Posted on 11/22/2019 9:10:32 AM PST by Red Badger
In December 2018, the soon-to-be Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi, was busy making changes in the House rules for the incoming 116th Congress. She was actually setting the stage for her anticipated impeachment of President Trump. At the time, The Conservative Treehouse’s “Sundance” wrote, “Remember when we warned [November 8th, 2018] that a convergence of left-wing groups, activists, DNC donors and specifically the Lawfare team, would align with (and meet) incoming Democrat leadership to construct a road-map for the “resistance” priorities? Well, exactly that planned and coordinated outcome is visible as incoming Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi presents her new rules for the 116th congress.”
It appears there was one House rule Pelosi forgot to change and it may come back to bite them. That would be the “Minority Witness Rule (Clause 2(j)(1) of Rule XI).”
In a letter to Rep. Adam Schiff (D-CA), signed by the Republican members of the House Intelligence Committee, House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R-CA) informs the chairman they are exercising their right to “convene a hearing with witnesses selected by the Minority to testify in the Democrats’ “impeachment inquiry.”” McCarthy writes:
House Rule XI, Clause 1(a)(1)(A) states that “the Rules of the House are the rules of its committees and subcommittees so far as applicable.” House Rule XI, Clause 2(j)(1) provides that “the minority members of the committee shall be entitled, upon request to the chair by a majority of them before the completion of the hearing, to call witnesses selected by the minority to testify…” Notably, this rule was not displaced by H. Res. 660 and, therefore, under House Rule XI, Clause 1(a)(1)(A), it applies to the Democrats’ “impeachment inquiry.”
As the Committee continues to conduct the Democrats’ partisan and one-sided “impeachment inquiry,” there are still important perspectives and serious issues that you have prevented the Committee from examining. We will inform you of the witnesses we intend to call once you have provided a hearing date and time to which we agree. “Your failure to schedule this hearing shall constitute evidence of your denial of fundamental fairness and due process.
Prior to the start of the public phase of the Schiff show, Rep. Devin Nunes (R-CA) submitted a list of witnesses Republicans hoped to call before the committee which included the whistleblower, believed to be Eric Ciaramella, Hunter Biden, former Vice President Joe Biden, former DNC operative and rabid anti-Trumper, Alexandra Chalupa and Fusion GPS researcher Nellie Ohr.
Nunes also requested that Schiff himself testify. Nunes wrote:
As the American public is now aware, in August 2019, you and/or your staff met with or talked to the whistleblower.
Although you publicly claim nothing inappropriate was discussed, the three committees deserve to hear directly from you, the substance and circumstances surrounding any discussions conducted with the whistleblower, and any instructions you issued regarding those discussions. Given that you have reneged on your public commitment to let the committees interview the whistleblower directly, you are the only individual who can provide clarity as to these conversations.
Clearly, Schiff and Pelosi will try to ignore this and, if pushed, will fight tooth and nail to prevent it.
Although this may be a long shot, it is absolutely fair, especially considering that Democrats are trying to remove a duly elected president from office. The American people, by and large, respect fairness. Attempts to obstruct this will be viewed by Republicans and most independents (and maybe even some moderate Democrats) as unjust and devious. We’ll see how this develops.
Chairman Adam Schiff has repeatedly denied fundamental fairness and due process throughout the course of this sham impeachment.
RT if you agree that he should stop blocking important witnesses from testifying. pic.twitter.com/TyFWxpzFwm
— Kevin McCarthy (@GOPLeader) November 21, 2019
If this “rebuttal” day is allowed, I expect something “more newsworthy” to occur that day.
If schitt says no, can the Rs rush this through the courts?
Is it something that courts would address?
If schitt says no, can the Rs rush this through the courts?
No court will get involved on an internal House matter.
Schiff will limit the Republican space to a broom closet and the media won’t show up. So there’s that.
oh
Even if Schiff allowed this, which he won’t, he will not allow the 2 witnesses republicans want and will not issue subpoenas. Hunter Biden and the double secret not allowed to be mentioned whistleblower. Nice try but no “cigar”.
If Hillary can expose classified information, why should Pencilneck be troubled by a little House Rule?
ML/NJ
This is nonsense.
The House passed a specific set of rules for the “investigation” that supersede existing House rules.
McCarthy is just posturing. He knows his “request” will not be honored.
If schitt says no, can the Rs rush this through the courts?>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Yep.
THE SCHIFF HOUSE DUMPSTER FIRE IN 2 MINUTES!
Phony claims of collusion, phone calls, Quid pro quo &, finally, bribery are all Democrat excuses to piss away millions of our dough and waste years they could use to solve REAL problems here! Did I mention that they were also trying to save their worthless asses?
https://www.brighteon.com/071a991d-1127-4564-a44a-0b4e44e785f1
It’s a total debacle.
“Democracy” means the Democrat Party wins.
Demoncrats play hardball. Republicans play by “Roberts Rules of Order”. Until we take the gloves off, we will always lose
One of you is right. One of you is wrong.
Wish I knew which :)
Yeah, but, I’m not so sure these R’s won’t swing and miss.
Never know.
No, House Rules are no business of the courts. Both Houses set their own rules by the Constitution. Separation of powers............
I smell Citronella in the air.
The Supreme Court would not touch this if they tried to get in there, they are not a trial court. However a lower federal court could have trial jurisdiction because of the obvious civil rights violations against president Trump committed by Adam Schiff, as a matter of a quasi judicial hearing involving the personal jeopardy of the present. This would be an administrative law case based on Civil Rights violations.
Yep, they would be able to get into court on the regulation.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.