Nowhere does the petition ever say the Committee isn't conducting a formal investigation. In fact, it argues the exact opposite throughout - in fact the entire point of the petition is that the Judiciary Committee's investigation is a fully viable impeachment investigation under its Article I impeachment powers despite the fact that the House didn't pass a formal resolution since Article I does not make such a resolution a prerequisite for the conduct of a formal impeachment investigation.
Here's the section pertinent to your claim (citations omitted), but if you're going to cite the petition and try to argue about what it says, you should actually read the whole thing.
The Judiciary Committee Is Investigating Whether To Recommend Articles of Impeachment
The House is constitutionally empowered to determine the rules of its own proceedings, including any rules governing impeachment proceedings or any prerequisites for commencing such proceedings. In assessing the Committee’s intended use of grand jury materials, this Court should afford great weight to the manner in which the House chooses to exercise its “sole power of impeachment.” Where, as here, the Committee is conducting an investigation whose purposes include determining whether to recommend articles of impeachment, that is more than sufficient for purposes of Rule 6(e)’s “judicial proceeding” exception.
The Committee has repeatedly made clear that it is assessing “whether to approve articles of impeachment with respect to the President.” Articles of impeachment have been introduced and referred to the Committee during the present Congress, and Chairman Nadler recently confirmed that they are “under consideration as part of the Committee’s investigation.” Chairman Nadler has also reiterated the Committee’s “responsibility to determine whether to recommend articles of impeachment against the President,” and he has stated that the Committee seeks grand jury information to aid its determination of “whether the Committee should recommend articles of impeachment against the President.” Moreover, the full House has specifically authorized the Committee to seek disclosure of grand jury materials “pursuant to Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 6(e), including Rule 6(e)(3)(E).” H. Res. 430. It has therefore expressly ratified this Committee’s use of the “judicial proceeding” exception before this Court.
Because the Committee seeks Rule 6(e) materials to further its ongoing investigation and assessment of whether to recommend articles of impeachment, it is in the same posture as the Judiciary Committee was in Haldeman when the court ordered disclosure of the requested records pursuant to Rule 6(e). Here, as in Haldeman, a specially appointed prosecutor has produced extensive evidence of misconduct by a sitting President. And here, as in Haldeman, the Department has adopted the view that a sitting President cannot be indicted —while the specially appointed prosecutor has acknowledged the importance of Congress’s own “constitutional processes for addressing presidential misconduct.”
The Committee, just as it did in Haldeman, is investigating whether to recommend articles of impeachment and requires access to Rule 6(e) materials in furtherance of that investigation.
Additionally,
although the House has not considered a formal resolution structuring any particular proceedings by this Committee, as it had in Haldeman, such a resolution is not a necessary predicate to consideration of articles of impeachment. Article I of the Constitution states no such requirement. Where, as here, a Member has introduced articles of impeachment and those articles have been referred to the Committee, the Committee is fully empowered to conduct an investigation and exercise any other of its standing authorities. The Committee did precisely that in Hastings: Following a referral by the Judicial Conference of the United States, a Member of the Committee introduced a resolution to impeach Judge Hastings, which was referred to the Committee. The Committee then petitioned the court for access to grand jury materials, and the court determined that Rule 6(e)’s “judicial proceeding” exception authorized disclosure to the Committee. The Committee subsequently recommended articles of impeachment against Judge Hastings. The Committee requested grand jury materials from the district court on July 15, 1987. Both before and after that date, the House authorized various allocations of funds and other authorities for the Committee to conduct its investigation. However, none of these resolutions expressly mentioned impeachment.
Similarly, following the referral of a resolution containing articles of impeachment against Judge Nixon, the Committee requested and received access to grand jury records from a federal district court and ultimately recommended articles of impeachment. As Jefferson’s Manual explains, “
n the House various events have been credited with setting an impeachment in motion,” including “charges made on the floor”; “a resolution introduced by a Member and referred to a committee”; or “facts developed and reported by an investigating committee of the House.” Through this process in recent decades, the Committee has conducted investigations involving resolutions of impeachment against Judges Nixon and Hastings, as well as against Judge Harry E. Claiborne, Internal Revenue Service Commissioner John Koskinen, and Justice William O. Douglas.
https://judiciary.house.gov/sites/democrats.judiciary.house.gov/files/documents/FINAL%20PETITION.pdf
I'm not sure whether you are genuinely confused or whether you have some other reason for consistently misstating facts and persistently arguing without any basis. But whatever it is, I'm glad I'm here to set the record straight so that people reading these threads don't come away with a twisted view of the law and process.
= new reply since forum marked as read
