Comparing Nancy's "Rules" Resolution To Prior Impeachment Inquiry Authorization

Nancy's rules she released today are much different than in the past. The opening statement is very similar, here is the one from today:

Directing certain committees to continue their ongoing investigations as part of the existing House of Representatives inquiry into whether sufficient grounds exist for the House of Representatives to exercise its Constitutional power to impeach Donald John Trump, President of the United States of America, and for other purposes.

Here is the one from bill clinton's impeachment:

That the Committee on the Judiciary, acting as a whole or by any subcommittee thereof appointed by the chairman for the purposes hereof and in accordance with the rules of the committee, is authorized and directed to investigate fully and completely whether sufficient grounds exist for the House of Representatives to exercise its constitutional power to impeach William Jefferson Clinton, President of the United States of America. The committee shall report to the House of Representatives such resolutions, articles of impeachment, or other recommendations as it deems proper.

Not much difference there. There is only one glaring difference and that's nacny's use of multiple committee's rather than the Judiciary committee.

But moving on, the differences become apparent. In nancy's only the chairman and ranking member can subpoena witnesses, and the ranking member (republican) must have the approval of the chairman (democrat). That was not the case in clinton's inquiry. According to clinton's both the ranking member and the chairman had to act in concert. One could not subpoena without the other. This one it's a one way street, in favor of democrats only.

Here's the text from nancy's:

(4)(A) The ranking minority member of the Permanent Select Committee is authorized, with the concurrence of the chair, to require, as deemed necessary to the investigation (i) by subpoena or otherwise—

Here's the text from clinton's:

Sec. 2. (a) For the purpose of making such investigation, the committee is authorized to require-- (1) by subpoena or otherwise--

Such authority of the committee may be exercised--
(1) by the chairman and the ranking minority member acting jointly,
or, if either declines to act, by the other acting alone, except that in
the event either so declines, either shall have the right to refer to
the committee for decision the question whether such authority shall be
so exercised and the committee shall be convened promptly to render that
decision

So she's stripping republicans of veto power over the democrats but giving democrats the veto power over republicans. But she has another trick up her sleeve, she doesn't want to be accused of putting them at the mercy of nadler and schiff, so she put in a section saying the ranking member could appeal the chairman's declination to the rest of the committee (which is majority democrat).

Here's the relevant text:

In the case that the chair declines to con-cur in a proposed action of the ranking minority member pursuant to subparagraph (A), the ranking minority member shall have the right to refer to the committee for decision the question whether such authority shall be so exercised and the chair shall convene the committee promptly to render that decision, subject to the notice procedures for a committee meeting under clause 2(g)(3)(A) and (B) of 22 rule XI.

Almost seems fair until you realize that dems NEVER break ranks, especially on something like this. If for some reason they did, they'd likely be removed from their post on the committee.

Clinton's impeachment inquiry rules also allowed subcommittee's to issue subpoena's. Nacny has declined to include that in hers.

The next big difference is that Nancy is having a bunch of committee's put together reports and give those to the judiciary committee.
Here's the relevant text:

he Permanent Select Committee is directed to issue a report setting forth its findings and any recommendations and appending any information and materials the Permanent Select Committee may deem appropriate with respect to the investigation described in the first section of this resolution. The chair shall transmit such report and appendices, along with any supplemental, minority, additional, or dissenting views filed pursuant to clause 2(l) of rule XI, to the Committee on the Judiciary and make such report publicly available in electronic form...

I would speculate that this report has already been written. But that's all that is, speculation.

So, TL;DR version:
It's very similar to prior authorizations except:
1) There are multiple committee's authorized
2) The chair has veto authority over the ranking member's subpoena's but not the other way around.
3) The non-judiciary committee's will author a report of their findings and give it to the judiciary. (Why?)
The reason I ask why, is I don't understand the point of having multiple committee's handle this when one would do and it would do away with the need for reports. I have my suspicions, but I'll save those for the comments.

a reply to: Dfairlite

She's in over her head. This guy has a massive amount of support. More than Bill and the charges are even weaker than his impeachment.

His impeachment made him stronger. The writing is on the wall. Go for it and it's a death sentence. The dude has flaws but they are acceptable flaws and less than what has already been done to him and his family. But please proceed. I want to see what falling on one's own sword looks like real time.

a reply to: Dfairlite

The Judiciary Committee will get all the other committee reports when their investigations are done, just like the Judicial Committee got Ken Star's report, when he was done.

Then the Judicial Committee with take the reports and write Articles of Impeachment, that the entire house will vote on. Just like with Clinton!

a reply to: Sookiechacha

The Starr Report, officially the Referral from Independent Counsel Kenneth W. Starr in Conformity with the Requirement of Title 28, United States Code, Section 595(c), is a United States federal government report by Independent Counsel Ken Starr concerning his investigation of President Bill Clinton. Delivered to the United States Congress on September 9, 1998, the allegations in the report led to the impeachment of Bill Clinton and the five-year suspension of Clinton's law license.

en.wikipedia.org...

Sure. A report from an external source is equivalent to a partisan hatchet job.

Sadly you refuse to look at history.

I hope you will accept the results from impeachment, however the winds will blow.

a reply to: Dfairlite

Alright, so my speculation for why nancy wants reports sent to the judiciary committee rather than just having the judiciary committee do all of the work:

It's really pretty simple. The dems can filter information they don't like, out. So the official record from the judiciary will only contain pro impeachment testimony. They won't have to consider the full testimony in the judiciary committee because it won't be given to them. This gives them greater control over the narrative.

See, one thing I left out of the OP (because it was completely unprecedented in the other authorization and it took me a minute to realize why) is that the non-judiciary committee probes will not allow the president's counsel to attend, question, or be in any way involved. I wouldn't be surprised if they're shut out of that testimony completely, including transcripts. But when it goes to the judiciary then the president's counsel may attend and ask questions. This makes certain witnesses unable to be challenged. So they can get them to say whatever they want with little to no cross examination.

Let's be honest what this whole thing is about; the narrative. They know impeachment is DOA in the senate, so the purpose of this charade is the narrative. That's why they want to limit who republicans can subpoena, that's why they want to limit what gets presented in the judiciary committee. That's why they aren't interested in cross examination by the presidents counsel.

So, if you're a pro-impeachment democrat, this thing should make you sick as it's designed to fail. If they really wanted to remove trump, the best way to do that would be to build a rock solid case. That can only be done through full cross examination and actually getting to the truth. These rules make it clear, the truth is not the end game, the narrative is.

a reply to: Sookiechacha

^^^^ See my above post. ^^^^

a reply to: Dfairlite

Absolutely.

This is for show and tell for the 2020 elections to their seats in the House and Senate. The message is that Trump got away with it because there were not enough Democrats to stop him. Elect more of us. If by some miracle they impeached and removed Trump, big campaign win. But losing this rigged game is the best they can hope for. It leaves a boogeymen to fight against.

Question is, how much longer will this go on until some militia marches into DC and takes the Capitol and has a regiment perform a drumhead tribunal in the rotunda due to there being no other form of law in DC?

TL;DR - It's the same but different.

/thread

a reply to: Gryphon66

TL;DR

a reply to: Dfairlite

So the official record from the judiciary will only contain pro impeachment testimony.

Well of course.

That's how prosecution works.

a reply to: grey580

They're not prosecuting anyone. They're gathering evidence and testimony.

a reply to: Dfairlite

Exactly.

a reply to: grey580

So before you decide to prosecute someone you usually gather all the evidence and decide whether it warrants prosecution.

a reply to: Dfairlite

That's usually how that works.

originally posted by: Stupidsecrets
and the charges are even weaker than his impeachment.

Weaker? They are non-existent. Bill committed actual crimes and misdemeanors (perjury, abuse of power over a subordinate).

Trump has done nothing wrong - except win an election he wasn't supposed to win.

originally posted by: grey580
"So the official record from the judiciary will only contain pro impeachment testimony."

Well of course.

That's how prosecution works.

Not even close. Never heard of the Brady rule, eh?

a reply to: Sookiechacha

Both Democrats and Republicans can subpoena, just like with Clinton! Oh wait .. not they can't, only Democrats can. No one but Democrats have any say in this, can you show me one party having full power and no one else having any power in other impeachments?

a reply to: Gryphon66

TL;DR .. it's not the same, it's different.

a reply to: OccamsRazor04

Only committee chairs can issue subpoenas, not individual members, after a committee vote. Dem's hold the house, so they chair the committees.

a reply to: tanstaafl

If it's exculpatory. They ahve to share it.