Question about a House vote on the impeachment inquiry

Dec 2018
3,312
2,450
Wisconsin
I follow this stuff pretty closely, but there's something I haven't really seen yet.

What is the downside to the House opening up a floor vote for an impeachment inquiry?

When it comes to opening the vote to the floor, I recognize there's no House rule that says they have to, there's no law that says they have to, and there's nothing in the constitution that says they have to. In fact there's not even precedent that says they have to, as the House opened an impeachment inquiry without bringing it to vote.

Is it strictly just a political move to try and shield vulnerable House democrats in swing districts?

I ask because there's an issue Democrats always complain about where there's almost the same standard. When Justice Scalia died, Mitch McConnell simply held the seat open until the next election, even going so far as to say if Clinton won they WOULD push through the Marik Garland nomination.

Now I tend to think that move was a major factor in the increased polarization we see in the country. But if we're being fair, there's no Senate rule that said he had to hold the vote, there's no law that said he had to, and there's nothing in the constitution.
 
Jun 2019
128
58
CA
I follow this stuff pretty closely, but there's something I haven't really seen yet.

What is the downside to the House opening up a floor vote for an impeachment inquiry?

When it comes to opening the vote to the floor, I recognize there's no House rule that says they have to, there's no law that says they have to, and there's nothing in the constitution that says they have to. In fact there's not even precedent that says they have to, as the House opened an impeachment inquiry without bringing it to vote.
In the Johnson, Nixon and Clinton impeachment inquiries, there was a vote to approve the inquiry. I don't think it's too much to ask if you're going to charge the President with crimes, that you should have to stand up and say so for the record.

The downside for the Democrats is probably that Trump wants it to happen, so therefore they don't want to do it. It would also subject those who voted for it (or against it) to taking responsibility for it. It's also possible that they don't really have the votes.
 
Dec 2018
3,312
2,450
Wisconsin
In the Johnson, Nixon and Clinton impeachment inquiries, there was a vote to approve the inquiry. I don't think it's too much to ask if you're going to charge the President with crimes, that you should have to stand up and say so for the record.

The downside for the Democrats is probably that Trump wants it to happen, so therefore they don't want to do it. It would also subject those who voted for it (or against it) to taking responsibility for it. It's also possible that they don't really have the votes.
One point of clarification is it didn’t happen w Johnson. Yes they opened it w a vote for Nixon and Clinton, but not Johnson
 
Jun 2019
128
58
CA
One point of clarification is it didn’t happen w Johnson. Yes they opened it w a vote for Nixon and Clinton, but not Johnson
Yes and no. From the NY Times:

While the whole House voted to start impeachment investigations into Mr. Clinton and Mr. Nixon, whether such a vote was taken in Mr. Johnson’s is more ambiguous. In the second attempt to impeach the 17th president, the full House voted on and approved resolutions authorizing the Committee on Reconstruction to begin a general investigation and to obtain the evidence gathered previously by the Judiciary Committee. But those resolutions did not explicitly authorize a second impeachment inquiry.

So while there may not have been a vote exactly on an impeachment inquiry, at least there was a vote where those who wanted to impeach had to go on record and say so.
 
Jul 2019
7,913
4,777
Georgia
In the Johnson, Nixon and Clinton impeachment inquiries, there was a vote to approve the inquiry. I don't think it's too much to ask if you're going to charge the President with crimes, that you should have to stand up and say so for the record.

The downside for the Democrats is probably that Trump wants it to happen, so therefore they don't want to do it. It would also subject those who voted for it (or against it) to taking responsibility for it. It's also possible that they don't really have the votes.
they definitely have the votes. it's at 228 now I think. Pelosi didn't launch inquiry until she knew she had the votes.
to be fair, she got the votes pretty quickly after the news of the Ukraine call, so it was a combo of the urgency plus having the votes

however, it's not required, and I don't really think they're dying to suit trump's fancy at this point in time,
or cater to Repubs who are simply trying to disrupt

the matter is urgent, and I think the investigation is the focus
there's really no time for anything else. depos are pretty much happening around-the-clock

also, yes, part of it is to protect the Dems who flipped heavy-trump districts in 2018. if you look at the 10 or so Dems who are still "on the fence", those are the ones who are at risk because of their trump districts

trump doesn't really want it to happen either. He's bluffing. Really he'd rather have the reason to complain and claim he's being treated unfairly.
 
  • Like
Reactions: YoursTruly
Jun 2019
128
58
CA
they definitely have the votes. it's at 228 now I think. Pelosi didn't launch inquiry until she knew she had the votes.
to be fair, she got the votes pretty quickly after the news of the Ukraine call, so it was a combo of the urgency plus having the votes

however, it's not required, and I don't really think they're dying to suit trump's fancy at this point in time,
or cater to Repubs who are simply trying to disrupt

the matter is urgent, and I think the investigation is the focus
there's really no time for anything else. depos are pretty much happening around-the-clock

also, yes, part of it is to protect the Dems who flipped heavy-trump districts in 2018. if you look at the 10 or so Dems who are still "on the fence", those are the ones who are at risk because of their trump districts

trump doesn't really want it to happen either. He's bluffing. Really he'd rather have the reason to complain and claim he's being treated unfairly.
The number of votes on a straw poll is one thing, votes for the record are another. If you want to charge someone with a crime, have the courage to stand up and say so for the record.

At any rate there is ample precedent for a formal vote before launching an impeachment inquiry.
 
Jul 2019
7,913
4,777
Georgia
The number of votes on a straw poll is one thing, votes for the record are another. If you want to charge someone with a crime, have the courage to stand up and say so for the record.

At any rate there is ample precedent for a formal vote before launching an impeachment inquiry.
inquiry is not "charging someone with a crime"

inquiry is the investigation, and with both Clinton and Nixon, a SCO was appointed to do the initial investigation

with this case, the House tried to get the DOJ to investigate and they refused, so the House is having to conduct the investigation the DOJ normally would do
 
Mar 2013
10,376
11,272
Middle Tennessee
There's nothing in the constitution requiring a vote and each house sets its own rules. The house can investigate and hold meetings till the cows come home.
 
Jun 2018
6,676
1,557
South Dakota
There's nothing in the constitution requiring a vote and each house sets its own rules. The house can investigate and hold meetings till the cows come home.
Funny how the Libs screamed bloody murder when the Conservatives refused to allow votes in the Senate. No requirement for them there either. .
 
  • Haha
Reactions: se7en
Sep 2019
2,236
876
Here
The only thing a vote would do now is give the other side fodder to bash specific democrats and some republicans for their impeachment support.