Who says a formal impeachment inquiry requires a vote of the full house?
Is it in the Constitution?
See, even if it was, it would not matter one bit. The dems could give a poop about the Constitution. Why would coup plotters care about rules? They are drafting the articles of impeachment as I write this and will have a a formal vote when they return from recess. Not on starting an inquiry, but passing the articles out of the House.
Nan sent her members home to build support. But they wont be able to build actual support. Instead, NaN sent her members home to allow the media to build its faux support with fake polls and the usual aplomb of ten panel news shows of nodding bobble heads. You know, like Russian Collusion and the same polls that had Hillary as a lock.
Given such huge support for impeachment, there will be a short debate when the House returns followed by a quick vote.
My admittedly imperfect understanding is that this is based on House rules:
The House votes as a whole to send a recommendation for impeachment to the relevant committee(s) (I think Judiciary). The committee investigates and has to vote out a recommendation to impeach, with articles and the House then votes on the articles.
The Dims could certainly change the rules, which they can with a majority vote. But, they would have to have the vote to change the rules.
My understanding is the latest charade gives Pelosi control of the committees critical to impeachment (as opposed to the chairmen, like Nadler and Schiff).
Schiffs reading into the Congressional Record, his stupid version of the Trump/Ukraine telephone call......which Schiff called a parody......is reminiscent of banana republic courts.
In Woody Allens Bananas classic courtroom scene, Mellish (Allen) tries to defend himself from a series of incriminating witnesses, including a reigning Miss America and a middle-aged African-American woman claiming to be J. Edgar Hoover in disguise.
One of the witnesses does provide testimony favorable to Mellish, but the court clerk, when asked to read back the testimony, replies with an entirely different, wholly unfavorable rendition.