subpoena], is essentially the same. It is the same. Both are subject to a veto by a majority of the membership of that committee."[1]
In 1998, the House similarly passed a resolution authorizing an impeachment inquiry because the "[Judiciary] Committee decided that it must receive authorization from the full House before proceeding . . . ."[2] The Judiciary Committee reached this conclusion "[b]ecause impeachment is delegated solely to the House of Representatives by the Constitution, [and therefore] the full House of Representatives should be involved in critical decision making regarding various stages of impeachment."[3]
In putting forth this resolution for consideration by the House, the Judiciary Committee made several commitments with respect to ensuring "procedural fairness" of the impeachment inquiry. For instance, the Judiciary Committee voted to allow the President or his counsel to be present at all executive sessions and open hearings and to allow the President's counsel to cross examine witnesses, make objections regarding relevancy, suggest additional evidence or witnesses that the committee should receive, and to respond to the evidence collected.[4]
The fundamental fairness and due process protections guaranteed in the Nixon and Clinton impeachment proceedings are missing from Speaker Pelosi's impeachment inquiry. The Democrats' impeachment inquiry offers a veneer of legitimacy that hides a deeply partisan and one-sided process. The impeachment resolution passed by Democrats in the House—against bipartisan opposition—allows Democrats to maintain complete control of the proceedings.[5] The resolution denies Republicans co-equal subpoena authority and requires the Democrat chairmen to concur with Republican subpoenas—unlike Democrat subpoenas, which the chairmen may issue with no Republican input.[6] The Democrat impeachment resolution requires Republicans to specifically identify and explain the need for witnesses 72 hours before the first impeachment hearing—without a similar requirement for Democrats.[7] Most importantly, the Democrats' resolution excludes the President's counsel from House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff's proceedings and provides House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jerry Nadler with discretion to do the same.[8] In short, these partisan procedures dramatically contradict the bipartisan Nixon and Clinton precedents.
B. Democrats have engaged in an abusive process toward a pre-determined outcome.
Since the beginning of the 116 Congress, Democrats have sought to impeach President Trump. Just hours after her swearing in, Rep. Rashida Tlaib told a crowd at a public event that
103
