rights provided to the Minority in prior impeachment inquiries and have raised a host of related objections to the proceedings. These claims lack merit.
First, the Minority has contended that it was deprived of the ability to subpoena witnesses and documentary evidence. However, the rules governing both the Nixon and Clinton impeachment inquiries rendered the Minority's subpoena authority equally contingent on the Majority. Under H. Res. 803 (governing the Nixon proceedings) and H. Res. 581 (governing the Clinton proceedings), the Chairman could refer a subpoena request by the Ranking Member for a vote by the full Committee if the Chairman disagreed with such a request.[1] So too here, H. Res. 660 authorized the Ranking Member to issue subpoenas with the Chairman's concurrence, or to refer such requests for a vote by the full Committee if the Chairman declined to concur.[2]
Second, the Minority has contended that the Committee should have heard testimony from additional witnesses they requested, including the whistleblower, various individuals with whom the whistleblower spoke, and even Chairman Schiff.[3] As an initial matter, during HPSCI's proceedings, the Minority called three witnesses of its choosing—Ambassador Volker, Undersecretary Hale, and Mr. Morrison. Ambassador Volker and Mr. Morrison testified on their own panel at length; and their testimony only served to corroborate other witnesses' accounts of the President's misconduct.[4] As to proceedings before the Judiciary Committee, the Minority called a witness of its choosing to present views during the Committee's December 4 hearing on Constitutional Grounds for Presidential Impeachment. Furthermore, Minority counsel had equal time to present arguments and evidence during the Committee's December 9 hearing. However, as Chairman Schiff stated and as Chairman Nadler reiterated, Congress has an imperative interest in protecting whistleblowers. And in this particular instance, Congress has an especially critical need to prevent the House's impeachment inquiry from being used to "facilitate the President's effort to threaten, intimidate, and retaliate against the whistleblower," which placed his or her personal safety at grave risk.[5] Furthermore, the whistleblower's allegations were not relied upon by HPSCI or the Judiciary Committee in reaching their conclusions, making his or her testimony "redundant and unnecessary." [6] Rather, HPSCI adduced
- ↑ H. Res. 803 § 2(b), 93d Cong. (1974); H. Res. 581 § 2(b), 105th Cong. (1998).
- ↑ H. Res. 660 § 4(c). The only distinction is that H. Res. 660 did not reciprocally allow the Ranking Member to refer subpoena requests by the Chairman for a full Committee vote. But that is because contemporary House Rules already permit the Judiciary Committee and other committees to delegate their subpoena authority to their chairs. House Rule XI.2(m)(3)(A)(i). It makes little sense to suggest that the subpoena authority of the Chairman of the Judiciary Committee should be reduced during an impeachment inquiry.
- ↑ See Letter from Doug Collins, Ranking Member, H. Comm. on the Judiciary, to Jerrold Nadler, Chairman, H. Comm. on the Judiciary (Dec. 6, 2019).
- ↑ Impeachment Inquiry: Ambassador Kurt Volker and Timothy Morrison: Hearing Before the H. Perm. Select Comm. on Intelligence, 116th Cong. (2019); see, e.g., Ukraine Report at 123 (Ambassador Volker testified that Department of Justice did not make an official request for Ukraine's assistance in law enforcement investigations).
- ↑ Letter from Jerrold Nadler, Chairman, H. Comm. on the Judiciary, to Doug Collins, Ranking Member, H. Comm. on the Judiciary (Dec. 9, 2019).
- ↑ Letter from Adam B. Schiff, Chairman, H. Perm. Select Comm. on Intelligence, to Devin Nunes, Ranking Member, H. Perm. Select Comm. on Intelligence (Nov. 9, 2019).
25
