Question that goes unasked: WHY?
WHY would the House reach such an agreement?
I'm going to presume this is correct. My point being, that would be a relevant thing to put in the story.
I read a headline like that, my first question is "why?"
I read the whole article, and apparently that question never occurs to the writer? The answer is so obvious to them as to not merit mention?
Now my question is, "Why leave that information out of the story?"
That it expedites the appeal process is in there. Why that's beneficial to the House is not. As written the House agreed to re-block their subpoenas.
As somebody unfamiliar with the intricacies, it would be good to know.
You can follow @JuliusGoat.