House Republicans are weighing whether to shore up their impeachment inquiry by taking a formal vote on the matter, with Majority Whip Tom Emmer (R-Minn.) telling members in a closed-door meeting Wednesday that they could vote in the coming weeks on a move that could bolster the investigation's legal standing.
GOP members told The Hill that Emmer cited pushback from the White House in making his case for the vote.
Former Speaker Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.) kicked off the impeachment process without a House vote, an action he criticized when then-Speaker Nancy (D-Calif.) similarly delayed taking a formal vote to start an impeachment process against former President Trump.
In a recent letter, the White House blasted the GOP for moving ahead on the inquiry without a vote securing the backing from members, repeatedly referring to the “impeachment inquiry” in quotes and writing that it is “lacking constitutional legitimacy.”
GOP members said Emmer viewed taking a vote as one way to respond to the White House criticism, particularly as the House GOP ramps up complaints that it has not yet received all the information from the administration that it has asked for.
“Sounds like the White House sent over a response to Comer and Jordan about [the] impeachment inquiry that former Speaker McCarthy announced, saying that unless it’s voted on by the whole House that they didn’t consider that it was a valid impeachment inquiry,” one GOP lawmaker told The Hill.
“So this would be the House voting to just simply do what we thought we had done with Speaker McCarthy’s declaration.”
Another source in the room said: “They are taking temperature on a formal vote on an inquiry.”
The vote comes as the impeachment inquiry reaches a more difficult phase as lawmakers work to get interviews with high profile targets, including Hunter Biden, with the president’s son offering to testify in a public setting rather than the closed-door deposition GOP lawmakers have compelled.
“He said that a formal vote might strengthen the legal standing of the House,” another GOP lawmaker told The Hill.
“He was just observing that there has been a legal argument made in the past that a formal vote unlocks some additional legal powers of subpoena and compelling information, that maybe deeming an inquiry does not.”
That was more or less the stance the White House took in a Nov. 17 letter to House Judiciary Chair Jim Jordan (R-Ohio) and House Oversight Chair James Comer (R-Ky.).
“You also claim the mantle of an ‘impeachment inquiry’ knowing full well that the Constitution requires that the full House authorize an impeachment inquiry before a committee may utilize compulsory process pursuant to the impeachment power — a step the Republican House Majority has so far refused to take,” Richard Sauber, special counsel to the president, wrote in the letter.
“In fact, both of you previously supported the position that moving forward with an impeachment inquiry without a vote of the House ‘represents an abuse of power and brings discredit to the House of Representatives.’”
Jordan told reporters “heck yeah” when asked if he would be okay with holding a vote to solidify their probe, but noted that the formal referendum is “not necessary.”
“I think that if we can get a vote, that’s great. It’s not necessary but I don’t think that does anything but help us if we have to go to court,” Jordan said.
Jordan rejected the notion that holding a delayed vote would create the appearance of Republicans moving backwards, noting that the vote to solidify the impeachment inquiry into then-President Trump in 2019 came after Pelosi launched the probe.
Pelosi launched the impeachment inquiry on Sept. 24, while the House voted to approve procedures for an inquiry on Oct. 31.
“Democrats did the same,” Jordan said. “I remember I… was in a deposition in the bunker, in the Intel Committee, with Adam Schiff, Chairman Schiff at the time, and we had to come to the floor. So I was in a deposition on impeachment, in an impeachment proceeding, to come to the floor to vote to open, to have an impeachment inquiry.”
McCarthy, when he launched the impeachment inquiry in September, cited Pelosi’s course of action time and time again when justifying his decision to begin the process without a vote, accusing the California Democrat of changing the precedent.
“I warned her not to do it that way in the process. And that’s what she did; that’s what we did,” McCarthy said.
Rep. Roger Williams (R-Texas) said he would support impeachment if it came to the floor, but he's also warning fellow Republicans of the political risks inherent in such a step.
"He does need to be impeached. We also have to be careful that we don't get so deep into that that we lose sight of 2024," Williams said. "There's a risk in everything you take up here. I mean, you get close to a moment, which is the election, and you've sure got to run your traps correctly. Because the way the nation's divided, one mistake can hurt you."
Rep. Byron Donalds (R-Fla.) downplayed the significance of the discussion on Wednesday, saying no decisions have been made.
"I think it was just brought up for discussion purposes, and I anticipate the Speaker and the leadership team are going to make a decision on which way they want to go," Donalds said. "But as far as I'm concerned, we don't need to vote for an impeachment inquiry, because the only vote that matters on the floor is if you're actually going to impeach or not. And you've seen all of our resolutions. We could bring [those] anytime we want to."
GOP leaders on Wednesday sought to show their impeachment inquiry as advancing, rolling out a new website dedicated to the effort as each of the three chairs of the panels conducting the investigation weighed in on the need to move forward.
But publicly they did not address a coming vote, with House Majority Leader Steve Scalise (R-La.) knocking the White House for failing to turn over all the records they have requested.
“What are they trying to hide at the White House? Why won't the White House fully comply? So we're going to be relentless in continuing to get the facts, all three committees working through this impeachment inquiry to ultimately get the facts out,” he said.
While Emmer’s discussion with members suggested a degree of urgency, Speaker Mike Johnson's (R-La.) remarks sent a contrasting signal.
“The people in charge of this are doing this thoroughly, carefully, methodically. They’re investigating and gathering all the facts. And to do this appropriately and to do it in a manner that upholds our constitutional responsibility requires time. It requires a sound process. You don’t rush something like this,” Johnson said at a party press conference Wednesday.
