View Single Post
Old 10-09-2019, 10:02 AM
Max S. is offline
Join Date: Aug 2017
Location: Florida, USA
Posts: 2,685
Originally Posted by Left Hand of Dorkness View Post
That's as far as I got. Three pages in, and nearly every point is a lie or a pitiful twist of the truth. Is there any page that's not full of lies? Direct me to that one, and I'll read it, but I'll hold you accountable for any claim that it's an honest page.
I continue to respond out of order (I'll get around to the older posts, promise! Doing some research).

I won't vouch for everything on the page but page 4 has two points that I actually agree with. First point, it is claimed that Republican ranking members of the (Intelligence?) committee are not allowed to issue their own subpoenas. I would prefer for the impeachment proceedings to have some semblance of bipartisanship, but if only Democrats are allowed to conduct the inquiry it will appear quite partisan.
In addition, the House has not provided the Committees' Ranking Members with the authority to issue subpoenas. The right of the minority to issue subpoenas-subject to the same rules as the majority-has been the standard, bipartisan practice in all recent resolutions authorizing presidential impeachment inquiries.11 The House's failure to provide co-equal subpoena power in this case ensures that any inquiry will be nothing more than a one-sided effort by House Democrats to gather information favorable to their views and to selectively release it as only they determine. The House's utter disregard for the established procedural safeguards followed in past impeachment inquiries shows that the current proceedings are nothing more than an unconstitutional exercise in political theater.
11 H.R. Res. 581, 105th Cong. (1998); H.R. Res. 803, 93rd Cong. (1974).
Second point, witnesses are allegedly being denied agency lawyers during their testimony. Unlike grand jury hearings, which are normally secret and in some cases hearsay, their testimony will be used publicly for or against the president during the Senate trial. There are also national security and diplomatic concerns if the witnesses are asked sensitive questions (the president's disregard for national security and diplomacy aside). Also, the witnesses testify under penalty of perjury. It would be prudent to allow lawyers to advise the witnesses during their depositions.
Worse, the Committees have broadly threatened that if State Department officials attempt to insist upon the right for the Department to have an agency lawyer present at depositions to protect legitimate Executive Branch confidentiality interests-or apparently if they make any effort to protect those confidentiality interests at all-these officials will have their salaries withheld.13
13 See Letter from Eliot L. Engel, Chairman, House Committee on Foreign Affairs, et al., to John J. Sullivan,Deputy Secretary of State 2-3 (Oct. I, 2019).
The rebuttal at the bottom of page 8 and the top of page 9 is also convincing. In short, the House does have an oversight authority to request the very same documents, but the current requests were clearly made without exercising that authority.

I find the rest of the letter to be unconvincing.