience and knowledge about this outweighs your arguments and assumptions, whether you see it that way or not.

[FBaggins]

48. Still think it's BS?

Since... you know... it was part of the petition they just sent to the district court?

[StarfishSaver]

49. What was part of the petition?

Last edited Fri Jul 26, 2019, 09:50 PM - Edit history (1)

And yes, I still think the article is BS. And now it's been proven to be.

[FBaggins]

50. Just what I said in #31 and #40

And yes, I still the article is BS.

Must be a remarkable coincidence, eh? It wasn't really a position that they took when meeting with Pelosi but it just happened to sneak into their core argumentation on pp. 12-13?

The Committee’s jurisdiction also includes consideration of articles of impeachment. Jefferson’s Manual explains that “resolutions . . . that directly call for the impeachment of an officer have been referred to the Committee on the Judiciary.” H. Doc. 114-192 § 605, at 321 (2017). Upon their introduction, resolutions of impeachment are referred directly to the Committee by the Speaker of the House just as proposed legislation is referred by the Speaker to committees of appropriate jurisdiction. See House Rule XII.2(a) (“The Speaker shall refer each bill, resolution, or other matter that relates to a subject listed under a standing committee named in clause 1 of rule X in accordance with the provisions of this clause.”).5 This long-standing House practice was followed in the 116th Congress when, on January 3, 2019, a resolution calling for the impeachment of President Trump was referred to the Committee for its consideration.6 The House may also choose to direct a particular manner for investigating grounds for impeachment, and in such instances it has voted to refer such investigations to the Committee.7

[StarfishSaver]

51. You don't seem to understand the distinction between the committee "considering Articles"

Last edited Fri Jul 26, 2019, 05:27 PM - Edit history (1)

as part of or at the end of an impeachment inquiry and Articles being drafted to initiate an impeachment inquiry. The fact that the articles writer and source didn't seem to understand the distinction either is why I called bs. The article claimed that Nadler pushed to "launch impeachment proceedings" by asking committees to draft articles of impeachment. drafting of articles of impeachment are not necessary to launch an impeachment inquiry. And Even if they are the basis for an inquiry, several resolutions have already been introduced and referred to committee, so there is no need for Nadler to ask anyone to draft articles in order to start an inquiry.

The distinction may not matter to you, but it's an important one. And the fact that the Nadler has indicated that an impeachment inquiry has begun and has gone to court to obtain more evidence to be used in that inquiry doesn't in any way validate Politico's raggedy reporting.

[StarfishSaver]

35. From a new Politico piece published this morning:

"Judiciary Committee Democrats have pointed to one exception in the rules they say applies to them: providing material to parties “preliminarily to or in connection with a judicial proceeding.” Courts have previously determined that an impeachment inquiry would qualify as a 'judicial proceeding' that could satisfy this exception. Though the Judiciary Committee has not launched an impeachment inquiry, Nadler has argued that its ongoing investigations of Trump qualify as 'preliminary' proceedings."

[FBaggins]

38. I'm well aware that they're making that argument

What is lacking so far is a court that has agreed with them.

Just as courts won't back up a committee subpoena if the full House never authorized subpoena power for that committee, I doubt that a committee can convince an appeals court that they can exercise other powers that the full House has not delegated to them.

And the courts aren't stupid. They know that the reason Nadler is trying to avoid needing a vote of the full House for explicit impeachment inquiry powers is that he's worried that it wouldn't pass.

[StarfishSaver]

39. They just went to court today

We'll see how they rule. But you can be sure that the committee and its lawyers gamed this out very carefully.

Every lawyer I've seen comment on it agrees with Nadler, Tribe, Wine-Banks and me.

Have you found any legal expert who disagrees?

FYI - not only aren't you in any position to read Nadler's mind or divine his "real" reason for not opening a formal impeachment inquiry, his motivation won't be considered by the court - it's completely irrelevant to this case since the law is the law.

[Gothmog]

44. Nancy Pelosi Doesn't Have The Votes To Impeach Trump

Link to tweet

Pelosi’s majority includes 31 members who represent districts Trump carried in 2016 and could face electoral danger. Impeachment might accomplish little more than energizing Trump 2020 voters.

Close Pelosi allies insist she couldn’t gain majority support for impeachment even if she tried, not to mention the two-thirds of a Republican-run Senate needed for conviction and removal from office. “There will never be 218 in the House,” a leadership aide told me.....

The votes aren’t there. The 31 Democrats who represent districts that Donald Trump won in 2016 can see that impeachment is not popular with voters in general. If these nearly three dozen Democrats want to win second terms and keep the House in Democratic hands, they feel the need to stay far away from impeachment.

Blaming Pelosi is both easy, and it displays a fundamental ignorance of the dynamics of this Democratic House majority.

Robert Mueller’s testimony was an important step, but unless public opinion changes and a whole bunch of House Democrats change their minds, impeachment won’t happen in the House before the 2020 election.

[FBaggins]

46. That's a reasonable standard

It doesn't rely on Republicans being willing to do the right thing... but it recognizes that impeachment is not a criminal process, but that it is a political process.

[StarfishSaver]

54. This is one of the reasons today's move was brilliant

Pelosi and Nadler managed to get an impeachment inquiry opened without the House voting on it, which would have put these moderate Democrats in a terrible position and likely resulted in an embarrassing loss on the floor.

Now they can go ahead with the investigation which will surely provide a strong basis for many of those moderates to support impeachment without getting smacked down at home.