Collins files amicus brief

CNN Politics is reporting that Georgia’s 9th District Congressman Doug Collins, the Ranking Member on the House Judiciary Committee, is telling a federal judge that the Democrats’ investigation has no legal basis. In an amicus brief filed with a Federal Judge, Collins cites the absence of a full house vote to authorize an impeachment inquiry.

Collins wrote in part,

Without a proper foundation, the Committee is asking the Court to exercise the extraordinary action of intervening on behalf of one branch against the protected privacy of a group of American citizens, safeguarded by another branch.

5
Leave a Reply

Please Login to comment
5 Comment threads
0 Thread replies
0 Followers
 
Most reacted comment
Hottest comment thread
5 Comment authors
davidmacFreeDuckbethebalancearmanidogDave Bearse Recent comment authors
  Subscribe  
newest oldest
Notify of
Dave Bearse
Dave Bearse

New rules for Collins it seems, go only one way.

It’s a dilemma. Do too good a job and be rewarded by being stranded in a House minority, since anyone Kemp appoints will be a no vote in the Senate.

armanidog
armanidog

The full house voted on proceeding with the impeachment investigation for Nixon and Clinton. It should be the same for this impeachment. Pelosi needs to authorize a roll call vote of the members before proceeding.
I am against Trump and his actions but I would want my representative to vote one way or another.

bethebalance
bethebalance

Gave the brief a quick read, and thought I’d save a step for those interested.
http://cdn.cnn.com/cnn/2019/images/10/03/doug.collins.amicus.pdf

FreeDuck
FreeDuck

For context: the amicus brief was filed in the case where Democrats in the House are seeking grand jury testimony used in the Mueller report. I guess Collins is saying they’re not really in an impeachment inquiry because they didn’t vote on it, even though the Speaker of the House has announced a formal impeachment inquiry. Not sure where the vote requirement comes from.

davidmac
davidmac

Collins’ brief is pretty good, but he doesn’t mention at all the latest CRS report on impeachment. His footnote about the impeachments of Hastings, Claiborne, and judge Nixon indicate that the proceedings began by a letter from the USJC isn’t entirely compelling, when the CRS report says In the three previous instances of judicial impeachments, however, the House did not approve a resolution explicitly authorizing an impeachment inquiry. The Rules of the House since 1975 have granted committees the power to subpoena witnesses and materials, administer oaths, and meet at any time within the United States—powers that were previously granted… Read more »