Rachel Maddow and The Daily Beast have reported on the intelligence committee, saying that someone (a Democratic aide or other Democrat) has claimed they can't send transcripts to Mueller until Republicans name committee members.

But people like David Waldman at Daily Kos (who knows congressional rules well) is confused by this story. Neither Rachel nor the Daily Beast have identified any rule that requires this. And to my knowledge no Democrat has publicly explained why they feel this to be the case.

I mean, I could say that we have no milk--I've made a thorough search of both the laundry room and the litter box and haven't found any. "But," you say, "that's meaningless. You're not looking in the right place." How droll. Perhaps those who can't find the rule limiting the role of a chair when there's no constituted committee aren't looking in the right place.

Until the committees are seated, they don't exist. There is no committee.

That means there is no intelligence committee. There is no committee to vote to authorize the release of transcripts--presumably there is a requirement that actions the committee undertakes actually be done by the committee. If the committee is to issue a subpoena, the subpoena is to be issued by the committee. The committee hasn't met for the first time. Schiff is chair of nothing real, just a paper construct.

This isn't a particular rule. This is a general requirement under every rules of order I've ever seen. In committees, power flows up, not down. The chair may be appointed, but until there's a committee authorizing him to act in the name of the committee, there can be no authorization.

It's not a rule that says, "Chairs can't release transcripts or issue subpoenas unless the Republicans also seat members." It's a general rule saying that committees have to authorize actions done in their name. That's true for any committee. The House intelligence committee is a committee. The House itself is a committee.

I don't have any milk in my desk drawer, either.

any of us.

I want so badly for Speaker Pelosi to find a way around this so that ".. we don't need no stinking quorums.. " comes true.

even though it will hasten his demise.

I would imagine that the House leadership can re-do the rules by majority vote to conduce their business in a way that overcomes any stupid tricks the Republicans try.

Since Dems control the House, Dems get to appoint the majority of the seats on each committee.

And to have a quorum, all they need is to have all the appointed Dems show up for each committee.


Isn't that right?

It's the minimum number of members at a meeting that makes the proceedings valid. Would be defined in the rules.

Most government boards' rules say a quorum is a majority (half plus 1) of the members of the body.
I tried Googling it and found that rules of procedure for the permanent select committee on intelligence in the House sets a quorum to be even lower than that: "For purposes of taking testimony, or receiving evidence, a quorum shall consist of two Committee members, at least one of whom is a member of the Majority."

What is your understanding of what number constitutes a quorum under the House rules?

The HPSCI Rules. There is a webpage here:

https://intelligence.house.gov/about/committee-rules.htm

but it's blank. I know a couple of others here were trying to track down the rules with no sucess.

Other actions have higher quorum requirements.

Taking testimony is just sitting there and listening. What's said is part of the record and can be reviewed later.

It's also pro forma, for the sake of PR.

Did you try Googling it?

There may be other requirements to keep one side from showing up in isolation. The Congress is set up that way in an attempt to respect minority rights. Dunno if that's true for committees.

This is a select committee; they may have different requirements.

Nancy Pelosi to House Minority Leader: "Steiny, old buddy, you have until Friday to appoint some Republicans to Oversight and Intelligence. Otherwise, we'll be voting on a rule change."

"In the event that one party chooses to not appoint anyone within a month then it shall be assumed that the party agrees with any action the committee may make or recommend and grants the committee the power to move forward."

If one party does not assign it's seats within a month the other party is free to take all the empty seats.

but McCarthy has appointed no other members.

Jim Jordan has been appointed ranking minority member of Govt Oversight.

I would guess since both committees have 1 appointed GOP member, they could probably go ahead and get started.