Y'all do realize what happened today, right? And can we give Speaker Pelosi some props for it?

[StarfishSaver]

Nadler and the other Judiciary Committee Members made clear that they have opened an impeachment inquiry that could lead to Articles of Impeachment against Trump.

And this has been managed brilliantly.

As many have pointed out, if a vote were taken today on the House floor on whether to open an impeachment inquiry, it would fail and fail badly. Pelosi and Nadler have very skillfully and expertly worked around that possibility. And this didn't just start today.

A month and a half ago, Nadler announced a series of hearings he promised would pursue “targeted legislative, oversight and constitutional remedies designed to respond to these matters.” https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-06-03/nadler-plans-mueller-report-hearings-starting-with-john-dean

In his announcement, Nadler very specifically stated that the hearings wouldn't be limited to legislative and oversight purposes, but also are targeted toward "constitutional remedies." The only constitutional remedy available to the House to respond to the behavior described in the Mueller Report is impeachment.

This language was very intentional. Among other things, it positioned the Committee to request grand jury materials under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 6(e)'s provision that allows a court to release grand jury materials in connection with a proceeding "preliminarily to" an impeachment inquiry.

Today, the Committee announced not only that it is indeed conducting an impeachment inquiry, Nadler and the others said that this inquiry didn't start today, but has been going on for some time - but this is the first time they have come out and said it.

So we are now exactly where many people have been demanding we be. The House is conducting a full-blown impeachment inquiry. They are about to get a court order compelling Don McGahn to testify or face jail and fines. They are in court seeking the grand jury materials.

And they pulled this off without a House vote that would have gone down in defeat. This was a brilliant move by Pelosi to move the inquiry forward while protecting the more vulnerable and conservative members of her caucus from having to vote for one.

Nicely done, Madame Speaker and Chairman Nadler.

Make no mistake about it. Impeachment is in play, y'all.

[elleng]

1. Yes indeed!

[empedocles]

2. The Speaker has long had a strategic vision, and great tactical experience,

at how and when to play her cards.

Nice post StarfishSaver.

[spooky3]

24. Agree, and thanks, Starfish, for explaining it. Nt

[WheelWalker]

3. The board is set. The pieces are moving. Removal is the game.

No quarter sought. No quarter given.

[OliverQ]

33. Unfortunately, no matter what happens with impeachment

Trump isn't getting removed by Congress. No amount of evidence will get 20 Republicans in the Senate to support it.

[Dream Girl]

40. I think we all know that, but thanks for posting

[OliverQ]

42. This was in response to the post about the goal being to remove him

but thanks for the attitude.

[BigmanPigman]

76. At least we will have done oversight and tRump will have a black mark

next to his name in the History books. It will also drive him even crazier.

Nancy is allowing this now since she is finally realizing that most Americans don't know about the great legislation that the House has written and passed due to the Senate blocking it so we need an issue to campaign on. This is good for the Dems going forward since we are doing our job...oversight. The Dems will but a stamp/mark on the Racist Rapist that he is a POTUS who broke the law and is a criminal. If the Senate doesn't impeach him that is going to be on them to defend in the future, especially with their allowing the Russians to attack our elections.

[StarfishSaver]

79. The speaker didn't suddenly come to some realization pressed on her by the masses

As I described in my OP, this move has obciously been the works for some time - I actually called it seven weeks ago. Just because the world didn't see her cards doesn't mean she wasn't collecting a strong hand. Today she showed some of her cards. And I suspect she still holding a couple of Trump cards(- pun intended)

[BigmanPigman]

80. I believe today's most important move was made by

Nadler.

[StarfishSaver]

83. Nadler acted with the Speaker's full cooperation

and likely in complete collaboration.

Funny how until today we kept hearing about how the Speaker was so so all-powerful, that no one could make a move without her and if only she gave her approval, they could get started.

Now it's clear they've gotten started, she had nothing to do with it?

[BigmanPigman]

84. I think we must agree to disagree.

[mcar]

88. I read that the Speaker signed off on this

So the idea that Nadler went against the evil Pelosi is nonsense.

[Laura PourMeADrink]

108. Very true. He put a name to the investigations they've

been conducting to enable getting the grand jury info. Perhaps inadvertant consequences? If the investigations don't bring sufficient cause to impeach, over and above what Mueller outlined, as deemed by a majority of Democrats, we will have to state that there wasn't enough evidence to proceed, I presume. IOW, it all forces a conclusion statement one way or another. Similar to real Impeachment. We are golden if it it really does lead to real Impeachment. Hope so!

[tblue37]

106. But impeachment hearings will be dripping evidence into the public conversation all through election

year, with televised hearings filled with evidence and witnesses they might not otherwise have gotten access to.

[Cetacea]

155. As Pelosi said in the post-Mueller presser, if the senate chooses to stick with him after...

..the public sees all of the evidence then that is on them. (and just in time for the election, too)

[stopdiggin]

4. you mean like, within the system?

Who'da ever thunk!?

[mcar]

5. This is a brilliant strategy

Funny how the OPs slamming Pelosi and Democrats get hundreds of replies. Wonder if this one will.

[yellowdogintexas]

8. Speaker Pelosi has been at this too long to not have an Ace or 2

up her sleeve.

[mcar]

12. I would never bet against her

[samnsara]

55. shes brilliant!!

[lagomorph777]

6. I feel like I just lost 10 pounds!

Thank you!

[greatauntoftriplets]

7. Thanks for this post.

[stillcool]

9. the number of members supporting impeachment jumped...

to 99! The New York Times keeps a running tally as members state positions.
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2019/05/31/us/politics/trump-impeachment-congress-list.html

[barbtries]

26. i just called my congressperson

to urge him to come out in favor of impeachment. I spoke with him a few months ago and he was firmly against it because the senate will not convict. We argued a little but he didn't budge. I have written to him and now called his office and urged him again.

they're going on break, right? Now is the time for them to hear from their constituents.

[stillcool]

93. maybe it worked!

it's up to 100

[barbtries]

96. I wish.

Was the new one David Price of NC? I kinda doubt it.

[stillcool]

100. no, he's still in the undecideds...

but he did say this:

If this cover-up continues, President Trump may leave us no choice.”

[barbtries]

121. he's moving in the right direction then.

i talked to the guy at his office for awhile. some hopefulness. i've been thinking for awhile that it's inevitable. trump is going off the rails. well it's probably more accurate to say that he abandoned reality some time ago, but his speech and tweets and actions get worse and worse. And Barr - jeez. distraction of the day is we're going to start killing people.

soon. please

[DeminPennswoods]

92. Now 101+Amash

nt

[watoos]

10. A House vote would have gone down in defeat

is pure speculation. I don't believe it. Pelosi's caucus would have rallied around her.

[StarfishSaver]

13. Whatever

How you coming on those questions I asked yesterday but you still haven't answered?

Since you want to argue law and legal strategy, do it like a lawyer ...

Test your argument by playing it out as lawyers are trained to do:

1. If the House opened an official impeachment inquiry tomorrow, what would be the next three steps the Judiciary Committee would take to get these people [Hocks, McGahn, Lewandowski, etc.] to testify?

2. How will your "more clout with the courts rule" play into each of these steps to ensure they will testify?

3. What would the timeframe be for each step and how long would it take to get from the first step to their testimony?

4. Compare it to the processes and time-frames for proceeding outside of impeachment and explain how much faster each step would be if done within an impeachment and the legal basis for the expedited timeframe

And please show your work . . .

Surely you have answers at the ready, given your certainty of how the rules and law work and that Nadler and Pelosi are doing everything wrong.

[sheshe2]

22. +1

[RobertDevereaux]

11. Yes. The 28 minute press conference is worth viewing!

[magicarpet]

23. Link to video of today's Nadler presser...

https://www.c-span.org/video/?463045-1/house-judiciary-committee-democrats-defend-robert-mueller-plan-continue-investigation

[smirkymonkey]

14. K&R

Trumper Tantrum in 3...2...1...

[FakeNoose]

15. Impeachment is in play, Pelosi & Nadler know how to play it

[Hekate]

16. Nicely done, iindeed. Progress.

[Gothmog]

17. Speaker Pelosi is very smart and is doing an amazing job

[EleanorR]

18. Joshua Matz has a great article in the Post today

If anyone wants to read more about how the House got to this point over a period of months, I'd highly recommend it.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/2019/07/26/house-has-already-opened-impeachment-proceedings-against-trump/?utm_term=.ef37b5dafb7d

[BlancheSplanchnik]

19. I needed this!

Patience and trust aren’t my strong suit; I did my own grumbling about it taking too long.

But luckily, Speaker Pelosi is much smarter than me. I’m pretty sure she knows what she’s doing.

[calimary]

135. I know how you feel. I was a big and loud Pelosi supporter

in my Indivisible group right after the Dems took back the House, when there were challenges for the Speakership. When she kept holding back on this, I started to feel pretty shaky about that.

This is MUCH MUCH better.

[BlancheSplanchnik]

153. Imagine knowing what she knew...what she knows...

And having to keep quiet!

[StarfishSaver]

158. I doubt she cares

She doesn't seem too worried about negative swipes. She knows what she's there to do and does it.

One of the roles she's taken on is being a lightning rod for criticism and she just absorbs the bolts (or just lets them bounce off harmlessly back into the atmosphere), smiles and keeps on moving.

[somaticexperiencing]

20. Thank you for this, and surely do hope this is correct reading of events.

For one who doesn't devote every second, but way too much time, to following these things, and who generally works in the world of marketing and entertainment - really, really, really want the message to get through. I get scared about Democrats and their generally poor marketing and messaging.

I do believe that some push from those of us who care towards an inquiry that looks into impeachment is necessary. The events of the other day, and all the other drip, drip, drip for two years, certainly warrant it. As far as I understand it, that doesn't mean absolutely, necessarily recommending articles of impeachment.

Is it absolutely true that the votes are not there for "an impeachment inquiry"? Not impeachment, but an inquiry.

[Javaman]

21. wonderful news! I hope this means also that we will eventually get the unredacted Mueller report. nt

[kentuck]

25. How long can an "impeachment inquiry" go on?

My guess is that it could go on for years if they did not get the cooperation requested from the Executive Branch (White House)? Or is there a time limit for it to end? Why should the campaign interfere with it?

[StarfishSaver]

27. There's no time limit on an impeachment inquiry

But Nixon's lasted less than 6 months and Clinton's was just 2 months. I'm sure that if an impeachment inquiry here extended more than a few months, the media and others would start bleeding about it taking too long.

I suspect that's one of the reasons Nadler and Pelosi aren't making a big deal about calling this an official "impeachment inquiry" but are characterizing this as a broader investigation under its Article 1 powers that could lead to impeachment. Doing so distinguishes it from an ordinary oversight process, thereby giving it standing to request grand jury materials under 6(e), have a stronger argument against executive privilege, etc.

[kentuck]

35. Very clever move if...

...the Courts give them the weight of an impeachment inquiry and order that the GJ materials be released to the Congress. that would be a huge step forward. I would suppose they would like to read the GJ testimony before they subpoenaed Don McGahn?

[watoos]

28. Here is the explanation,

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.

This is what Nadler is doing, more power to him if he can get the grand jury information without starting an impeachment investigation. Make no mistake about all of the hoopla that is going on, Dems are not opening an impeachment investigation.

[StarfishSaver]

32. What is your definition of an "impeachment investigation?"

[kentuck]

38. If it becomes an "impeachment proceeding", it would go to the full House for a vote?

I would think an "investigation" and an "inquiry" would be very similar. But once it becomes a proceeding, it must go to the full House? Am I wrong?

[StarfishSaver]

47. Not really

Yes, an impeachment inquiry and investigation are pretty much the same thing. "Proceeding" doesn't have any legal or procedural meaning - it's just a generic way to describe something they're doing. A hearing can be a proceeding and an investigation or inquiry can be a proceeding. Proceedings can be a series of hearings.

Here's how it will likely go from here, if they follow normal procedure:

Once the Committee determines, based on the inquiry - which will include hearings, witness interviews, document reviews, etc. - that impeachable offenses have occurred, the Committee will meet to consider, draft and vote on Articles of Impeachment. This will likely be done in one or more "Markups" - committee meetings in which the Members discuss, draft, debate Articles and "mark them up" with edits and amendments. Once the Articles are drafted and finalized, the Committee will take separate votes on each one to refer them to the full House for a vote.

When the Articles are sent to the floor, each Article will be debated and voted on separately by the full House. The president is automatically impeached upon the approval of any Article Impeachment by a majority of the House.

[stillcool]

89. I want you to write a book...

please.

[DeminPennswoods]

90. Additionally, the WaPo story linked above

reminds that Brad Sherman has already submitted a bill on impeachment that was subsequently referred to Judiciary. Bottom line, is Nadler already has an impeachment referral in hand available to be used as needed.

[StarfishSaver]

98. Yes

It's referenced in the petition, in fact.

[Volaris]

103. No, but I would suggest this is tantamount to the discovery phase

of an formal indictment...that's what it feels like, anyway.

I'm not a lawyer. If I'm incorrect, I know there's a lawyer in here somewhere that will educate me (and I welcome such education please lol...it's why I come in here!).

[sheshe2]

29. Thank you both our Madame Speaker and Chairman Nadler.

Well done.

[KPN]

30. I don't get the nicely played part. Starting

and announcing an impeachment inquiry would not have meant an impeachment vote. It was politically played is what it was: leadership was finally under enough pressure from party members. Leadership can lead, or it can follow. In this case it followed in my view. The report itself was actionable. We played it cautious — tRump and the GOP viewed that as hesitant, were emboldened by it and sowed weeks worth of fake spin about “witch hunt”, nothing illegal, it’s all political not principle on Dems part. Hopefully, the delay in getting here didn’t totally undermine us. Hopefully, it was enough; it still isn’t offially an impeachment inquiry. We shall see.

[Laura PourMeADrink]

63. Truest words today..."the report was actionable". Strikes me

that we have now set ourselves up to reach a conclusion anyway, without formally diving in.

Nadler said the process is to determine if there is enough evidence to move forward...it may or may not lead to Impeachment. If it does --- great. If it doesn't, you are left in the exact same position everyone feared...Trump and GOP touting "See, there was nothing important enough to impeach about.". Actually it may be worse? You are on record as concluding there wasn't enough evidence.

Hope it leads to real Impeachment and that there is enough time (which we have little of).

[Cetacea]

111. They need public testimony from Donald Francis McGahn.

The obstruction that occurred with him is the most damning. That and Grand Jury materials. Once they have both they will formally impeach, in my opinion. What happens during the recess could be critical. It's now officially swift boat/death panels season.

Hats off to Pelosi, Schiff, Nadler, Maddow, and especially David Corn. There are many others but those people come to me blinkin' mind in short order.

[Laura PourMeADrink]

112. Yes, understood, the need McGahn!

[StarfishSaver]

65. They've been laying the groundwork for this for months

This wasn't a reaction. It was a plan.

[watoos]

105. Nadler could have asked the court

for the grand jury information the day after the Mueller report was released. That would have shown that Democrats were in agreement that the Mueller report validated Trump's impeachment.

The longer we wait to impeach the more we minimize all of the work that Mueller did. I cringe when Speaker Pelosi says that we aren't there yet, some people, not me, take that to mean that Dems need more facts than what Mueller provided to impeach Trump.

If we never impeach Trump he will claim vindication at every election rally. What message will that send to all of the people who voted for Dems in 2018 to hold Trump accountable?

[StarfishSaver]

107. He would not have had as strong case for the material months ago

At that time, there appeared to be many other avenues for getting the information that had not been explored and the court likely would have instructed the committee to first exhaust all of its other remedies. The last couple of months of requests, invitations, the much-maligned but necessary "strongly worded letters," subpoenas, etc., were all part of the House showing good faith efforts to obtain the information in other ways.

Now that those avenues have been exhausted, the House is in an excellent position to show the court that it needs the grand jury materials - in fact, they reference this in their petition. This would not have been the case when the report was first released and they would have had a much weaker argument supporting their request for the materials.

But your claim that they should have requested the materials months ago is very interesting in light of your previous and repeated insistence that the House could obtain the grand jury materials ONLY if it opened a formal impeachment proceeding. In fact, just yesterday, you dismissed outright Nadler's claim because "the only way to get that grand jury information is through an impeachment hearing" and because you insisted the Committee hearings are not an "impeachment hearing," you predicted the court would throw out Nadler's claim. Now you're positing that the request should have been made months ago, even though you've repeatedly argued that the committee wasn't entitled to the materials.

You're really all over the place on this and consistently criticize the House Democrats no matter what they do and don't seem to care about consistency or the facts.

[Laura PourMeADrink]

109. +1,000,000.

[Laura PourMeADrink]

110. So true. If the immediate outrage and support for action wasn't

there, en masse, to proceed at the outset, you can't retroactively recreate that.

[ehrnst]

154. If we impeach Trump he will claim vindication at every election rally, because he won't be removed

If you want to speculate on what Trump will say, it's a given that he'll say that "beating the Dems attempts to remove him vindicates' him, and 'exonerates' him."

[leftstreet]

85. +1

[Me.]

31. See...NOw Can Everyone Just Chill & Let Them Proceed

"Nadler and the others said that this inquiry didn't start today, but has been going on for some time - but this is the first time they have come out and said it"

[dlk]

34. As I Have Said Before, I Trust Pelosi (& Nadler Too)

Nancy is one of the most if not the savviest politician in Washington. Brava/bravo to her and to Nadler. We are very fortunate to have both of them on our side, fighting for us in these very treacherous times.

[KPN]

36. Props for what? Delay? Hesitation? Political

calculation over principle (when our Constitution, democracy and rule of law are at risk)?

Our speaker succumbed to pressure today. That’s good. The pressure came from people — registered Democrats and other Dem Congress members. That’s our democratic political process at work. Again, that’s good.

[marble falls]

37. Speaker Pelosi is making this an unstoppable inevidible. Impeachment has ...

never been off the table, keeping Donnie Two Scoops off balance has been a hallmark of the whole operation.

[brer cat]

39. K&R

[Mersky]

41. Thank you, Madame Speaker and Chairman Nadler...

Thank you, Congressional Dems, for pursuing justice against the corrupt and wayward president.

[ananda]

60. Ditto

This is great news!!!

[George II]

43. As the sports saying goes, "game on!"

[calimary]

44. Heilemann just confirmed it on MSNBC.

He's filling in on Nicolle Wallace's "Deadline White House" show, and just announced a couple of minutes ago that "NBC News has confirmed."

[ehrnst]

45. She didn't give daily public updates on what they were actually doing, so many assumed

she/they "weren't doing anything."

And blaming Speaker Pelosi for everything Trump is doing, because she's was apparently 'LETTING HIM GET AWAY WITH IT."

I admire her even more. She takes all the anxiety that needs a scapegoat, and keeps doing her job.

She'll be remembered very well by history.

[betsuni]

86. +1

[SunSeeker]

46. Let's hope the court agrees this amounts to an officical impeachment inquiry.

If the court thinks it is, despite no official House vote to commence an impeachment inquiry, then we may get those grand jury materials.

Apparently, there are no rules about how to start any impeachment inquiry, so we have that going for us. https://www.huffpost.com/entry/donald-trump-impeachment-house-judiciary-committee_n_5d3b3952e4b0a6d6373f162a

[StarfishSaver]

49. The court doesn't need to believe this is an "official impeachment inquiry"

Last edited Fri Jul 26, 2019, 06:45 PM - Edit history (1)

since that's not the 6(e) standard. It just needs to be a proceeding that could lead to impeachment. They've already pretty well established that - I doubt any court would second guess the committee's characterization of its work, especially since they've spent months demonstrating that to be the case.

[SunSeeker]

62. The court needs to find it is "preliminary to" a "judicial proceeding."

Not calling it an official impeachment inquiry makes that less clear. But, like I said, there appear to be no rules about what it takes to start an impeachment inquiry. Hopefully this "in effect" impeachment inquiry, as Nadler described it, will suffice for the court.

[BumRushDaShow]

67. Here is the Lawrence Tribe tweets (including one with a link to the court filing)

Link to tweet

TEXT
Laurence Tribe
✔
@tribelaw

Here’s the petition formally announcing in DC federal court the impeachment inquiry in which the House is now engaged. No ifs ands or buts. No ambiguity. The eagle has taken flight. https://judiciary.house.gov/sites/democrats.judiciary.house.gov/files/documents/FINAL%20PETITION.pdf …
12.9K
2:25 PM - Jul 26, 2019

Link to tweet

TEXT
Laurence Tribe
✔
@tribelaw

Here’s the definitive legal analysis of whether the House has opened an impeachment inquiry. As @JoshuaMatz8 conclusively shows, it has. And that matters enormously to all that happens next.

Link to tweet

…
Joshua Matz @JoshuaMatz8

My latest in @PostEverything:

"Has the House of Representatives opened an impeachment inquiry? That question is starkly presented by a petition that the House Judiciary Committee filed in federal court on Friday. It is also answered by that petition."https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/2019/07/26/house-has-already-opened-impeachment-proceedings-against-trump/?utm_term=.2b528f43019d …
850
3:10 PM - Jul 26, 2019

The 2nd tweet is regarding the reporter for a WaPo article analyzing the petition here - https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/2019/07/26/house-has-already-opened-impeachment-proceedings-against-trump/?utm_term=.c22c243cc337

[StarfishSaver]

71. Today's pleading leaves no doubt that they've opened in impeachment inquiry

[BumRushDaShow]

73. And specifically pgs 27 - 34 of the court filing discusses it

Just the initial part here -

1.An Investigation Regarding Impeachment Is Preliminary to a “Judicial Proceeding”

In McKeever, the court addressed its prior en banc decision in Haldeman v. Sirica, 501 F.2d 714 (1974), in which the court stated its “general agreement with [Judge Sirica’s] handling” of this Committee’s request for the Watergate grand jury’s report and underlying evidence, and accordingly denied a petition for mandamus. Haldeman, 501 F.2d at 715. In his decision below, Judge Sirica authorized disclosure of the Watergate grand jury’s report and accompanying evidence to this Committee for use in its investigation regarding the potential impeachment of President Nixon. Haldeman, 370 F. Supp. 1219. Judge Sirica discussed Rule 6(e)’s “judicial proceeding” exception, noting that the exception has been applied in instances such as disbarment proceedings and police disciplinary investigations, and observing that “it seems incredible that grand jury matters should lawfully be available” in those contexts “and yet be unavailable to the House of Representatives in a proceeding of so great import as an impeachment investigation.” Id. at 1230; see id. at 1228-29 & nn. 39, 41 (citing Jachimowski v. Conlisk, 490 F.2d 895 (7th Cir. 1973) and Doe v. Rosenberry, 255 F.2d 118, 120 (2d Cir. 1958)). Judge Sirica further noted that “(i)t would be difficult to conceive of a more compelling need than that of this country for an unswervingly fair inquiry based on all the pertinent information.” Id. at 1230.

https://judiciary.house.gov/sites/democrats.judiciary.house.gov/files/documents/FINAL%20PETITION.pdf (PDF file)

[SunSeeker]

77. Looks good. Thanks for posting all that.

Keeping my fingers crossed!

[SunSeeker]

118. You previously said the process for opening an inquiry was a majority vote. Were you wrong?

The process for opening an inquiry begins with a majority vote in committee - usually the Judiciary Committee. If the recommendation passes the committee, it is referred to the floor for a full House vote. The House then votes to approve the initiation of an inquiry. Usually the vote is to authorize the Judiciary Committee to open the inquiry, prescribes the scope and depth of the inquiry, and details the powers and authorities the committee shall have to conduct its investigation.

 https://www.democraticunderground.com/100212146677

[StarfishSaver]

123. No, I wasn't wrong. That is the usual process. But I also said the chairman could open an inquiry

on his own without a House vote.

Although impeachment inquiries can begin at the committee level (and some have in the past), impeachment inquiries usually begin with an impeachment resolution introduced in the House and referred to a committee (usually, but not necessarily the Judiciary Committee). If the committee chairman decides to take up the resolution, the committee will consider the measure and takes a vote. If the recommendation passes the committee by simple majority, it is referred to the floor for a full House vote. The House then votes to approve the initiation of an inquiry. Usually the resolution authorizes the Judiciary Committee to open the inquiry, and, among other things, also prescribes the scope and depth of the inquiry, and details the powers and authorities the committee shall have to conduct its investigation.
https://www.democraticunderground.com/100212150822

Irishxs: Can Nadler open an inquiry on his own?

Starfishsaver: Yes, he can, according to the Congressional Research Service

"Under modern practice, the House Judiciary Committee is charged with investigating any impeachment questions. The committee chair could undertake such an activity either on his or her own, in response to an introduced and referred resolution, or in response to a vote of the full House."

The Role of the House of Representatives in Judicial Impeachment Proceedings: Procedure, Practice, and Data (Updated April 4, 2011), p. 12. https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/R/R41110

There are likely very valid reasons Nadler prefers to defer to the Speaker's wishes, but he does actually have the authority to start an impeachment inquiry on his own, without the Speaker's permission.https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=12170443

[SunSeeker]

134. You didn't say it was the "usual process," you said it was "the process."

So your "Definitions" OP was wrong.

[StarfishSaver]

136. OK

[SunSeeker]

139. You might want to correct that earlier "Definitions" OP, since it is wrong.

By stating a majority vote is "the process" by which an impeachment inquiry is opened, the implication is that is how it must be done.

There appears to be no required process, nor a "usual process." The "usual process" you referred to in your other OP appears to have happened only once, namely in Watergate.

And thank goodness there is no required or usual process for opening an impeachment inquiry, since that is helping us label what happened yesterday the opening of an impeachment inquiry.

[StarfishSaver]

141. I actually did clarify it

In reposting it, I'm taking the liberty of making some clarifying edits and corrections of a couple of errors that members brought to my attention.https://www.democraticunderground.com/100212150822

I'll take your suggestion and provide a link to the subsequent post in the original. But anyone as eager as you to go back to cull through my past OPs should be able to easily find that clarification as well as my several other posts that stated the same thing regardless.

[SunSeeker]

143. No, you didn't. Your May OP is still wrong, why not fix it or delete it?

Adding a link to a "clarification" post is hardly a correction to the OP itself. And your "clarifying" OP is wrong too, to the extent it claims there is a "usual process."

I assure you, I don't spend my time "culling" your old OPs (not that any of them are all that old, since you are relatively new here). I just recall that May OP because you and I went on quite a long back and forth in it, and that OP had many inaccuracies. Yesterday's news demonstrated yet another one of those innacuracies, namely your definition of "the process" for opening an impeachment inquiry.

[StarfishSaver]

146. As a thinking person who knows I'm not infallible, I welcome being corrected when appropriate.

It's too bad that more people don't feel the same way.

Carry on.

[DeminPennswoods]

94. Judiciary HAS a referral on impeachment

that Rep Brad Sherman sponsored earlier this summer.

[SunSeeker]

115. What "referral"? Got a link?

All I could find is that Sherman introduced Articles of Impeachment, which went nowhere because he could only get the support of one other member, Al Green. https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/onpolitics/2017/07/12/rep-brad-sherman-files-articles-of-impeachment-against-president-donald-trump/473495001/

[DeminPennswoods]

116. It's in the WaPo story

linked in a prior thread here: https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/2019/07/26/house-has-already-opened-impeachment-proceedings-against-trump/?utm_term=.ef37b5dafb7d

[SunSeeker]

117. Paywall. And the headline is just about what happened today, not Sherman.

Can't read the story itself because of the WaPo paywall. Since you apparently are able, can you please post an excerpt of the relevant portion of the article?

[DeminPennswoods]

119. Here

But there is more. On Jan. 3, Rep. Brad Sherman (D-Calif.) introduced an impeachment resolution that was immediately referred to the Judiciary Committee. Since then, the committee and Nadler have repeatedly and unequivocally expressed their intent to investigate potential grounds for impeachment.

Try clearing your browser cache then click on the link. If you have ad blocking, might have to temporarily disable it.

[SunSeeker]

120. Thanks. Yes, it's what I thought. It's not a "referral," it's articles of impeachment.

Sherman introduced Articles of Impeachment on January 3. https://abc7.com/politics/rep-sherman-reintroduces-impeachment-articles-against-trump/5009793/

He did it again earlier this month, as I noted above. He only managed to get 1 supporter, Al Green.

Not sure how that helps our argument that we commenced an official impeachment inquiry today.

[StarfishSaver]

125. It's a resolution on Articles of Impeachment that was referred to the Judiciary Committee

It is correctly labeled a "referral."

You should read the petition. It would probably answer a lot of the questions you have.

[SunSeeker]

137. No, it's correctly labeled a Resolution, as it is in your link below.

https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-congress/house-resolution/13?q=%7B%22search%22%3A%22Impeach%22%7D&s=1&r=2

And as your link also says, it was introduced on 1/3/19, and the "action taken" was that it was, on "02/04/2019 Referred to the Subcommittee on the Constitution, Civil Rights, and Civil Liberties." Where it went nowhere, causing Sherman to introduce it again earlier this month.

Which is why I was asking that poster (Deminpennswoods) why that 1/3/19 resolution meant we opened an impeachment inquiry yesterday, as that poster had posited up the thread. The poster did not reference a "petition." I was trying to figure out that poster's reasoning. I didn't have a "lot of questions." I had just one, and it was for Deminpennswoods.

[StarfishSaver]

140. You seem really confused, so let me help you

First, Sherman didn't reintroduce an impeachment resolution this month. He introduced a resolution in January, it was referred to the Judiciary Committee where it is, as the Committee stated in its petition to the court, "under consideration as part of the Committee’s investigation.”

It would seem that if you're going to discuss the Committee's actions related to impeachment, including the request for grand jury materials, you'd be interested in reading the document that explains this all in-depth. You can read it here: https://judiciary.house.gov/sites/democrats.judiciary.house.gov/files/documents/FINAL%20PETITION.pdf

And, Deminpennswoods didn't state that the impeachment inquiry was opened by Sherman's resolution. They correctly stated that the inquiry was authorized last month when the House voted to give authority to the chairs of particular committees, including Judiciary, to go to court to enforce its Article I (impeachment) powers.

[SunSeeker]

142. I'm not "confused." And you're not "helping."

And that us not what DeminPennswoods said.

Here is what DeminPennswoods said:

Judiciary HAS a referral on impeachment

that Rep Brad Sherman sponsored earlier this summer.

https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=12321902

S/he later clarified the "referral" they were referencing was actually Sherman's 1/3/19 Resolution, not Sherman's subsequent articles of impeachment resolution, HR 438, introduced earlier this summer.

[StarfishSaver]

144. WHAT are you talking about?

Sherman did NOT introduce a resolution on articles of impeachment this summer. He introduced such a resolution in January. That was referred to Committee and is still under consideration, as the Committee informed the court.

I'm not sure where you got the notion that HR 438 is an impeachment resolution introduced by Sherman earlier this summer. But it's not.

HR 438 wasn't introduced by Sherman this summer and it's not an impeachment resolution. It's an immigration bill introduced by a Republican last January. https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-congress/house-bill/438?q=%7B%22search%22%3A%5B%22hr+438%22%5D%7D&s=5&r=1

I thought maybe you confused it with HRes 438, so I looked that up. But that wasn't introduced by Sherman this month, and it's not an impeachment resolution either. It's a bill introduced by Rep. Sherrill expressing support for the designation of June 12, 2019, as "Women Veterans Appreciation Day." It was referred to the Oversight Committee. https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-congress/house-resolution/438?q=%7B%22search%22%3A%5B%22hres+438%22%5D%7D&s=6&r=1

You can look up legislation by Member/Senator, topic, bill number and years here: https://www.congress.gov

ON EDIT: I see where your confusion came from. Sherman introduced an impeachment bill HR 438, in July 2017 in the previous Congress. That bill was referred to the Judiciary Committee, which took no action on it and it therefore lapsed at the close of the 115th Congress. He reintroduced a similar bill - HR 13 - on January 3 of this year. The resolution was referred to the Judiciary Committee where it is now under consideration. He has not introduced any subsequent impeachment bills - because it's not necessary since his bill is still pending in the current Congress and will either be acted on or, if not, die in December 2020.

[SunSeeker]

147. It was DeminPennswoods who said Sherman did it "earlier this summer."

https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=12321902
So I did a search for articles of impeachment submitted by Sherman in the summer and HR 438 popped up. However, as I said, DeminPennswoods later indicated s/he was actually referring to Sherman's 1/3/19 articles of impeachment. So I asked DeminPennswoods how that (Sherman's 1/3/19 Resolution) helps our argument that we commenced an official impeachment inquiry yesterday. And that's when you jumped in. But I wanted to know DeminPennswoods' reasoning, not yours.

[StarfishSaver]

148. Please don't blame your misstatements on another poster

Regardless what anyone else said, you repeatedly argued - and even elaborated on - your erroneous claim that "And as your link also says, it was introduced on 1/3/19, and the "action taken" was that it was, on "02/04/2019 Referred to the Subcommittee on the Constitution, Civil Rights, and Civil Liberties." Where it went nowhere, causing Sherman to introduce it again earlier this month" - which you directed to me, not anyone else, so don't complain that I corrected you.

Sometimes it's better to just admit you were wrong and make the correction, rather than doubling down and trying to misdirect.

[SunSeeker]

149. You should take your own advice. nt

[StarfishSaver]

124. H.Res. 13

https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-congress/house-resolution/13?q=%7B%22search%22%3A%22Impeach%22%7D&s=1&r=2

[uponit7771]

66. +1

[Thekaspervote]

48. Kudos to our dem leaders. For those here on DU that were unkind and totally impatient with the

Process... would ya all now please just back off!!

[GeorgeGist]

50. I'm dizzy.

[llmart]

130. And I'm giddy!

Was away from all news yesterday (always a good thing once in awhile to retain my sanity) and woke up this morning to this development.

Yeah, I'm giddy this morning. All the b.s. the mainstream media tried to throw out there about how "Mueller was the Dems worst nightmare, blah, blah, blah" and now Nancy's given them something else to talk about.

Gotta say, I think Nancy Pelosi is one sharp cookie who didn't show her hand.

I'm with her. Let's get this ball rolling and uncover publicly all the shit the Dump's criminal cohorts and family members have been up to. Let everyone see it on a daily basis.

[ffr]

51. I love my democratic party!

Kick some Kremlin ass!!!!

[dawg day]

52. I actually am looking forward to hearing after hearing--

One on all the Trump Towers
One on Jared and UAE/SA
One on Donnie Jr and his meetings
One on Erik Prince and his perjury
....

One a month. Must-see TV.

[Funtatlaguy]

56. If anyone of those people testified publicly , I'd wet myself

[llmart]

127. So would they.

Especially Donnie Jr.

[Funtatlaguy]

132. So true

[Kurt V.]

53. wheels up

[samnsara]

54. this is wonderful. Court orders and hefty fines will be necessary!

[RiverStone]

57. Good news, but....

I'm at a loss why some Democrats still refuse to support an impeachment inquiry? That is, above the 96 yes votes?

Go Jerry!!!

[StarfishSaver]

58. I think they'll come around

I suspect many of them support an inquiry but because of their districts, couldn't go on record to vote for one. But as the inquiry unfolds and more information comes out, it will be easier for them to persuade their constituents that impeachment is necessary.

This was a brilliant move by Pelosi to move the inquiry forward while protecting the more vulnerable and conservative members of her caucus.

[BadgerMom]

59. K & R

Thanks for this!

[Catherine Vincent]

61. I hope so

"Make no mistake about it. Impeachment is in play, y'all."

[coeur_de_lion]

64. Excellent news! Thanks for sharing.

Is the Mango Mussolini melting down on twitter yet?

[warmfeet]

68. I am very, very happy.

We need to fight with every tool we have.

[LiberalFighter]

69. Pelosi and Nadler know what the hell they are doing.

Unlike the damn pundits that only care about making stupid noise.

If there were term limits in Congress this would not have happened. There wouldn't have been anyone in Congress that would know what to do. Which is why I don't support term limits in Congress. I would support term limits for some voters though. Saying that facetiously.

[malaise]

70. K & R

and the Con knows what's going on - I heard him squealing

[ecstatic]

72. Do you have a link? My understanding is it's "defacto,"

which means it doesn't have all the legal benefits of an official impeachment inquiry.

I don't like BS, but at the same time, I doubt we'd even be at this point were it not for the pressure we've put on them to act.

[StarfishSaver]

74. This has all the legal benefits of an official impeachment inquiry

The pleading explains it in depth. https://documentcloud.adobe.com/link/track?uri=urn%3Aaaid%3Ascds%3AUS%3A6ac4ec99-6fb7-46c1-929f-7c5fc2009954

Link to tweet

Link to tweet

[ecstatic]

87. Thank you.

Reading that put a smile on my face. Right now, I feel like we have a shot at justice and that's all I ever wanted with regard to this trainwreck.

[EndGOPPropaganda]

75. This is not what happened. You're preaching complacency.

Pelosi said no impeachment.

If you care about impeachment: call your rep and senators. And tell people. Write letters to editor.

This kind of theorizing about Nadler leads to complacency- to Dems thinking all will be taken care of.
It’s not. We need to fight.

[StarfishSaver]

78. When did pelosi say no impeachment?

I'm not sure where you get that stating facts leads to complacency, but ok.

[mcar]

91. Then what happened? Do tell.

[EndGOPPropaganda]

156. Pelosi doesn't want to impeach.

Link to tweet

[StarfishSaver]

157. That tweet and story didn't age well

[EndGOPPropaganda]

159. In fact, it aged quite well - it was correct. This original post is wrong

https://www.democraticunderground.com/10142347090

The Judiciary Committee is gathering evidence as it weighs whether to recommend impeachment to the Democrat-controlled House of Representatives. Asked about his own personal feelings on impeaching Trump, Nadler was unequivocal.

This is from today.
Nothing is decided. No impeachment inquiry is happening. Don't believe the hype.


Let's all get off our bottoms and call our Reps and Sens. Impeach.

[betsuni]

97. Pelosi said "Impeachment is never off the table."

[SallyHemmings]

81. Just getting stuff done!

[betsuni]

82. K&R

[DeminPennswoods]

95. Yet, the punditry is still talking about how Pelosi

is trying to "hold back" the rising tide for impeachment. The talking heads - yes even the ones on MSNBC - have been yammering for impeachment for weeks. Now that it's here, they're still not happy.

[StarfishSaver]

99. I heard someone actually ask tonight why there was a need to do anymore investigating

Why not just move forward with impeachment.

[Volaris]

101. As soon as that committee has the same thing as the Grand Jury,

Trump is gonna get impeached. Even if he survives the Senate vote, he will lose the election as a result and THEN he can go die in prison.

Closer every day.

[emmaverybo]

102. Nancy is simply the best! NT

[democratisphere]

104. Nancy Pelosi is in charge and don't doubt her for a nanosecond.

Nancy Pelosi knows exactly what she is doing and I have full faith and confidence that she will successfully remove drumpf from office, then put him in prison. She will accomplish this feat with help from her fellow Democrats and the courts.

[lapucelle]

113. Nancy Pelosi will "cut your head off and you won't even know you're bleeding",

according to her film maker daughter Angela.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/nancy-pelosi-will-cut-your-head-off-and-you-wont-even-know-youre-bleeding-daughter-alexandra-pelosi-says/2019/01/02/959ea7da-0ebe-11e9-84fc-d58c33d6c8c7_story.html?noredirect=on&utm_term=.535114e79065

[YOHABLO]

122. She's a smooth operator, makes me want to sing.

[Liberty Belle]

114. A not-yet discussed reason Pelosi may be doing things this way, but an important one:

By starting the hearings in a committee and not yet committing when or if this goes before the full House let alone Senate, where we know it would go down in defeat with Moscow Mitch in charge, she holds open the possibility that should Trump be reelected but Dems take back the Senate, he could be impeached, convicted, and removed from office at the start of his new term.

Winning back the Senate is our MOST important race. Remember, if Dems can just do that, Dems will then have the power to impeach and convict if Trump is still in office, and it could be done swiftly. (How to do this, when Mitch is blocking election security bills, is another matter.)

Impeachment hearings could potentially be going on close to the election, keeping Trump's perfidy in front of voters, but without a vote to actually send impeachment to the Senate until AFTER the election, which also protects Dems in red or swing districts from having to go on record and alienate crossover voters.

If Dems win the presidential election, House Dems could still vote on the full floor for impeachment after the Nov. 2020 election but before the new Senate and President are seated in January 2021, thus in theory giving the wicked Reps the chance to actually convict him just before he leaves office anyway due to losing the election. It's unlikely they would do so, but Dems would go down in history for having done the right thing, and the Rep-controlled Senate would go down in infamy for not doing so. I supposed there's even a snowball's chance in hell that if enough Rep Senators are voted out of office and become lame ducks, a few might even vote to impeach on the way out the door.

Pelosi is a brilliant strategist, and I've seen no discussion of these options, but I suspect it is what she's up to.

[empedocles]

126. The Speaker,et all - and the cognoscienti, have considered and strategized these options. and more.

It seems that the Speaker does not play any more of her cards on the table then she has to.

DU not strong on strategy

Nice post. Thank you.

[llmart]

128. I wonder if secretly the Repubs knew this was coming.

Amash quits the party. My rep, Paul Mitchell announces on the floor that he's not running for reelection stating some mumbo jumbo about the "way things are in this city" or some such nonsense (he probably saw the handwriting on the wall), and then another rep whose name and state I can't remember announces they're not running either.

I hope there are more that may be staying silent, but will jump onboard when more shit hits the fan?

[StarfishSaver]

129. That's certainly possible

Unlike some people on DU, Republicans House Members are well aware of Pelosi's skills and surely don't underestimate her.

And I suspect she's working on some of them - including Amash - behind the scenes.

[llmart]

131. Before I forget...

I personally would like to thank you for your very informative posts on the process. I was around for the Nixon debacle but never really had the time to understand all the legal aspects of the process. Plus, I was a young wife and mother, so a bit busy though I celebrated when he got on that helicopter and left.

I feel like you have a handle on a lot of this.

I've admired Nancy Pelosi for many, many years. THIS is what experience looks like.

[StarfishSaver]

133. Experience definitely makes a difference and she's got it in spades, doesn't she?

Thank you for the kind words. I appreciate it.

[DinahMoeHum]

138. Methinks the TIMING in all this is the key. . .

. . .and understandably this has been the frustration of the Democratic base.

But if Pelosi, Nadler and others time it just right, Trump will be in the thick of this hot mess while he's running. With NO. WAY. OUT.*

*unless he resigns or drops dead from a heart attack or stroke.

[orangecrush]

145. believe it

when it is official.

[bucolic_frolic]

150. We are impeaching

just like Trump solicited Russian help, on the sly, in drips and drabs, in full sight but without fanfare. It is a very appropriate response to his tactics. And if you want to impeach with minimal pushback, do it in midsummer, on a Friday, the public is disengaged, Trump probably thinks it's going nowhere. When it's all in place, it will be prepackaged, ready to roll quickly.

[MaryMagdaline]

151. Good summary

[StarfishSaver]

152. Yes.