Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
Adam Schiff Ties the Hands of Republicans on the Intel Committee
When it comes to the Intel Committee, most people are expressing their dislike and disdain for Adam Schiff, who appears to have no intention of following precedent regarding the committee he rules . . . er, leads. We could spend much time parsing the meaning of the telephone transcript, or Adam Schiff’s inability to tell the truth, but I was glad to see the Republicans call out Schiff’s ignoring the rules of the Intel Committee. He’s been busy ignoring or revising the rules to suit his agenda.
Kevin McCarthy finally called for Nancy Pelosi to stop the impeachment inquiry “until transparent and equitable rules and procedures are established to govern the inquiry as is customary.”
From all appearances, the House Intel Committee and Adam Schiff appear to want to control and dominate proceedings and shut out the Republicans as much as possible. I doubt that the Republicans will be able to have him removed. They do, however, have ways to make his rogue activities more difficult.
The first step was the letter by House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy demanding House Leader Nancy Pelosi answer specific questions:
-
Do you intend to hold a vote of the full House authorizing our impeachment inquiry?
-
Do you intend to involve the full House in each critical step of this inquiry, including defining its scope and establishing its rules and procedures?
-
Do you intend to grant co-equal subpoena power to both the Chair and Ranking Member at the committee level?
-
Do you intend to require that all subpoenas be subject to a vote of the full committee at the request of either the Chair or Ranking Member?
-
Do you intend to provide the President’s counsel the right to attend all hearings and depositions?
-
Do you intend to provide the president’s counsel the right to present evidence?
-
Do you intend to provide the president’s counsel the right to object to the admittance of evidence?
-
Do you intend to provide the president’s counsel the right to cross-examine witnesses?
-
Do you intend to provide the president’s counsel the right to recommend a witness list?
-
Do you intend to refer all findings on impeachment to Chairman Nadler and the Judiciary Committee, as prescribed by Rule X of the Rules of the House, or is Chairman Schiff in charge of leading the inquiry as reported in the press?
It’s no surprise that Nancy Pelosi essentially ignored his demand.
Jim Jordan was angry when Schiff tried to limit who could ask Kurt Volker questions and he also refused to allow the State Department Counsel to participate:
We have never, ever had an occasion where agency counsel was not allowed to participate…. And we’ve never seen a chairman suggest that members aren’t allowed to ask questions.
So, if this is how Mr. Schiff is going to conduct these types of interviews in the future, that’s a concern, as well.
That was not a powerful statement, Mr. Jordan.
While Pelosi shrugs her shoulders and calls for the defense of the nation’s security, though, someone might want to note that Schiff is breaking Intel Committee rules and act to stop him. I found some interesting information about some of the procedures that are clearly being violated. If the Republicans are concerned that only Schiff will be able to authorize subpoenas, they should read this rule:
Subpoenas authorized by the Committee for the attendance of witnesses or the production of memoranda, documents, records, or any other material may be issued by the Chairman, the Vice Chairman, or any member of the Committee designated by the Chairman, and may be served by any person designated by the Chairman, Vice Chairman or member issuing the subpoenas. Each subpoena shall have attached thereto a copy of S. Res. 400 of the 94th Congress, and a copy of these rules. [italics are mine]
It’s clear that Devin Nunes, as Vice-Chairman, not just Schiff, can also authorize subpoenas for information and witnesses.
All committee members should also have access to relevant material, as shown below:
Under direction of the Chairman and the Vice Chairman designated Committee staff members shall brief members of the Committee at a time sufficiently prior to any Committee meeting to assist the Committee members in preparation for such meeting and to determine any matter which the Committee member might wish considered during the meeting. Such briefing shall, at the request of a member, include a list of all pertinent papers and other materials that have been obtained by the Committee that bear on matters to be considered at the meeting. [italics are mine]
Again, Devin Nunes has authority to act in this regard.
Finally, please note the restrictions on changing the committee rules:
These Rules may be modified, amended, or repealed by the Committee, provided that a notice in writing of the proposed change has been given to each member at least 48 hours prior to the meeting at which action thereon is to be taken.
These Rules shall continue and remain in effect from one Congress to the next Congress unless they are changed as provided herein.
Now some of you may say that Adam Schiff will ignore these points if they are raised. In response, I think protests should be raised at the next meeting. Noisy protests. Republicans need to be insistent about maintaining the rules. Of course, if Schiff breaks the rules, he should be sanctioned and that act should be public. He could also try to change the rules, but he will only get them passed with a partisan vote. He may get those votes. But the Republicans should publicize it as if he deserved impeachment!
The Republicans need to get aggressive. The time is now.
Published in Politics
Here’s another question: when exactly did the rules for the ICIG determining a whistleblower complaint no longer required first-hand information?
It appears that the changes were backdated. Why?
Jim Jordan and Kevin McCarthy aren’t on the committee, however.
My question is “how many of them like it?” From the home page of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence:
HPSCI Minority Members
Devin Nunes, Ranking Member
22nd District of California
Mike Conaway
11th District of Texas
Michael Turner
10th District of Ohio
Brad Wenstrup
2nd District of Ohio
Chris Stewart
2nd District of Utah
Rick Crawford
1st District of Arkansas
Elise Stefanik
21st District of New York
Will Hurd
23rd District of Texas
John Ratcliffe
4th District of Texas
Forgive my ignorance – I know Devin Nunes has been the rightosphere’s lead Congressional investigator. Besides him, who are these Republicans – are they ours or the Swamp’s?
Because they run an inefficient conspiracy and overlooked that detail. Lefties can’t do anything by the numbers.
Sounds kinda insidious, doesn’t it….
I know there are 13 Dems and 9 Repubs.
Edit: you can find the members, both parties here
@barfly–But McCarthy is second in the House. My concern is that Devin Nunes or others aren’t being more assertive, rather than just complaining. Nunes is a great guy, but someone needs to light a fire under him!
When I first saw the title of your post, I was convinced Schiff was a pervert up to no good.
After having read the details in your post, I haven’t changed my mind . . .
I ignore anything Adam Schiff says, and I think everyone else (including other members of Congress) should too.
Unless and until a full vote by the House of Representatives on specific articles of impeachment, grandstanding by Adam Schiff is just a publicity stunt.
It may be so, but what if they don’t take a full vote to move forward. What damage will they do in the meantime?
Maybe he needs more support from Republican HPSCI members.
Nunes has fought way over his weight throughout this fight, and most of what success we’ve had is due, critically, to his work. Not solely due to him and his committee of course, but without his investigations we’d have very little to work with and the public perception would be a lot worse. It’d be a different ball game and we’d be losing badly. He’s done his job.
I am a huge Nunes fan. I even posted on him, celebrating his courage. And he either needs to step up or step down.
Frequent reminders to the public (probably by Republican politicians) that Schiff and his fellow Democrats are just making stuff up to avoid doing the actual business of the people. Republicans (and responsible Democrats) should refuse to answer any press questions about impeachment and then launch into their canned speech about the Democrats refusing to engage in what the people might call “governing.”
This is the most frustrating and unfair process to ever come out of the House. One thing about Nancy: she knows how to play hardball.
I’m not seeing that last part, at least not so far. For any paying attention the process is about as much out of line as Pelosi could take it. An ‘impeachment inquiry’ being conducted by the Intelligence Committee? For those observing who have an understanding of the importance of process in American jurisprudence there is a lot to see here. I know this is the legislative branch but when there are subpoenas and testimony under oath similar processes are due. Some talk about getting Adam Schiff under oath but what can be expected when a confirmed liar is under oath?
It’s all so bizarre, @bobthompson and @goldwaterwoman. Actually, I think Nancy is feeling pretty defensive. I don’t think she wanted this process and felt forced into it. She is also supporting Adam Schiff and denied that he had distorted what Trump had said in the phone conversation. She hates Trump; I see her saying the right words to impeach, but her heart doesn’t seem to be in it.
Sundance has a post on this.
https://theconservativetreehouse.com/2019/10/07/house-sends-more-carefully-worded-impeachment-demand-letters-not-subpoenas-omb-and-pentagon/
These “subpoenas” from the committees do not meet the first hurdle. The “impeachment inquiry” was not authorized by its chamber. The chamber for each committee is the full house of representatives. [Again, there are constitutional processes within impeachment.]
KEY POINT – Remember, the Legislative committee intent is to pierce the constitutional firewall that creates a distinct separation of powers; and the Legislative branch is trying to force documents from the Executive branch, overriding executive privilege. This is a constitutional issue.
This level of committee intent is why judicial authority (the full house authorization to grant weight to legal subpoena power) becomes much more important.
The House must vote to authorize the committee investigation, and through that process the committee gains judicial authority. A demand letter only becomes a subpoena, technically meaning: ‘a request for the production of documents with a penalty for non-compliance’, when the committee has judicial authority.
Until there is a House vote majority, this is all theater. I see some Democrats today saying they have enough votes. OK, let’s see. Originally, the Democrats said they would hold a vote to “Make the Republicans go on record.” Notice how that went away?
If you think the Democrats hate Trump, think about how hard they tried to beat Nunes. And they will try again next year with the ballot harvesting methods they used in Orange County,
Thanks so much for this information, @michaelkennedy. But what if they decide to keep moving forward without a full house vote? No one has been able to tell me who will stop them.
The balloting harvesting has to be stopped! I remember the LA Times said in the last election that, well, it could have been misused but there’s no evidence that it was. Really? And who checked that out. I lived in OC, and I am so dejected about what it has become.
All she has to do is get rid of Trump and Pence and she’s president.
Ellisa Slotkin is the freshman Democratic representative of Michigan’s 8th congressional district. Rep. Slotkin recently changed her position to being pro-impeachment. Rep. Slotkin recently had a “townhall” meeting with her constituents — the same constituents that voted for Trump in 2016. Heck, they voted for Romney in 2012.
Oh my.
The daughter of John Dingell, who now occupies his seat in the House, has reported that she was pressured to vote for impeachment by Tom Steyer, the crazy CA billionaire. Probably threatened to fund a primary opponent, which is what he does.
Side note – and Democrats and their PR arm (the media) keep claiming that bowing to special interests is done only by Republicans.
I also find it ironic that moveon.org is heavily involved in pushing the impeachment narrative (while also working to block a public vote), given that moveon.org was founded to push for “moving on” past the impeachment of former President Bill Clinton, and arguing that it was time to stop looking at the past.
Maybe the Republican Intel committee members need to follow the crowd’s example.
According to Legal Insurrection, Whistleblower #2 was one of Whistleblower #1’s sources and has already been interviewed by the IG. So he/she doesn’t know anything new.
We’ve already got the transcript. This is asinine.
“The Republicans need to get aggressive.”
If Republicans knew how to be aggressive there would never have been a Trump.
You should note this piece about Romney 2012.
https://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/2019/10/impeachment-built-trap-obama-created-romney-daniel-greenfield/
I was not a fan of “Front Page” but then the rest of the media got worse.
The politicization of the civil service is a deeply troubling phenomenon. Efforts by members of the civil service to undermine elected officials is a threat to our entire system of representative government.
This problem goes beyond the ‘Deep State’ and has shown up in a wide variety of government agencies. But its appearance in national security agencies is deeply troubling because these agencies have the infrastructure to act as a police state. The existence of national security agencies in a free country is contingent on their subservience to elected officials. Anything else isn’t whistleblowing, it’s a coup.
Obama’s Presidential Policy Directive 19 opened the door by expanding whistleblowing protection to members of the “intelligence community” and other personnel handling classified information.
It was originally directed at Romney when they thought he might win.
The presidential debates were underway and the election was up in the air. In the weeks before PPD19, Mitt Romney had begun to lead in a number of polls. It is striking that PPD19 came out during the exact same period that Romney was leading in as many polls as he ever would in that election.
On October 9, the day before PPD19, even a DailyKos/SEIU poll showed Romney in the lead. After Obama’s disastrous debate performance, his people had to be worried about the possibility of defeat.
The real purpose of PPD19 was to aid Obama loyalists is undermining a Romney administration.
I admit to being at a loss to understand all these twists and turns (as most people, which the press skims over since “impeachment” is the only word used to grab attention and divert from the shadowy realms of irregularities).
Bottom line, if Pelosi and team are playing dirty, but Republicans can’t stop it, can they rather than Dems call for the articles vote she is skirting in the full House without any other “permission”? Make it pass as all-Democrat theatre?. Also if it continues to be carried on in the Intelligence Committee….and there are Republican members who are being silenced, remove its appearance as kosher by boycotting the whole thing?
Intriguing ideas, @eridemus. I don’t know which people are authorized to call for the vote. If the Reps boycotted, I suspect that the Dems would make the Reps look guilty; the Dems are much better at smearing others than the Reps are. Unfortunately the media will be glad to help them. But I’m open to others’ thoughts!