misconduct. Those investigations included private interviews and depositions followed by public hearings—after which all investigative files were provided to the House Judiciary Committee. The only difference is that in this case, transcripts of all interviews and depositions have been made public; all documentary evidence relied on by HPSCI in its report has been made available to the President; and the President's counsel could have participated and raised questions during presentations of evidence but chose not to.
White House Counsel Pat A. Cipollone suggested in his October 8 letter on behalf of President Trump that the President was entitled to a host of additional due process rights during the House's impeachment inquiry, including "the right to see all evidence, to present evidence, to call witnesses, to have counsel present at all hearings, to cross-examine all witnesses, to make objections . . ., and to respond to evidence and testimony."[1] He also indicated that the President was entitled to review all favorable evidence and all evidence bearing on the credibility of witnesses.[2] These are the types of procedural protections, however, typically afforded in criminal trials— not during preliminary investigative stages. [3] As HPSCI explained in its report, "there is no requirement that the House provide these procedures during an impeachment inquiry."[4] Rather, as Chairman Rodino stated during the Nixon impeachment inquiry, the President's participation "is not a right but a privilege or a courtesy."[5]
In any event, the core privileges described in Mr. Cipollone's letter were in fact offered to President Trump as courtesies during the Judiciary Committee's proceedings. The President was able to review "all evidence" relied on by the Investigating Committees, including evidence that the Minority's public report identified as favorable to him. During the Judiciary Committee's proceedings, the President had opportunities to present evidence, call witnesses, have counsel present to raise objections and cross-examine witnesses, and respond to the evidence raised against him. As the Rules Committee report accompanying H. Res. 660 noted, these privileges are "commensurate with the inquiry process followed in the cases of President Nixon and President Clinton." [6] at 7.President Trump simply chose not to avail himself of the procedural opportunities afforded to him.
Members of the Minority have also contended that they were not afforded the full procedural
- ↑ Oct. 8 Cipollone Letter.
- ↑ Id.
- ↑ Cf., e.g., United States v. Calandra, 414 U.S. 338, 350 (1974) (rejecting procedural protections that would "saddle a grand jury with minitrials and . . . assuredly impede its investigation").
- ↑ Ukraine Report at 212.
- ↑ Nixon Impeachment Hearings at 497.
- ↑ Rules Committee Report
24
