With a vote to formalize Congress’ impeachment inquiry into President Donald Trump scheduled for Thursday, Galveston County’s congressman appears to be a likely “no” vote against moving the process forward.

U.S. Rep. Randy Weber, a Republican from Friendswood, on Wednesday shared a batch of talking points from the Republican Party, the White House and party leaders, criticizing the impeachment process ahead of Thursday’s vote.

John Wayne Ferguson: 409-683-5226; john.ferguson@galvnews.com or on Twitter @johnwferguson.

Recommended for you

(29) comments

Diane Turski

No surprise that all Comrade Randy Weber does is parrot his leaders' talking points - all of which are incorrect! The impeachment process is legal and appropriate. And, the Republicans who are on the committees involved in the initial process have been present and involved in that process. No one has been excluded who has a legal right to be there. The Republican strategy is that if you can't attack the damning evidence, attack the process and the witnesses. So pathetic! Vote Weber OUT!!!

Carlos Ponce

"The impeachment process is legal and appropriate." Take the time to compare the impeachment inquiry guidelines passed today to those passed by Republicans in the impeachment of Bill Clinton. Clearly a Democrat "Star-Chamber"- "characterized by secrecy and often being irresponsibly arbitrary and oppressive". The rules passed today resemble a "Soviet-style investigation".

"The Republican strategy is that if you can't attack the damning evidence.." WHAT EVIDENCE? No transcripts have been released just a Schiff load of leaks.

Bailey Jones

Here's the text of the house rules for the impeachment inquiry adopted today. If you read them you'll be able to determine for yourself whether you think the process will be fair, or not. https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-congress/house-resolution/660/text

Jim Forsythe

"The Republican strategy is that if you can't attack the damning evidence.." WHAT EVIDENCE? This is what will be found out, what is true and what is not. The House will be determining if enough, to send it t the Senate. What has the House done that is illegal? They have followed what the Constitution says.

Does the following sound anything like Trump? All they need to do is change the name from Andrew Johnson to Trump, and they would have two articles for impeachment!

"Two of the articles against President Andrew Johnson were based on rude speech that reflected badly on the office: President Johnson had made "harangues" criticizing the Congress and questioning its legislative authority, refusing to follow laws, and diverting funds allocated in an army appropriations act, each of which brought the presidency "into contempt, ridicule, and disgrace".

Carlos said "Take the time to compare the impeachment inquiry guidelines passed today to those passed by Republicans in the impeachment of Bill Clinton." Here is what you asked for.

In the case of Nixon, there had been months of hearings in the Senate and a grand-jury investigation by a special prosecutor. The House Judiciary Committee then worked on “preliminary” impeachment work for three months before formally adopting a resolution to conduct an inquiry, with funding also approved about three months before the formal start.

Fri, 25 Oct 2019 Not every impeachment process unfolds in the same way. There is nothing in the Constitution that requires that the House first vote to authorize an impeachment inquiry before information on possible offenses is collected.

The House Intelligence Committee is still gathering the facts and collecting witness testimony. Rep. Adam B. Schiff (D-Calif.) has said he will release transcripts of the interviews and then hold public hearings, which sounds a lot like the Senate Watergate hearings.

Carlos calls it a "Soviet-style investigation" It’s unclear how exactly impeaching a president, which is a power afforded solely to the House by the U.S. Constitution, compares to the single-party socialist republic of the former Soviet Union, with its history of violent changes in leadership and political purges.

Few Republicans have actually addressed the substance of Trump’s efforts to get dirt on a political rival from a foreign government, choosing instead to argue about the process.

Carlos Ponce

Everything we have heard is made up by Schiff. No truth here, just propaganda trying to get Trump's real.approval numbers down.

Jim Forsythe

What has Schiff made up? Did he makeup that Trump called Ukraine?

Did Schiff make this up? This summer, OMB delayed the provision of a second shipment of Javelin anti-tank missiles to Ukraine. An Intelligence Community whistleblower pointed to the Trump administration’s decision to temporarily hold up the weapons as a source of concern about alleged efforts to extort Ukraine. Democrats responded by opening an impeachment inquiry.

Did Schiff make this up? During a press briefing on Oct. 17, Mulvaney himself admitted to using the support money to pressure Ukraine to open an investigation into the company Hunter Biden was linked to and theories that Kyiv meddled in the 2016 election. Those things, said Mulvaney, were “why we held up the money.”

Did Schiff make this up? MR. MULVANEY: It’s quid pro — those are the terms that you use. I mean, go look at what Gordon Sondland said today in his testimony — was that I think, in his opening statement, he said something along the lines of they were trying to get the deliverable. And the deliverable was a statement by the Ukraine about how they were going to deal with corruption. Okay? Go read his testimony if you haven’t already.

And what he says is — and he’s right — that’s absolutely ordinary course of business. This is — this is what you do when you have someone come to the White House, when you either arrange a visit for the President, you have a phone call with the President, a lot of times we use that as the opportunity to get them to make a statement of their policy or to announce something that they’re going to do. It’s one of the reasons we then — you can sort of announce that at the — on the phone call or at the meeting. This is the ordinary course of foreign policy.

Carlos Ponce

"What has Schiff made up?" To begin with he has stated he had seen proof of Trump's collusion with the Russians - a false narrative often repeated by the Liberals even after disproven by the Mueller report.

"What has Schiff made up?" That entire false diatribe about the conversation Trump had with the Ukrainian president. Even after he tried to pass off his lie before Congress, the nation, the world as a "parody" Speaker Pelosi and other Liberals said it was an accurate portrayal of the conversation. Only idiots think there was a "quid pro quo" in the conversation. Those involved, Trump and Zelenskyy said there was not. The Justice Department said there was not. Yet Schiff and others used it as the basis for the so called Impeachment Hearings.

Mulvaney said "Once again, the media has decided to misconstrue my comments to advance a biased and political witch hunt against President Trump. Let me be clear, there was absolutely no quid pro quo between Ukrainian military aid and any investigation into the 2016 election." Yet we have Jim Forsythe stating that that he said there was. " "That's not what I said. That's what people said that I said," Mulvaney said. "Can I see how people took that the wrong way? Absolutely. But I never said there was a quid pro quo, because there isn't." Liberals read between the lines and came with that conclusion.

Jim posts: "Did Schiff make this up? MR. MULVANEY: It’s quid pro —" YES!!!!!! He made it up!!!! (or Jim did) READ THE TRANSCRIPT JIM. He never said "It's quid pro". If Schiff said Mulvaney did then it's a lie.The term was used by REPORTERS, NOT MULVANEY.

http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/1910/17/crn.01.html

REPORTER: You just said you were involved in the process in which the money being held up temporarily, you named three issues for that in the country, whether or not the country, they were assisting with an ongoing investigation. How is that not an establishment of an exchange, of a quid pro quo?

MULVANEY: Those are the terms that you used. I mean, go look at what Gordon Sondland said today in his testimony, was that I think in his opening statement, he said something along the lines of they were trying to get the deliverable. And the deliverable was a statement by Ukraine about how they were going to deal with corruption, okay. Go read his testimony if you haven't already.

The REPORTER said "quid pro quo", not Mulvaney!

Where's the transcripts of the hearings? Schiff has the power to release them but he will not. Why? Because they don't match up with what he leaks to the press. ADAM SCHIFF IS A LIAR!!!!!

Carlos Ponce

Addendum: In another transcript Mulvaney repeats the reporter's words "It's quid pro-"

Reporter 6 (F): (34:03)

You just said you were involved in the process in which the money being held up temporarily, you named three issues for that for corruption in the country, whether or not the country… they were assisting with an ongoing investigation of corruption. How is that not an establishment of an exchange of a quid pro quo? You just see what-

Mick Mulvaney: (34:20)

It’s quid pro… Those are terms-

Reporter 6 (F): (34:22)

He’s acknowledging this and then-

Mick Mulvaney: (34:23)

Those are the terms that you use. Go look at what Gordon Sondlund said today in his testimony.......

https://www.rev.com/blog/mick-mulvaney-briefing-transcript-get-over-it-regarding-ukraine-quid-pro-quo

Without the reporter's previous statement, it's out of context. A tool often used by Liberals to mislead.

Jim Forsythe

The House needs to determine what, if anything, Ukraine did in response to Trump’s requests. It also needs a full accounting of Giuliani’s odd actions on behalf of his client.

"It's quid pro-" is now coming from more and more Republicans.

Sen. John Neely Kennedy (R-La.) argued that there may have been a quid pro quo but said that the U.S. government often attaches conditions to foreign aid and that nothing was amiss in Trump’s doing so in the case of aid to Ukraine, these individuals said.

Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Tex.), who ran against Trump in 2016, said a quid pro quo is not illegal unless there is “corrupt intent” and echoed Kennedy’s argument that such conditions are a tool of foreign policy.

Sen. Kevin Cramer (R-N.D.) “We’ve done quid pro quos a lot of times,” he said. “... The question isn’t whether it was quid pro quo; the question is: Was it corruption?”

Sen. Susan Collins (Maine), said it was “completely inappropriate” for Trump to invite China to investigate Joe Biden, which the president did after the Ukraine controversy began

Sen. John Neely Kennedy (R-La.) argued that there may have been a quid pro quo but said that the U.S. government often attaches conditions to foreign aid and that nothing was amiss in Trump’s doing so in the case of aid to Ukraine

Carlos Ponce

"The House needs to determine what, if anything, Ukraine did in response to Trump’s requests."

The House needs to determine Ukraine's role in intervention in the 2016 Presidential election which Politico wrote "Ukrainian government officials tried to help Hillary Clinton and undermine Trump by publicly questioning his fitness for office. They also disseminated documents implicating a top Trump aide in corruption and suggested they were investigating the matter, only to back away after the election. And they helped Clinton’s allies research damaging information on Trump and his advisers, a Politico investigation found.'

https://www.politico.com/story/2017/01/ukraine-sabotage-trump-backfire-233446

Liberals among the GCDN readers often asked what Trump was going to do to prevent the same from happening again. Now they are trying to impeach him for doing precisely what Liberal GCDN asked him to do.

Jim Forsythe

Carlos said: "Everything we have heard is made up by Schiff" which is just not true. Making a statement that everything a person says is not true, is hard to defend.

Carlos said :"What has Schiff made up?" To begin with he has stated he had seen proof of Trump's collusion with the Russians" Until the House is done, we do not know what is true, as things like what Rep. Adam Schiff said will be looked at. Rep. Adam Schiff is on committees meeting, that are privileged to information. that most are not, including Carlos and Jim.

Rep. Adam Schiff, who chairs the House Intelligence Committee, said that as far as he’s concerned there’s “direct evidence” of collusion between Donald Trump’s presidential campaign and Russia. Specifically, Schiff says that the 2016 offer from a Russian lawyer for information on Hillary Clinton to members of Trump’s campaign is the smoking gun. “I think there is direct evidence in the emails from the Russians through their intermediary offering dirt on Hillary Clinton as part of what is described in writing as the Russian government effort to help elect Donald Trump,”

Carlos Ponce

Will Schiff release the transcripts of his investigations? Nothing to hold them back. He will not because he knows the truth will invalidate what he leaked to the press. He is a LIAR! As far as character, as JD Clampett put it, " He is lower than a snake's belly in a wagon rut."

RELEASE THE TRANSCRIPTS!

RELEASE THE TRANSCRIPTS!

RELEASE THE TRANSCRIPTS!

Jim Forsythe

Oct. 16, 2019: The lead House impeachment investigator says he will release transcripts of the closed-door interviews lawmakers have conducted with current and former administration officials. California Democratic Rep. Adam Schiff says in a letter to colleagues that investigators will unveil the transcripts when "it will not jeopardize" the investigation.

He also noted that special counsels in the Nixon and Clinton impeachments investigated privately. Schiff described the interviews as "professional, productive, and fair."

He said that the House has obtained a call record detailing "the President’s efforts to abuse his office for political gain" and texts between State Department employees showing "the degree to which the apparatus of the Department was pressed into the service of the President’s illicit aim of digging up dirt on his political opponent."

Until the House has completed all the investigations, we will not know the whole picture.

Carlos Ponce

"that investigators will unveil the transcripts when 'it will not jeopardize' the investigation" WHAT A JOKE!

Jim Forsythe

Not letting others testimony taint a recollection by a wittiness of what happened, is not a joke, it's the correct call. As Rep. Adam Schiff noted, that special counsels in the Nixon and Clinton impeachments investigated privately.

What would be gained, except more talking points? The Republican's on the committees already know what was discussed.

The rules allow the ranking Republican on the intelligence and judiciary committees to subpoena witnesses and documents with the approval of the Democratic chair. If the chair denies a request, the ranking member may appeal to the full committee.

The guidelines also allow the president’s attorneys to attend the impeachment hearings in the Judiciary Committee, present evidence and cross-examine witnesses. The Judiciary Committee has argued that the procedures are consistent with the impeachments of Presidents Bill Clinton and Richard Nixon.

Nothing knew : The rules allow the ranking Republican on the intelligence and judiciary committees to subpoena witnesses and documents with the approval of the Democratic chair. If the chair denies a request, the ranking member may appeal to the full committee.

The guidelines also allow the president’s attorneys to attend the impeachment hearings in the Judiciary Committee, present evidence and cross-examine witnesses. The Judiciary Committee has argued that the procedures are consistent with the impeachments of Presidents Bill Clinton and Richard Nixon.

Carlos Ponce

"Not letting others testimony taint a recollection by a wittiness of what happened, is not a joke, it's the correct call." The media has already "tainted" testimony. Lt. Col. Alexander Vindman "remembers" things in Trump's telephone call with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky that are not in the official transcript nor recalled by anyone else involved. Yet they are heavily covered in Liberal media. Hmmmm.... Did you ever hear of Lt. Col. Alexander Vindman prior to his testimony? Liberals say the Lt. Col. is above reproach due to his military service but will not do the same for Lt. General Michael Flynn - a highly decorated, well known war veteran who served in both the Obama and Trump administrations. I smell hypocrisy.

Carlos Ponce

"The rules allow...." Read carefully, Jim, what you posted: "subpoena witnesses and documents with the approval of the Democratic chair." Only if Chief Inquisitor Schiff permits it will this happen. In prior testimony, Schiff coached the witnesses and directed them not to answer any Republicans. Republicans can request.

" The Judiciary Committee has argued that the procedures are consistent with the impeachments of Presidents Bill Clinton and Richard Nixon." BULLSTUFF! In the past these were spelled out without the requirement Chief Inquisitor Schiff APPROVE before proceeding. Time will tell whether Schiff will allow anything from the Republicans. He'll allow little as long as it does not interfere with his agenda nor his false narratives - a smelly bag of Schiff.

Jim Forsythe

You have not seen the official transcript, just a memo. The true transcript is locked away.

Lt. General Michael Flynn did bad things he admitted to.

Lt. Col. Alexander Vindman awards and decorations include the Purple Heart, Defense Meritorious Service Medal with bronze oak leaf cluster (2nd award), Meritorious Service Medal, Army Commendation Medal with three oak leaf clusters (4th award), Army Achievement Medal with two oak leaf clusters (3rd award), National Defense Service Medal, Global War on Terrorism Expeditionary Medal, Global War on Terrorism Service Medal, Korean Defense Service Medal, Army Service Ribbon, Overseas Service Ribbon (4th award), Valorous Unit Award, Navy Unit Commendation, National Intelligence Meritorious Unit Citation, and Republic of Korea Presidential Unit Citation. He is a recipient of the Combat Infantry Badge, Expert Infantry Badge, Ranger Tab, Basic Parachutist Badge, the Presidential Service Badge, and Joint Chiefs of Staff Identification Badge.

Carlos Ponce

Lt. General Michael Flynn lost his money, his house and they threatened to go after his son unless he agreed to what they were saying. As a father I believe Jim Forsythe would do the same.

Jim Forsythe

As you nor I have not seen the full official transcript, you have no way of knowing what was said.

It so easy to make up reasons why one would say they did it. Fact is, Flynn said he did it.

The gist of it is that Flynn admits to lying about two December 2016 conversations with Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak in a January 24, 2017, interview with federal investigators. Prosecutors say Flynn lied to the FBI when asked if he had asked the Russian ambassador to help constrain Russia’s response to President Barack Obama’s retaliation against Russia for its interference in the 2016 election, where he expelled suspected intelligence agents and shuttered two Russian diplomatic compounds in the US. Flynn also claimed not to remember Kislyak’s reply where he said Russia would, in fact “not take retaliatory measures” at that time.

Perhaps the biggest revelation from this charge: Flynn, according to prosecutors, reported back to an unidentified “senior official with the Presidential Transition Team” about his discussion with Kislyak.

The second conversation prosecutors say Flynn lied about involved a United Nations Security Council Resolution condemning Israeli settlements. According to prosecutors, a senior member of Trump’s transition team instructed Flynn to contact foreign officials, including Russia, to pressure them to vote against the resolution. Flynn, in his interview with the FBI, claimed he only asked their positions, and that he did not remember Russia’s response.

Carlos Ponce

"You have not seen the official transcript..." If you ever do, even die hard Liberals will see what a sham this Soviet Style Inquisition has been.

Jim Forsythe

No Soviet Style Inquisition is not taking place, just the impeachment process.

Republicans in Congress have repeatedly attacked the way in which Democrats have proceeded with the impeachment process. They've argued it goes against precedent and is somehow improper. But that argument doesn't appear to hold waterA A federal judge ruled that the impeachment process was legal. Republicans had argued that the impeachment inquiry was being carried out incorrectly because a formal vote was never taken to the House floor. Judge Beryl Howell asserted that this argument was not backed up by history.

"Even in cases of presidential impeachment, a House resolution has never, in fact, been required to begin an impeachment inquiry," Howell wrote in the ruling, calling GOP arguments "cherry-picked and incomplete."

Carlos Ponce

"No Soviet Style Inquisition is not taking place" The FACTS do not support this claim.

"Republicans in Congress have repeatedly attacked the way in which Democrats have proceeded with the impeachment process." Justifiably so. Even with the adopted rules Republicans must ask Chief Inquisitor Schiff for permission to summon any rebuttal witnesses, to question the witnesses Schiff produces, coaches. President Nixon's and Clinton's lawyers had a part of the process. As for Trump's lawyers, NO WAY.

Carlos Ponce

Jim Forsythe posts:"Even in cases of presidential impeachment, a House resolution has never, in fact, been required to begin an impeachment inquiry," Judge Beryl Howell is LYING.

"The House did it for the impeachment of Presidents Bill Clinton in 1998 and Richard Nixon in 1974. The House even did it for the impeachment of U.S. district judge G. Thomas Porteous, Jr. in 2010. But no, Speaker Nancy Pelosi refused to do so this time, instead unilaterally launching the inquiry herself." Add to that the impeachment of Judge Kent.

https://www.nationalreview.com/bench-memos/one-of-these-impeachment-resolutions-is-not-like-the-other/

Dan Freeman offered this link:

https://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R44260.pdf

Which states, "During the House impeachment investigation of President Richard M. Nixon, a resolution reported out of the House Judiciary Committee, H.Res. 803, was called up for immediate consideration as a privileged matter. The resolution authorized the House Judiciary Committee to investigate fully whether sufficient grounds existed for the House to impeach President Nixon, specified powers which the Committee could exercise in conducting this investigation, and addressed funding for that purpose. The resolution was agreed to by the House."

Oh I SEE, Judge Beryl A. Howell was an OBAMA nominee. No wonder why she is WRONG!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Jim Forsythe

Calling it a Soviet Style Inquisition is political language that is intended to create strong reactions

Tell me 1 thing they have done that is illegal about this process? And if there was why hasn't it been brought before the Supreme Court? There is a playbook for this called the Constitution. If one branch does something another thinks is wrong, there is a check.

YOU may not like how things are being done but to simply say it's a Soviet Style Inquisition is beyond reason.

And again we have that thing called the constitution to keep crazy leaders in check. Founders didn't want a tyrant as president. You again can take it to the 3rd branch of government if you think they are doing something wrong.

For some reason no one wants to talk about why they aren't fighting it legally in the courts....

The irony... Trump colludes with Russians and then you call it a Soviet Style Inquisition Investigating, a President is not a Inquisition . Even the most partisan GOP members agree trump is unconventional and does not follow normal rules and protocols.

Carlos Ponce

Soviet Style Inquisition - it is what it is?

"Tell me 1 thing they have done that is illegal about this process?" Lying to the American people about the telephone call (Schiff). Lying to the American people that Schiff gave a verbatim rendition of that conversation (Pelosi). Lying to the American people that the "process" is no different than what was done to Nixon and Clinton. Jim Forsythe even cites a lying judge who is easily disproven. Schiff tells everyone in his committee no to reveal testimony they heard under penalty yet he "leaks" selective sentences and partial sentences to promote his false agenda. I can go on and on but Jim asks for just "1 thing".[whistling]

Jim Forsythe

Pelosi doesn't need the House vote authorizing an inquiry because her caucus already has extra legal authority compared to past inquiries.

During the Clinton and Nixon impeachment inquiries, the House passed their inquiry resolutions so they could gain tools like more subpoena power and depositions, and included in those resolutions were nods to bipartisanship that gave the minority party subpoena power, too.

The House rules have changed since the last impeachment of a president more than two decades ago. In this Congress, the House majority already has unilateral subpoena power, a rule change that was made when Republicans last controlled the House, so Democrats don't need to pass any resolution to grant those powers.

Until recent years, unilateral subpoena power was relatively rare for House committee chairs. But between the 113th and 114th Congresses, the number of chairs given this power by their committees doubled—and the judiciary committee was among them. The judiciary committee chair retains this authority in the current Congress; its rules stipulate that “a subpoena may be authorized and issued by the Chairman … following consultation with the Ranking Minority Member.”

In 2017, the rule permitting staff depositions was extended to cover almost all standing committees, and the member attendance requirement was modified such that it did not apply if the committee authorized the staff deposition to take place when the House was not in session. ... So the judiciary committee already has the power to conduct staff depositions and does not need a special grant of authority to do so.

When and who changed the rules? Since they have changed, they are what the House goes by. It does not make it a Soviet Style Inquisition, but a change in the rules.

The GOP minority does not have subpoena power, much to their chagrin, although Republicans changed the playbook in 2015 when they rewrote rules delegating subpoena power to individual chairmen without full approval from the House of Representatives

Democrats tried to warn that this change was bad , but where to not able to change Republicans minds, which now they are complaining about.

Democratic lawmakers are harshly criticizing House Republicans for altering committee rules governing how chairmen can subpoena witnesses and documents.

Republicans were short sighted in passing the changes, that they now have to go by. These changes ,make minority lawmakers

minority lawmakers a none factor.

In a letter, the Democrats slams the GOP conference for changing rules on a number of House committees to make it easier for Republicans to subpoena witnesses without consultation or approval from minority lawmakers - an effort that came as Republicans are preparing aggressive oversight efforts for President Barack Obama’s final two years in office.

Sixteen Democrats, all ranking members of House committees, accused Republicans of attempting to create Darrell Issa-like committee structures, referring to the former Oversight and Government Reform chairman who was criticized by Democrats for his dogged probes into the White House.

“For decades, responsible committee chairmen—both Democratic and Republican—recognized that the coercive power of subpoenas should be used only as a last resort, and they obtained the concurrence of the ranking member or called a committee vote before issuing subpoenas,” the lawmakers wrote on Tuesday.

Jim Forsythe

Pelosi doesn't need the House vote authorizing an inquiry because her caucus already has extra legal authority compared to past inquiries.

During the Clinton and Nixon impeachment inquiries, the House passed their inquiry resolutions so they could gain tools like more subpoena power and depositions, and included in those resolutions were nods to bipartisanship that gave the minority party subpoena power, too.

The House rules have changed since the last impeachment of a president more than two decades ago. In this Congress, the House majority already has unilateral subpoena power, a rule change that was made when Republicans last controlled the House, so Democrats don't need to pass any resolution to grant those powers.

Until recent years, unilateral subpoena power was relatively rare for House committee chairs. But between the 113th and 114th Congresses, the number of chairs given this power by their committees doubled—and the judiciary committee was among them. The judiciary committee chair retains this authority in the current Congress; its rules stipulate that “a subpoena may be authorized and issued by the Chairman … following consultation with the Ranking Minority Member.”

In 2017, the rule permitting staff depositions was extended to cover almost all standing committees, and the member attendance requirement was modified such that it did not apply if the committee authorized the staff deposition to take place when the House was not in session. ... So the judiciary committee already has the power to conduct staff depositions and does not need a special grant of authority to do so.

When and who changed the rules? Since they have changed, they are what the House goes by. It does not make it a Soviet Style Inquisition, but a change in the rules.

The GOP minority does not have subpoena power, much to their chagrin, although Republicans changed the playbook in 2015 when they rewrote rules delegating subpoena power to individual chairmen without full approval from the House of Representatives

Democrats tried to warn that this change was bad , but where to not able to change Republicans minds, which now they are complaining about.

Democratic lawmakers are harshly criticizing House Republicans for altering committee rules governing how chairmen can subpoena witnesses and documents.

Republicans were short sighted in passing the changes, that they now have to go by. These changes ,make minority lawmakers a none factor.

In a letter, the Democrats slams the GOP conference for changing rules on a number of House committees to make it easier for Republicans to subpoena witnesses without consultation or approval from minority lawmakers - an effort that came as Republicans are preparing aggressive oversight efforts for President Barack Obama’s final two years in office.

Sixteen Democrats, all ranking members of House committees, accused Republicans of attempting to create Darrell Issa-like committee structures, referring to the former Oversight and Government Reform chairman who was criticized by Democrats for his dogged probes into the White House.

“For decades, responsible committee chairmen—both Democratic and Republican—recognized that the coercive power of subpoenas should be used only as a last resort, and they obtained the concurrence of the ranking member or called a committee vote before issuing subpoenas,” the lawmakers wrote on Tuesday.

Carlos Ponce

Yes, Jim BUT before 2019, the minority party could subpoena. Schiff denied that to the Republicans. They now can but only if Chief Inquisitor Schiff grants permission.

Democrats could subpoena rebuttal witnesses during the Clinton inquiry. The rule change was actually implemented in 1975 while Congress was under Democrat control.

Welcome to the discussion.

Keep it Clean. Please avoid obscene, vulgar, lewd, racist or sexually-oriented language.
PLEASE TURN OFF YOUR CAPS LOCK.
Don't Threaten. Threats of harming another person will not be tolerated.
Be Truthful. Don't knowingly lie about anyone or anything.
Be Nice. No racism, sexism or any sort of -ism that is degrading to another person.
Be Proactive. Use the 'Report' link on each comment to let us know of abusive posts.
Share with Us. We'd love to hear eyewitness accounts, the history behind an article.

Thank you for Reading!

Please log in, or sign up for a new account and purchase a subscription to read or post comments.