Standing committees of the U. S. House of Representatives or the House as a committee of the whole have the authority to issue subpoenas. Under the rules of the House Intelligence Committee the subpoena must be authorized by a vote of the majority of the committee or the chairman of the committee may issue subpoenas on his or her own authority.
For a Congressional subpoena to be valid three rules were enunciated in Wilkinson v. United States:
- The committee’s investigation of the broad subject must be authorized by its chamber
- The investigation must pursue a “valid legal purpose” and
- The specific inquiries must be pertinent to the subject matter the committee was authorized to investigate
Failure to response to a Congressional subpoena is a misdemeanor.
As may be noted there are some discrepancies between House rules on subpoenas and judicial opinion.
The above are the reasons for my insistence that the House vote to authorize the “impeachment inquiry”. IMO such a vote would place the House and its committees in a substantially stronger position with respect inter alia to subpoenas. Failure to authorize the inquiry may cast doubt on the validity of subpoenas issued the whole House, its committees and subcommittees, and the chairmen of those committees.
I agree completely.
From where I sit the Democrats simply can’t hold that vote. It would come with subpoena power and witness cross examination, and their case would subsequently crumble. And they know it.
Transparency and some notion of due process have no place in their strategy, a purely political strategy. Under darkness of night, with a water carrying media, lies their path. If I am wrong, they wouldn’t be doing what they are doing.
I like Drew’s phrase, “under darkness of night, with a water carrying media, lies their path,†as it poetically describes the Democrats impeachment strategy.
This article from Lawfare pretty well sums up my understanding on impeachment procedures in the House and Senate. The only purpose served by a full House vote is to establish a public record of votes. By House rules individual committees, and their chairs, are already able to issue a subpoena. The House conducting an impeachment is much like a grand jury indictment. There is no right to cross examination.
The trial part of impeachment occurs in the Senate. It is there that the accused has full rights to defend themselves including cross examination.
Your three requirements as set out in Wilkinson are already met, so there is no need for a full House vote. There will be a vote required if they decide to send it to the Senate.
https://www.lawfareblog.com/must-house-vote-authorize-impeachment-inquiry
Steve
My understanding is that without a House vote the party in the minority receives no power to participate in the impeachment proceedings. IOW, they can’t inject testimony that may counter what the majority party is presenting. Such hearings, absent a full House vote, can be strong-armed in any way the majority party chooses. Is that going to be the new accepted norm? If so, then we are heading for something less than a representative form of governing.
It’s all subject to judicial review and I suspect that Giuliani thinks that without a vote of the whole body the court will reject any subpoena issued by a committee chairman.
As I wrote in the post, there are theories being exercised that haven’t been tested.
“I suspect that Giuliani thinks that without a vote of the whole body the court will reject any subpoena issued by a committee chairman.”
Not sure what that is based upon. Neither the Constitution nor the House rules require a House vote. The only thing a House vote accomplishes would be putting Congress people on record. They end up going on record if it comes to a vote anyway.
“My understanding is that without a House vote the party in the minority receives no power to participate in the impeachment proceedings”
Not in the Constitution or in the House rules. If you have a citation saying otherwise please post.
Steve
House rules authorize committee chairmen to issue subpoenas on their own authority when the inquiry itself is authorized by the House. Does that include inquiries authorized only by the Speaker? We do not know. That’s in the citations I’ve already provided.
Spent some time digging around on sites covering the subpoena issue, especially older ones that wouldn’t be affected by the current mess. It looks like a few committees, and I think Intelligence is one of them, that has always been able to issue subpoenas, even without House authorization. Looking at more recent writings it looks like the Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group is empowered to act in lieu of the full House to authorize a subpoena.
Steve