9

Over the past few days, the U.S. House Judiciary Committee has been meeting to determine the fate of the Articles of Impeachment referred to it by another committee. On Thursday December 12, in particular, the session began at 0900 EST and continued for just over 14 hours to about 2315 EST at which time the chairman, Mr. Nadler, declared a recess until 1000 EST the next day.

In response to this, Mr. Collins, the ranking minority member of the committee, has responded: Nadler's "integrity is gone" and "They have nothing they can offer except the kangaroo court" and "That was the most bush league play I have ever seen in life." (source: NBC news)

To me, a recess after a long and late day, with full intention to resume at an announced time, should be entirely normal and a perfectly reasonable thing to do. I suspect the members of both parties were tired, frustrated, hungry, and maybe a bit loopy after the contentious ordeal of the day. A break and a good night's sleep was appropriate.

What was Collins expecting from Nadler? What was the reason for his objections to the recess?

10

The expectation yesterday was that the Judiciary Committee was going to wrap up the vote that evening. The House Calendar showed no planned events for today, and many members had apparently had other plans. Quoting Doug Collins (ranking Republican member) from two different sources here

Fox News

"Mr. Chairman, there was no consulting with the ranking member on your schedule for tomorrow -- you just blew up schedules for everyone?" Collins asked incredulously. "You chose not to consult the ranking member on a scheduling issue of this magnitude? This is the kangaroo court we're talking about. Not even consult? Not even consult? 10 a.m. tomorrow?"

Mediaite

“We had worked this out tonight to finish up tonight so we have members who have flights, we have members who are getting on trains, we have members who are going home because this was going to finish up tonight,” Collins said, missing an opportunity to cite “automobiles” alongside the trains and planes.

This was all capping off a very contentious day

“We're going to be here a long time tonight. Don't let anybody worry, there are plenty of balls we can go to,” Collins said [Thursday].

| improve this answer | |
  • 4
    So it was really just about losing their long weekend? – divibisan Dec 13 '19 at 17:06
  • 5
    @divibisan Yes and no. Generally speaking, the schedule isn't a partisan thing, so there are informal agreements to when sessions will be held. This isn't just pro-forma stuff, as members tend to schedule around the agreed schedule (i.e. things like flights). As such, some people were probably more than inconvenienced by Nadler suddenly ending the session without a vote, and announcing a Friday session out of the blue. – Machavity Dec 13 '19 at 17:10
  • 3
    Representatives often have events and meetings in their districts that are planned in advance, and important to local people. – Patricia Shanahan Dec 13 '19 at 17:31
  • 4
    @cobaltduck It's believed the move was payback by Democrats for Republicans stalling the vote so it would be held outside a news cycle. – Machavity Dec 13 '19 at 17:38
  • 2
    @Machavity As always, the real answer is in the comments. This is a punishment for continued disruption of what's supposed to be a solemn process, so now they get to do their monkey-business in prime time. – Carduus Dec 13 '19 at 19:10
0

The republican's job is to attack the process at every turn. Thus, any new developments should be attacked ASAP to get official statements into the professional (source-quote-based) media first. It's how the game is being played.

His rhetoric was rather pointed, but that's not to be unexpected given the tenor of other recent statements and the President's framing strategy. Note that there was no factual basis for outrage offered in the "complaint", it was emotional (opinion based) positioning using generic statements. That's the kind of thing you say when you don't like something, but don't have an externally convincing reason why, or an objectionable fact to point out.

| improve this answer | |
  • 1
    I've been mulling over your first sentence for a while. I know that it should not be true, and it is not codified as such in any "job description"- official or unofficial- of a congress-person. But it is totally correct in practice, a sad reality my nation may never be able to fix. – cobaltduck Dec 15 '19 at 0:35

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .