October 3, 2019 2:58 PM
HomePoliticsCollins files amicus brief

Collins files amicus brief

By  Politics  5 Comments

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.

About Author

IrishPat

Patrick Malone is a Business Advisor and Leadership Mentor headquartered in Blairsville, Georgia. He co-hosts Mountain Daybreak and Mountain Mornings, weekday news programs, and hosts This Week in Blairsville a weekend program on WJUL/WJRB. He is a mentor in Union County High School, serves on his church council and writes a monthly column on leadership in the animal healthcare industry.

5 Comments
  1. 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.

  2. 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.

  3. 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

  4. 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.

  5. 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 through resolutions providing blanket investigatory authorities that were agreed to at the start of a Congress or through authorizing resolutions for each impeachment investigation. In two of the three recent cases, the House agreed to separate resolutions to allow committee counsel to take affidavits and depositions.

    So yes, Schiff’s committee would be on firmer ground if the House had passed a resolution creating an impeachment inquiry, but the House’s position on the status of impeachment is what the House’s attorney, filing the brief to the courts, says it is. So I think Collins loses this one.

Add a Comment