Q&A on the Judiciary Committee's Impeachment Powers

Impeachment activists have been pushing John Conyers to move forward with impeachment in the Judiciary Committee. But it is not clear how much authority Conyers has. So I had a chat with someone in the House Office of the Parliamentarians. They are the ultimate authority on procedures in the House. I have tried to summarize their answers below. Any errors are my own.

Q1: What is the difference between a real impeachment hearing and the hearing on Friday 7/25?

A1: The difference is simply the question before the committee. The question Friday was "Executive Power and Its Constitutional Limitations". It would have been insulting and off-topic (out of order) to suddenly accuse President Bush of a specific crime in that Friday hearing. So the testimony was very circumspect. But if the question before the committee was "Did Bush commit impeachable offense X" then witnesses could simply say "Bush did X".

Conyers currently has the authority to convene a hearing on a specific question of impeachment.


Q2: Why did Conyers refer to needing approval from the House in order to conduct a real impeachment inquiry.

A2: Approval from the House would give the Committee special powers that they do not normally have. These include the power to conduct field investigation and depose witnesses in the field under oath. These transcripts could be submitted as evidence. They would also have a letter from Congress that would make it easier to interview witnesses in foreign countries. These powers would all be handy when impeaching a President and one would expect the Committee to seek those powers if they wanted to impeach. But Conyers has the authority to proceed without those powers. They can currently conduct hearings on impeachment and place witnesses under oath.

[Blogger's opinion: I see an analogy with going fishing. You can go fishing without a pole and I have caught a fish with my bare hands. But if you are serious about catching a fish then you will probably want to use a pole. To impeach Bush for lying about Iraq, or on torture or Plame-gate then Conyers will probably want to do deep investigations and would want the powers that come from House approval. But Conyers does not need special powers to impeach Bush for refusing to comply with subpoenas. In this case the fish are jumping into the boat.]


Q3: Does Conyers need any other approval before drafting Articles of Impeachment and submitting them to the House?

A3: No. The "committee has that authority".


Q4: How can the House vote on individual Articles of Impeachment if they are submitted as a single Resolution.

A4: The House can "divide the question" and vote on it in parts.