WASHINGTON The House Judiciary Committee on Thursday advanced a resolution that some Democrats say amounts to opening an impeachment inquiry while others say it means nothing.

On a 24-17 party-line vote, the committee approved the resolution, which has a stated purpose of determining whether to recommend articles of impeachment.

That may sound like the beginning of an impeachment inquiry, but Democratic leadership has been all over the place in describing the significance of this vote.

Majority Whip Steny Hoyer (D-Md.) told reporters Wednesday he didnt believe the House was conducting an impeachment inquiry and then promptly backtracked that statement later in the day.

In impeachment, what you imply is the consideration of an impeachment resolution and a vote on the resolution, Hoyer told reporters. Thats not currently before the committee.

But then, Hoyers office sent an email trying to clarify his remarks, arguing that the No. 2 Democrat didnt actually understand the question. I thought the question was in regards to whether the full House is actively considering articles of impeachment, which we are not at this time, Hoyer said in a statement that did little to actually clarify what this resolution is.

Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) has also downplayed the resolution, telling reporters Monday that the vote was a continuation of what we have been doing. Asked Thursday to clarify whether Democrats have taken a new step toward impeachment, Pelosi demurred. Theres nothing different from one day to the next, she said. Were still on our same path.

Numerous Democrats have taken positions ranging from an insistence that the House is already in an impeachment inquiry posture to the belief that this vote changes nothing.

Some call this process an impeachment inquiry. Some call it an impeachment investigation, Judiciary Chairman Jerry Nadler (D-N.Y.) said before Thursdays vote. There is no legal difference between these terms, and I no longer care to argue about the nomenclature.

House Democrats who favor impeachment said they supported the committee. The Congressional Progressive Caucus, a bloc of nearly 100 progressive Democrats, endorsed the committees resolution, despite the procedural confusion.

I couldnt clarify that for you for my life, former CPC co-chair Raul Grijalva (D-Ariz.) said when asked if the committee vote represented an escalation or just a continuation of previous oversight work. I think Ill bite my tongue on that one.

Judiciary member Rep. Jamie Raskin (D-Md.), a former professor of constitutional law, rejected the idea that Democratic leaders were deliberately creating confusion in order to simultaneously placate members who want to pursue impeachment and members who dont.

Thats the one charge I reject out of hand, Raskin said. I do not believe that for one second. I think the leadership of our caucus is absolutely committed to countering the lawlessness of the administration. And I think that everyone is serious about trying to determine whether this president has committed and is committing high crimes and misdemeanors.

Raskin said the confusion results from the Constitution itself, not politics.

The Constitution doesnt tell us what leads up to articles of impeachment, and what leads up to the House impeaching the president or the Senate trying the president, Raskin said.