Thread by @KDbyProxy

This is arcane stuff, b/c it rarely comes up.

Presumably that aide figured if authorizing subpoenas requires a cmte vote, and the cmte doesn't have the votes to report out judges, then they don't have the votes to authorize subpoenas. Ah, but the subpoena rules are different.

https://twitter.com/sahilkapur/status/1648417549925662721

If Durbin doesn't get this story straightened out (that he could issue subpoenas by getting Feinstein's proxy), should we consider he doesn't really want to investigate Thomas – not b/c he thinks there shouldn't be an investigation, but because _he_ doesn't want to get into it?

FUN FACT: At a meeting of the Senate Judiciary Committee on June 11, 2020, on a motion to authorize the chairman to issue subpoenas, Sen. Whitehouse voted "No" by #proxy.

So that answers that, right?

But also FUN FACT: This official Judiciary Committee record is wrong.

😳

So how do I know that that official Senate Judiciary Committee record of its June 11, 2020 vote to authorize the chairman to issue subpoenas is wrong – and, in particular, wrong* regarding proxy voting?

Because I went to the videotape...

(* – in a good way)

As that video of the meeting shows, on Graham's motion to authorize subpoenas, he cast both Sasse & Hawley's votes by proxy, and he started to cast Tillis' vote by proxy, too, except just then Tillis showed up and voted for himself.

Note: If Tillis hadn't shown up, the vote still would've been 12-10 to authorize subpoenas – b/c *if* only in-person votes counted, w/o Tillis there the tally would've been 9-9, and so Graham's motion would have failed – but it's clear Graham knew proxies were same as live votes.

Under the rules of the Senate and the Judiciary Cmte, if Durbin had a proxy from Feinstein and the votes of the other SJC Dems, he'd have the votes to authorize him to issue subpoenas.

Here's a precedent on counting proxy votes from his own committee…

https://twitter.com/AndrewDesiderio/status/1649080771938865154?s=20

NOTE, as I've said before: Overall, I like Durbin. I've even called him a mensch. Yet there is reason to think his command of the rules is less than one would hope it would be...

https://twitter.com/KDbyProxy/status/1373726366869389323

2020: When Durbin objected that Graham was violating Judiciary Cmte rules to push nominees through, Graham replied he wasn't going to let Dems stand in the way, and in the future if the roles were reversed, he expected Durbin would do the same.

And now the roles are reversed. 🤔

If Durbin wanted to get out of the corner into which he's painted himself (ie, his claim he can't issue subpoenas w/o Feinstein there *in person* for a vote to authorize them) – not that I think he does want to, but should that day arrive – I have an idea for HOW he might do it…

Of course if Feinstein does come back to DC, Durbin could no longer point to the proxy-voting issue as a problem (ie, excuse). But if she doesn't, and if there's (eg) new reporting on gifts to justice(s), resulting in more pressure from other SJC mbrs to start an investigation...

... Durbin might decide to relent. But how, without looking like he just conveniently flip-flopped?

He says, "I asked the Parliamentarian, who of course is the expert on these matters, to take a _new_ look at the Senate's rules and precedents on proxy voting in committees…

"… She _now_ tells me, if a motion is made in the cmte to authorize me, as chairman, to issue subpoenas, the Senate's rules and precedents would allow me to count Sen. Feinstein's proxy vote on that motion. And so…

"... with that _new_ advice from the Senate Parliamentarian – and frankly, it really wasn't clear before now – subpoena-authority will be on the agenda when the committee meets on Thursday."

IOW: "See, [I didn't flip-flop,] I went to the Senate's official expert and asked if there wasn't some way to do this, and she _now_ tells me there is. 😀"