House Democrats consider formal floor vote to authorize impeachment inquiry

[Dennis Donovan]

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/trump-impeachment-inquiry/live-blog/trump-impeachment-inquiry-live-updates-latest-news-n1065706/ncrd1066421#liveBlogHeader

Leigh Ann Caldwell and Geoff Bennett

9m ago / 12:54 PM EDT

WASHINGTON — House Democratic leaders are reaching out to members in swing districts to gauge their support for an official vote on the House floor to open an impeachment inquiry, two sources told NBC News.

Leadership is contacting the most vulnerable members first and then will discuss with the larger caucus as early as tonight at their 6:00 pm ET caucus meeting.

House Republicans and the White House have been demanding an official vote to open an inquiry. The White House has said it won't cooperate with Democrats demands until they do.

While this would be a significant development to make the inquiry more official, Democrats have argued that it is not necessary as deemed by the Constitution.

Republicans would like a vote to officially open the inquiry because it could give them more rights, including subpoena power.

</snip>

Interesting...

[Garrett78]

1. Republicans want a vote so as to exploit any divisions that may exist within our caucus.

Fuck 'em.

[rzemanfl]

2. Fuck what the Republicans "would like." n/t

[W_HAMILTON]

3. DON'T DO THIS.

Fucking Trump and his criminal cronies don't give a shit whether or not you take a full vote, they are just using it as an excuse to further delay. Sue his ass for not complying with constitutionally mandated oversight and then save this for a negotiation tactic in that legal case. Trump will use this as his excuse, then we can come back and say, "your Honor, if we take a full vote on the House floor like the president is requesting, will you compel him to turn over all relevant documents and witnesses?" and offer this in exchange. Calling a vote now does absolutely NOTHING other than set a precedent for the White House determining the parameters on which it can be impeached. Fuck that.

[qazplm135]

11. nah can't agree

this is a stalling tactic. Call their bluff.

OK, we held the vote...where's the stuff now?

They will have to make up more BS to keep from cooperating. that helps with the courts, that helps with public opinion.

[W_HAMILTON]

13. Uh, no -- we've seen this story before.

You think they will willingly turn over all requested documents and witnesses just because the Democrats acquiesce to their demands and hold an unnecessary show vote on the House floor? LOL

Like I said, save that one in the quiver for when they try to use it as an argument in court. No need to kowtow to White House demands at this moment when it will accomplish absolutely nothing.

[qazplm135]

15. no, I think they won't which is why you call their bluff

And holding the vote removes another talking point, and every percentage point of public opinion we can draw out is exceedingly important.

[W_HAMILTON]

17. They will just come up with another talking about continue to delay.

Acquiescing to their demands at this point serves absolutely no purpose whatsoever. Take it to the courts and use it as a bargaining chip if need be.

[qazplm135]

18. of course they will

which part of this isn't about what they will do are you not getting?

And it isn't just about the courts, it's about the public.

[W_HAMILTON]

21. The part where you think that this is a good idea.

It's not.

The public doesn't give a damn about whether or not the House takes a show vote to authorize an impeachment inquiry.

Having a show vote right now serves absolutely no purpose whatsoever. This administration will find a new reason to delay, it will come up with new talking points, and whatever nonexistent members of the public you think would be swayed by this show vote will go back to being duly concerned about whatever new reasons they come up with. What don't YOU get about this? There is literally no upside whatsoever to doing this now and taking it away as a potential bargaining chip in a likely court case.

[qazplm135]

23. The public probably does

"give a damn." How much neither you nor I know since we haven't had the vote to see how that might affect things, nor have we seen the admin backtrack after said vote and how THAT might affect things.

But since you are so great at seeing the future, what are the lottery numbers? I could use a little extra money.

There's absolutely potential upside, and zero downside other than pissing you off that we did something they asked for apparently.

[pecosbob]

4. In our minds this would make the proceedings official

In their minds this would only make the proceedings officially partisan.

[Backseat Driver]

5. Definitely not necessary as the House makes its own rules.

I'd rather them continue pressure of testimony and when said Impeachment Inquiry Committee reaches a point of undeniable Articles, a roll call vote of the House confirms the need for the investigation as it continues to move forward with writing up those Articles for presentation required for the process. Speaker Pelosi seemed adamant that she wanted to keep the focus narrow, even though what is learned bears a wide- and years' long corruption within GOP groupies.

I really don't trust that it would make much difference whether or not certain individuals would come forward with or without an oath, but such confirmation would signal that the House is ready to proceed with the haste necessary to prevent more national damage.

[MagickMuffin]

6. Time to blow up the switchboard with phone calls NOT to give in

NEVER GIVE IN TO THE RUSSPUBICONS.

They don't give a hoot about the Rule of Law or the Constitution, or our form of government.

[dalton99a]

7. "Republicans would like a vote to give them subpoena power"

so they can call their expert witnesses

Dr. Sebastian Gorka
Mr. Alex Jones
Mr. Jack Posobiec
Mr. Jacob Wohl
Mr. Jack Burkman

etc.

[gab13by13]

8. There are 2 sides to this,

[bluestarone]

9. I'm against this BUT, (I Don't understand the process)

If they wanted to and if it would help could the house DEMS. stop the vote when they get the numbers they need? That could protect some DEMS? Just wondering this.

[Tommy_Carcetti]

10. Fine with me. We have the votes, and it will only piss off Trump even more.

I know people think we're somehow playing into Trump's demands, but honestly, I don't see how it hurts us.

Trump will just find some other bullshit excuse to try to avoid having his people testify. Let him sputter in the wind.

[qazplm135]

12. it doesn't...Trump doesn't have any hands to play into

this is pure stalling, nothing else.

He's not an evil genius one step ahead of anyone...he can't even dress himself, speak or stand properly.

[StarfishSaver]

14. There's more to it than that

As Speaker, Nancy Pelosi can't just look at the immediate impacts of what the House does, but also must consider the effects of their actions today on the body as a whole in the future.

A vote like this could very well set a new precedent that would unnecessarily and dangerously tie future House Speakers' hands. Future presidents and other executives facing impeachment could point to such a vote as clear evidence that a House vote IS required in order to start impeachment proceedings.

Imagine if, in this situation we're in today, a House vote was required to start impeachment proceedings. The votes weren't there and Pelosi and the committees could never have started the investigations that have helped to spur the impeachment process they're conducting now.

Not only do I think it would be a bad move for the House to let Trump lead it around by the nose - especially since a House vote isn't going to make him a smidgen more likely to cooperate and stop stonewalling - it would also set a very bad precedent.

Of course, Pelosi knows all of this - and much more - and is weighing every angle, up and down. If she does decide to hold a vote, it will be because she's determined that the upside outweighs the down and I'll admit I was wrong. But at this point, based on what I know, I don't think I am.

[MFGsunny]

16. +100,000 n/t

[Dennis Donovan]

20. The stipulation of a House vote disappeared from the WH's written statement regarding compliance

...so no idea why anyone in the House is even considering it, at this point.

[gratuitous]

19. Where did that notion come from, that Republicans could get subpoena power?

Because that's just straight-up bullshit, right there.

[moondust]

22. Dumpy wants names.

So his thugs can target "enemies" and focus on flipping the seats of Dems who don't support impeachment.