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
During the first Clinton administration, many of the Hatch Act restrictions on political activity by the civil service were removed. I don’t remember which ones. I remember squawking about it on a social media forum of the time. Leftwingers defended the action (an executive order?) and no other conservative I know of said a peep. Maybe too busy squawking about gays or welfare or something.
Of course what they’re doing now goes way beyond activities that became legal back then.
It occurs to me that the Republicans are complaining because the Democrats are not following precedent, and those expectations are getting conflated with the expectations of following the rules. Should those be separated out? Or does it weaken the Republicans’ arguments? For example, the rules say that the Vice-Chairman has some of the same authority as the Chairman, such as putting in for subpoenas. But there are no rules (as far as I can tell) about having a vote of the full house for impeachment proceedings. No one ever thought to require that, since it was ludicrous to expect otherwise. To me, this is a dilemma, since basically the Democrats don’t care about rules or precedents; they figure they can do whatever they want because they’re the majority.
Where does the authority for the legislature committee to have the secret session reside? Does this mean that a witness is subject to some punishment if they disclose every question and answer that took place? I know there is a security classification authority that rests with the Executive Branch (POTUS) and there must be laws that authorize that and govern who has authority. What about what Adam Schiff is doing, everything is secret except what he says afterward.
The Bidens, and maybe Kerry, are still in trouble if Barr and Durham ever get things done.
https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2019/10/how_the_hobbs_act_could_sink_joe_biden.html#ixzz61kgDiKkw
Remember, Hunter Biden is a wreck of a man from constant drug use, and Joe himself is too stupid to put together million-dollar bribery schemes.
The man who did is Devon Archer, who snagged his own job on the Burisma board almost immediately after John Kerry’s State Department put in the Poroshenko regime in 2014. Then he brought along his buddy, Hunter Biden, where they both made millions. Archer is a longtime close aid to John Kerry and a business partner with Kerry’s stepson, the billionaire playboy Chris Heinz. It’s also true that Kerry is Joe Biden’s closest Washington friend and ally. No wonder Archer, with such intimate connections to the two men, Kerry and Biden, whom Obama chose to oversee American aid to Ukraine, was on the first plane he could find to Kiev to offer his “services” in 2014.
Archer, by the way, nearly went to prison before, when his conviction for defrauding Indian tribes and pension funds was overturned.
If I were the prosecutor, I would consider giving Archer immunity, whether he asked for it or not, thus denying him the 5th Amendment rights before a grand jury and making him spill the beans.
We all keep waiting for the shoes to drop on these crooks. If they ever do, this might be one.
Republicans should act like they’re in the majority even when they aren’t. That’s what Democrats do. Republicans shouldn’t emulate the Democrats in all things, but they should in that one.
From what I read last week, minority leader Kevin McCarthy is the only GOP Rep. who can force a vote on the floor, on what he used last week to try to get the Dems on record regarding impeachment — something called a “privileged motion” to get a vote on a House resolution (which sought to disapprove the way Pelosi was handling the non-voted “impeachment” matter, and which went down on partisan lines via a motion to table).
Other than that, from what I understand, the Speaker has the sole power to schedule votes of the House. But I am no expert, and have just exhausted my knowledge of House procedural rules.
Rule of law is disintegrating. I wouldn’t be surprised if the President was impeached by procedures which do not adhere strictly to law.
Much depends on Republican resistance or collusion.
There was no “rule” against second hand information, as Sen. Grassley pointed out:
“Grassley, however, said that there are no legal distinctions between first and second-hand knowledge for whistleblowers. “Complaints based on second-hand information should not be rejected out of hand, but they do require additional leg work to get at the facts and evaluate the claim’s credibility,” he wrote. “
But it does not matter as the President has confirmed the content of the call.
This is not jurisprudence. This legislative politics.
Impeachment does not involve law.
I wasn’t aware that McCarthy could force a vote. I sure hope he can and that he does–soon! Thanks, @fritz.
We share the same concern. What is to stop them? Or who? Thanks, @aaronmiller.
Did you ever see the movie Titanic?
After the ship sinks, when Jack and Rose are in the water, one of Jacks first lines is something to the effect of “When this is all over, I’m going to write a very strongly worded letter to the White Star Line.”
It’ll have about the same effect.
There is no “law”. Impeachment is a political process, and recognized so by the founders. They established the Senate as the court for trial for impeachment as the most serious, and, hopefully, less partisan body. And as a political process, it does not involve the Supreme Court. The Chief Justice sits as a judge, but the Senate adopts the rules the judge applies.
All the stuff about Biden and the whistleblower is simply useless rhetoric designed to build a smoke screen. You want rule of law? Ok, by “law” investigations only begin when there is some evidence that a crime has been committed. There is no such evidence relative to Hunter Biden. Do you wish to abandon law and now have the government just start investigating? Wasn’t so much fun when it was the FBI and the Russia collusion thing, was it?
Here is the problem Trump has: he is handing our free ammunition to the democrats, and at some point they must move.
Impeachment is both a legal and political process.
It is established by the Constitution, a legal document which forms the foundation of American law.
Though impeachment by the House only recommends removal from office, the trial by the Senate can effect such removal. Removal from office is a legal action.
The Senate procedure resembles a trial because it is a trial. Its rules are not defined by the President’s political party, but by the legislature. It is a process of law.
If the Constitution’s authors allowed for much leeway in impeachment reasons and proceedings, I expect they would yet be embarassed by the willful and chaotic mess which today threatens, however impotently, to overturn the legal election of the nation’s highest political representative.
…and if people don’t testify, or aren’t allowed to, it’s called “obstruction,” very handy to add to the list of crimes.
Keep remembering that there is NO impeachment resolution in effect. The “subpoenas” are letters with no power to compel. This is a TV show that Democrats are pretending is real. It is NOT.
Why have they not held a vote ? I think their polls are telling them not to.
Technically, that might be true. But, again, Democrats evidently don’t hold rule of law in high regard. Ultimately, law is whatever they can enforce as Republicans assent by inaction. If Democrats attempt to hold someone in contempt for failing to appear, how would Republicans stop the penalty?
We know some federal judges are willing to exceed their authority. When principles fail, force becomes the only barrier to willful action. Power either serves law or bypasses it.
I heard on Rush Limbaugh that some subpoenas have been sent. One or more were sent by Cummings over the week-end when his committee was out of town; he said he couldn’t wait to have them vote on it because it was an emergency. How convenient.
@susanquinn,
I think his power is very limited, not able to move actual legislation to a vote, which is why I think he could offer only a motion for a resolution disapproving the Pelosi approach. It died when the majority voted unanimously to table his effort. Hard to see how he can do much under those rules. Could there be raised a public outcry sufficient to force Pelosi to call for a vote? Doubtful.
@michaelkennedy,
From what I read, there are too many Dems in districts which they’d narrowly won in 2018, and the leadership fears making them take a vote for impeachment could imperil the Dems’ majority in the 2020 congressional election. Better to have kabuki theater and let the media tell the public there is an impeachment happening.
Sorry, @fritz, I skipped over the fact that it was a resolution–which you probably realize doesn’t have the power of law. I wouldn’t hole my breath for a “public outcry” either. Sheesh.
Now you are into the same underhanded techniques employed by the progressive Democrats. You clipped my comment to serve your purpose. I don’t need any information from you in order to understand the impeachment process. Most would get that I was addressing ‘process’ not law. Process is an important feature of the American way that the Left likes to ignore. Sorry you were not up to that level of understanding.
The only way to protect Schiff would be to close down the inquiry. There might be the reason for Pelosi not ending this. Schiff is troublesome and can’t be controlled, but if he steps in it too many times, they might have to remove his chairmanship.
It’s important to remember that they are fake subpoenas. Not enforceable without the House vote.
https://theconservativetreehouse.com/2019/10/07/house-sends-more-carefully-worded-impeachment-demand-letters-not-subpoenas-omb-and-pentagon/
However, you’ll notice in these latest versions they are modifying: (#1) now they actually include attachments that would be “subpoenas”; yet they shift language to ‘subpoena schedules’. Why? Because (#2) the letters and subpoenas omit any penalty for non-compliance. They cannot assign a penalty because the letters do not carry judicial authority.
Obviously Lawfare, instructing Pelosi’s group, realizes the larger American electorate has caught on to the impeachment word games. The “official impeachment inquiry” is all a one-party partisan ruse. Here’s the issue they cannot overcome.
It’s still an “inquiry” and they have no enforcement power.
OK, I’m trying to understand the difference , at least as you see it, between the allegation that Trump did something illegal in his conversation with the President of Ukraine, and Joe Biden’s now public description of what he did to get rid of the Ukrainian prosecutor who was investigating the company that had Hunter Biden as part of its Board of Directors and paid him large sums. Joe Biden was Vice-President when he did that.
Thank you, @michaelkennedy, for continuing to clarify when I’m in error incomplete. I really appreciate it. We are all invested in knowing the facts, as difficult as they might be to uncover. It looks like I need to spend more time on the tree house site!
Trump did nothing “illegal”. What he did was an abuse of power. Legality has nothing to do with the situation.
And many talking heads reference Joe Biden getting this person fired. He did not. Removal of this Ukrainian state prosecutor was the stated goal of multiple western countries as he was seen as connected to the removed regime (the Russian supported one) and a road block to fixing Ukrainian corruption. There was an investigation into the oligarch who controls the company (incorporated in Crete) that owns Bursima, and that investigation was going nowhere. That investigation was later dropped when said oligarch decided to pay his taxes.
This is known. And the republicans who talk about Joe Biden doing something shady know the facts, and know Biden did not get this guy fired to shield his son. Everyone knew that Hunter Biden got his board position because of his name; but that is not in anyway illegal.
His son may be a slime ball, but I am not sure I would turn that down if I had the same chance.
Nice try, @billnelson. You assume that he demonstrated an abuse of power, by connecting ideas separately mentioned in his conversation. It’s an odd coincidence that although other Western countries might have wanted the prosecutor fired, he was fired only six hours after Biden stated his quid pro quo. That was probably coincidental. Or all those Western countries asked him to make a threat. Could you provide a link that the investigation was dropped because he paid his taxes? Do you know those two are related? And “everyone” did not know precisely why he got his position, and if other issues were involved. Or do you have information we don’t. We do agree on one thing–your description of Hunter Biden.
To everyone, I will be offline for 25 hours. Carry on!
One talk show host has taken to calling lies “bullschiff.”
It’s a crying out loud shame that Joe Public doesn’t know all this as he watches the evening news. Machinations and subterfuge taking place behind the scenes are filmworthy. When first introduced to it, I thought that Conservative Tree House was strictly the home of conspiracy wackos, but I have since learned they are a credible source.