House panel advances resolution outlining impeachment inquiry

A resolution outlining the upcoming public phase of House Democrats’ impeachment inquiry advanced through committee along party lines on Wednesday, setting it up for a critical floor vote on Thursday.

The House Rules Committee advanced the resolution 9-4 after nearly three hours of Republicans unsuccessfully attempting to amend it to give themselves more control over the process.

The resolution establishes a process for the House Intelligence Committee to conduct open hearings, release transcripts of closed-door witness testimony and issue a report on its findings.

The Intelligence panel would eventually hand over the reins of the inquiry to the House Judiciary Committee, which would be tasked with crafting articles of impeachment. 

{mosads}“We’re at the next stage here. The gathering of the evidence is coming to a close. It is now time to present the evidence to the Judiciary Committee and to the American people. And here is the road map,” said Rules Committee Chairman Jim McGovern (D-Mass.). 

Thursday will mark the first floor vote on impeachment since House Democrats launched their impeachment inquiry last month.

Passage of the resolution will come after five weeks of closed-door depositions with witnesses testifying to knowledge of President Trump’s efforts to pressure the Ukrainian government to open investigations into his political rivals, including former Vice President Joe Biden.

Democrats have requested closed-door testimony from at least three more witnesses next week, including former national security adviser John Bolton. But they’re hoping to move to the public phase of the inquiry by mid-November.

In the Intelligence Committee hearings, only Chairman Adam Schiff (D-Calif.), ranking member Devin Nunes (R-Calif.) and committee staff would be able to question witnesses during an initial 90-minute round of questioning. After that, lawmakers on the panel would each get five minutes to ask questions. 

The format is meant to mirror how the closed-door depositions have been conducted, which Democrats argue is more conducive to gathering new information from witnesses than the typical practice of lawmakers alternating five-minute rounds of questioning.  

“The purpose of this was to give professional staff the ability to cross-examine witnesses in a way that makes these hearings less of a circus and more focused on the facts,” McGovern said. 

Rep. Tom Cole (R-Okla.), the top Republican on the House Rules Committee, offered an amendment that was defeated along party lines that would allow members on the Intelligence Committee to ask questions during the extended round. 

“It’s a significant deviation from historical precedent and frankly I think silly to tell a member of Congress that they can yield to an unelected staff member but they can’t yield to another member on the very committee they’re on,” Cole said.

Hearings held by the Judiciary Committee, meanwhile, would offer Trump and his counsel the ability to attend hearings, present evidence, cross-examine witnesses and submit requests for testimony. 

But if Trump refuses to cooperate with the investigative committees’ requests for witnesses and documents, Judiciary Committee Chairman Jerrold Nadler (D-N.Y.) reserves the right to deny requests made by the president or his counsel. 

The resolution would also allow Republicans on the Intelligence and Judiciary committees to request witnesses and documents. But Democrats, as the majority party, would maintain the ability to block those efforts in a manner consistent with past impeachment inquiries.

Cole offered an amendment to grant equal subpoena power to Republicans, but it was rejected along party lines.

“I think there is no reason to break from bipartisan precedent,” said Rep. Jamie Raskin (D-Md.). 

Over the past month, Republicans and the White House have been demanding a formal House floor vote to establish a process for the impeachment inquiry. 

GOP leaders are nonetheless urging their members to vote against the resolution because they don’t think it goes far enough in granting more power to Republicans and ensuring due process for Trump.

The resolution is expected to pass easily with widespread support from Democrats. But at least one vulnerable Democrat in a swing district is expected to vote against the resolution.

Rep. Jeff Van Drew (D-N.J.), a freshman representing a district that Trump carried in 2016, remains reluctant to embrace impeachment.

“It’s going down the impeachment road more. I’ve always said originally I wasn’t for the impeachment hearing, that I thought it should just be an investigation. And I’m still in the same position, so why would I vote for something now that I said I wasn’t going to vote for before?” Van Drew told reporters on Tuesday.

Only five other Democrats — all of whom represent swing districts carried by Trump in 2016 — had declined to officially support the impeachment inquiry up to this week. 

But Reps. Joe Cunningham (D-S.C.) and Jared Golden (D-Maine) both said they would vote for the resolution, framing it as support for making the impeachment inquiry open to the public.

“While I disagreed with the initial decision to open the impeachment inquiry, it is clear that the investigation has confirmed information contained in the whistleblower complaint. For the good of our country and the public’s understanding of the process, this investigation should no longer continue solely in a closed setting,” Golden said in a statement on Wednesday.

Kendra Horn (Okla.) also told an Oklahoma news outlet Wednesday that she would vote for the resolution.

Two other front-line Democrats — Reps. Anthony Brindisi (N.Y.) and and Collin Peterson (Minn.) — have yet to say how they will vote.