Could US House simply appoint Special Investigator by majority vote, circumventing "hold" on Holder?

[zazen]

I don't mean this would actually stop the Senate hold, but if the point is to delay a new Attorney General's investigation into Bush corruption, are there other legislative avenues whereby we can bypass a handful of Republicans continuing to obstruct justice?

I can't find the thread now, but someone here posted recently about their informing Sen. Whitehouse about a statute of limitations that the jerks in the Senate are trying to run out by virtue of keeping the Atty General position vacant for a certain number of months. I don't even understand how the hold can be maintained (is this a filibuster issue too?), but if so, I wonder what ways there are around it.

What does it take to have a special investigator/prosecutor appointed for any one of their crimes? Could it be a simple majority vote coming out of a Senate/House committee and or Senate/House as a whole? Would this still obtain in the absence of an official Attorney General?

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

1. I don't know

but I'm thinking it wouldn't even have to be the whole House that did it--couldn't a committee choose to investigate? I mean, there was the House Un-Amerian Activities Committee that did a lot of investigation in the 50s.

[LiberalFighter]

2. All confirmations are by 2/3 Senate vote - House not involved.

[zazen]

3. Yes, but can a non-cabinet-level Special Investigator be appointed by the House?