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
And you know this how ?
Power is the law.
I also wonder about the veracity of this since it’s currently repeating constantly on the MSM. If we could see one credible source at the time that corroborates the desire for his removal and quotes a few men in power in the western countries, it would go a long way in making us skeptics believe it. Shamefully, the media has all too often reported as fact stories leaked by “insiders” with an agenda. What to believe?
I’d also be interested in any former or current officials of “allied” governments prepared to go on the record as desiring the removal of Prosecutor Shokin.
None of this “unnamed sources” crap.
I assume very few of the general public is following at even a minimum level of detail.
I optimistically hope that they stopped following because they decided the Democrats are just making stuff up.
The same way the Obama administration did when the Republican Congress tried to compel testimony. They ignored it, and the Congress couldn’t do anything about it.
I love the talk from the Dems about the whistleblower. Plans to interview with only Democrats present, identity masked from a secret location with voice and appearance concealed.
Apparently we now have a Star Chamber in the United States.
This allows them to create the story they want. What a joke the legal profession is these days!
On the plus side, it’s self-discrediting.
Only 1 “idea”: asking a foreign government to investigate a US citizen not under investigation in the US.
This is quite different than asking a foreign government for some aide in a political campaign.
I read and have read for some time. When the Ukraine ousted their pro-Russian president, Yanukovych, one problem they needed to solve before getting much western support. All most all of the former Soviet republics had the same problem.
The dismissed prosecutor, Shokin, had a long history of corruption (at one point, 2 of his deputies were caught with stashed of diamonds and jewels). In March 2016 Shokin’s office carried out a raid against one of Ukraine’s leading anti-corruption groups, the Anti-Corruption Action Center (AntAC), claiming that it had misappropriated aid money.
There was well known pressure from both the IMF and the EU to have Shokin removed. His deputy Kasko resigned in Feb. of 2016 citing internal corruption.
Here is a good summary from the Financial Times.
Doesn’t matter. Trump has stated that was he has been accused of was in fact true. It was a “beautiful” call.
I’m not talking about the phone call. I’m talking about the appearance of the Dems holding super-secret hearings with an anonymous witness. It’s a joke.
If this “whistleblower” is so convinced that Trump has committed impeachable acts, come forward and identify themselves. Gutless coward.
So it was bad when Eric Holder with held documents from Fast and Furious, and now it is ok?
Congress has a constitutional duty/obligation to oversee the executive branch. While it is not written directly into the constitution it was the intent of the framers and has been so upheld by the Supreme court. George Mason of Virginia said at the Federal Convention that Members of Congress “are not only Legislators but they possess inquisitorial powers. They must meet frequently to inspect the Conduct of the public offices.”
So, do we now have a King Trump? And I choose that word specifically because the basis for the oversight was the English Parliament same level of oversight over the British monarch. Nixon lost his case at the Supreme court for the Watergate tapes. Trump will lose and his counselors know he will lose.
And what happened to Eric Holder?
Nothing. Turns out the AG is the one who must enforce an such ruling.
I think the approach of the Intelligence Committee under Adam Schiff is not what was in play when Eric Holder was held in contempt. There is a proper way to do this.
Which link goes to a subscription page. Nice evidence. :)
Did not the first time I read it, try this from USA today.
“Without pressure from Joe Biden, European diplomats, the International Monetary Fund and other international organizations, Shokin would not have been fired, said Daria Kaleniuk, co-founder and executive director of the Anti Corruption Action Centre in Kiev.”
Of here, the Independent. This has a lot of the Ukrainian palace intrigue.
Oh USA Today is certainly a reliable source. :)
Another interesting article on the funding of the Anti Corruption Center and one of its founders, George Soros, during the 2016 campaign. Shokin was looking into corruption of this organization but, under US pressure to oust him, was replaced in 2016 by Lukentsko. The entire article may be found here: https://www.rt.com/news/454891-soros-ukraine-ngo-corruption/
“An NGO co-funded by George Soros was spared prosecution in 2016 after the US urged Ukraine to drop a corruption probe targeting the group, the Hill reported, pointing to potential shenanigans during the US presidential election.
Bankrolled by the Obama administration and Hungarian-American billionaire George Soros, the Anti-Corruption Action Centre (AntAC) was under investigation as part of a larger probe by Ukraine’s Prosecutor General’s Office into the misallocation of $4.4 million in US funds to fight corruption in the eastern European country.
As the 2016 presidential race heated up back in the United States, the US Embassy in Kiev gave Ukraine’s Prosecutor General Yuri Lutsenko “a list of people whom we should not prosecute” as part of the probe, the Hill reported. Ultimately, no action was taken against AntAC.”
The Left doesn’t want to interrupt its own business with Soros. . .
If Democrats really want to go down the road to impeachment, they need Republican House members to legitimize the process. They way things have gone so far, with Republicans being excluded from the inquiry, Democrats will probably settle for a partisan process ending with a straight party line vote to impeach. The Senate will then be able dismiss the case against the president as a partisan witch hunt, and the public will back them up on it.
If the Democrats go that way, they will be able to go back to their base and big donors and claim that they have checked the box on impeachment. They will then ask for more money to “take back the Senate” and finish the job in 2020. The Republicans will have the opposite message to their base and donors, “help us hold the line or we may lose the President and the Senate majority.”
Al Green, the crazy Texas Rep, said the truth the other day. “If we don’t impeach him, he will be re-elected.”
I fear the prescience of your post, while at the same time sharing its rather dismal prognostication.
Doesn’t sound very dismal to me. Let me ‘splain. No, there is too much. I will sum up: the Dems overreach and hold a party line vote in the House, the Senate R’s treat the trial seriously, and the vote to dismiss is equally partisan. So what if people get hit up for donations? This happy chain of events, should it happen, is a great chance to keep or expand our Senate majority and gain the House.
Provided the senate dismisses. I have little faith in Congress other than its self serving corruption.
Fair point. There will be some leakers, won’t there? At least we’re rid of Flake and Corker. I’d take 3:1 on Collins. Is there still a Senator Murkowski?
It’s a 2/3 supermajority requirement, so there’s no danger of the Articles actually passing. But the media would play every defector as a Hero.
So true, @rooseveltguck!
AWESOME!!!
Inigo Montoya: You killed my father, prepare to die!