RockyTop85
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Dec 5, 2011
- Messages
- 12,943
- Likes
- 6,913
One is binding on* the entire house and one is binding a different committee than the one that is investigating this matter.And how would that make a difference. Serious question.
Nadler (Chairman is the Judiciary Committee) opened his own impeachment inquiry after the Mueller report. They debated terms and procedures and voted on it. Then I think they called Lewandowski as their only witness.
Then this whistleblower complaint came up and since the intelligence committee has jurisdiction over matters arising from ICIG, it went to them.
https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/HMAN-116/pdf/HMAN-116.pdf
Here are the rules of the House, the first part is Jefferson’s Manual, which appears to have been annotated. It contains some background on impeachment. I haven’t read it yet. I don’t see anything in the table of contents that indicates the house rules cover impeachment. It may also have been changed since that pdf was posted? No idea.
There are some academicians who say they don’t necessarily have to hold this vote, but might be better politically if they did. Now that Trump says they have to I’m not sure that it is still better politically since it makes it look like they weren’t following the rules before.
Must the House Vote to Authorize an Impeachment Inquiry?
I think you’re taking the better approach going back to original source documents, though.
Federalist papers 64-66 also cover impeachment. Hoping to read those this week.
* - actually not sure how “binding” the rules are.