Thread by @joshHuder

I do not understand the Pelosi has a constitutional responsibility to impeach argument.

For one, no she doesn't.

Two, it's not her call. The House decides impeachment. The Speaker has powers but the House is arbiter. If 218 members of her caucus were behind an impeachment inquiry, it'd be happening. It's not. She's not holding back a silent majority.

Three. If she currently pushed impeachment, it'd force Democrats to take very uncomfortable political positions. If she forced the vote anyway, at best she'd lose at least a dozen Democrats but likely several more.

Four. This would produce zero pressure on Senate Republicans. Ignoring it would be extremely easy. Therefore, impeachment be an entirely symbolic exercise.

Five. If you think that an entirely symbolic exercise is the "right thing to do," I fear you misunderstand Congress. It almost never does the right thing for principled reasons. It acts on the politically right thing.

Congress lacks innate morality.

Six. A totally symbolic impeachment vote with a dozen-plus Democrats opposed that attracts less than one handful of Republican support equates to roughly the weakest symbol the House could send.

A signal this weak would likely elevate the President's political standing.

Seven. If the argument is, "yes, but an inquiry would produce information." Sure. But the current investigations also produce information. And further, committees now hold several powers that previous congresses didn't without initiating an inquiry. lawfareblog.com/what-powers-do…

So it's not clear that a formal impeachment inquiry substantially boosts the House's ability to gain information it seeks, at least at this current phase of investigation.

Eight. If we argue for more information through an impeachment inquiry then you tacitly admit that it's too early b/c more info is needed before it can happen. It is also a tacit acceptance that the politics have not come around to impeachment yet.

In either case, it is a latent understanding that impeachment is currently a losing issue (not enough votes) and without further information, is a nonstarter.

Which, returning to the original point, makes the premise of the entire argument pretty weak.

And nine, if the politics are premature, the impeachment discussion highlights the political vulnerabilities of initiating an inquiry. Currently, impeachment is politically costly and only marginally beneficial to gathering the information the House currently seeks.

Pelosi won't move for a vote on impeachment until the case is so strong all House Democrats (or 99.5%) are unified on impeachment. She likely won't move for an inquiry until 220, 225 strongly support it.

In sum: Pelosi cannot make decisions by fiat for the House of Representatives. She doesn't have the votes, so it is too early. The House needs more information. The House can get it without a formal inquiry. The House decides its constitutional responsibilities.