[STARLIT]

Page 3 cont.

Your letter also wrongly claims an equivalence between the procedure applicable to past impeachment inquires and the procedures adopted by H. Res. 660. Past inquiries, however, did not authorize one set of committees to conduct two rounds of hearings with witnesses (one round in secret and another in public) while prohibiting the President from any opportunity to participate. Nor did these past inquires continue to deny those rights to the President even in a THIRD round of hearings before yet another committee, the Judiciary Committee. In other impeachment proceedings, the President's counsel was not excluded from the hearings that took testimony from fact witnesses, nor was the President denied the right of cross examination during those hearings.

It is also demonstrably false for you to claim the procedures provided in H. Res. 660 for the Judiciary Committee's hearings are "consistent with these used by the Committee in the Nixon and Clinton impeachment." First and foremost, nothing in the procedures for those impeachment inquiries permitted the Chairman to deny the President the ability to participate or to deny any other procedural rights as a punishment for asserting Ececutive Branch constitutional privileges. Both Presidents in those proceedings had asserted numerous privileges, but it never even occurred to the Judiciary Committee that offering the President to abandon the longstanding constitutional rights and privileges of Executive Branch. This would cause significant and lasting institutional harm. Second, in both of those proceedings, the minority party had co-equal subpoena authority. Here, by contrast, the ranking member of this Committee cannot force a vote on subpoenas that you choose to issue, but you can force committee votes on the ranking member's subpoenas. All of this is an unprecedented and extremely troubling denial of basic due process that destroys the legitimacy and credibility of your inquiry.

Lastly, what past impeachment proceedings make clear that the Judiciary Committee must hear and assess evidence for itself. In 1998, you pointed out the Committee cannot simply receive a report compiled by another entity and proceed on the basis of that report. That, you explained."would be to say that the rold of this committee of the House is mere transmission belt or rubber stamp." At the time, President Clinton was allowed to call fourteen witnesses. Here, with the hearings before the Committee set to begin a mere five days from the date of your latest letter, it still remains unclear whether the Judiciary Committee actually intends to permit the President or your Republican colleagues to call witnesses at all. In fact, you have not even provided simple notice of the process that will be followed or the schedule for the Judiciary Committee's hearings.

Page 4 cont.

It is too late to cure the profound procedural deficiencies that have tainted this entire inquiry. Nevertheless, if you are serious about conducting a fair process going forward, and in order to protect the rights and privileges of the President, we may consider participating in future Judiciary Committee proceedings if you afford the Administration the ability to do so meaningfully. As you have acknowledged, the House's"power of impeachment...demands a rigorous level of due process," and in the context "due process mean{s}...the right to confront witnesses against you, to call your own witnesses, and to have the assistance of counsel." So far, all of these rights have been violated. Even at the late date, it is not clear whether you will afford the President at least basic, fundamental rights or continue to dent them.

As for the hearing scheduled for December 4, we cannot fairly be expected to participate in a hearing while the witnesses are yet to be named and while it remains unclear whether the Judiciary Committee will afford the President with any semblance of a fair process. Accordingly, under the current circumstances, we do not intend to participate in your Wednesday hearing.

We will respond separately to your letter of November 29 by the deadline you indicated of Friday, December 6. In the meantime, and in order to assess our ability to participate in future proceedings, please let us know at least the following:(i) whether you intend to allow for fact witnesses to be called, including the witnesses requested by HPSCI Ranking Member Nunes on November 9, 2019 (whom Chairman Schiff, without explanation, declined to call) as well as other witnesses we may choose to call; (ii) whether you intend to allow members of the Judiciary Committee and the President's counsel the right to cross examine fact witnesses (including those who have already testified and any others called before the Judiciary Committee); and (iii) whether your Republican colleagues on the Judiciary Committee will be allowed to call witnesses of their choosing. Other procedural protections to which the President would be entitled will depend on the scope and nature of the proceedings that will be held in your Committee. As of yet, however, you have failed to provide this basic information to us. We stand ready to meet with you to discuss a plan for these proceedings at your conveniences. As you know, it is your responsibility as Chairman of the House Judiciary Committee to ensure that due process rights are protected and to conduct a fair and just process.

Page 5 cont.

Thank you for your attention to this matter. Please do not hesitate to contact me if you have any questions.

Sincerely,

Pat A. Cipollone

(Counsel to the President)

cc: The Honorable Doug Collins, Ranking Member

NIKK...as you can see I didn't break up a paragraph and go to the next page. I started the next page after a paragraph. I thought it helped to read better. Again sorry for all the mistakes. Plumber just left. Not through with the job.

[exit82]

Good work, NIKK.

A real labor of love for the Trump Train.

[Rusty0604]

Thanks for all your hard work.

[Jane Long]

Thanks for posting this letter.