independent and more direct evidence.[1]
In addition, the Ranking Member and all other Committee Members had the full opportunity to question HPSCI's lead investigative counsel during the Committee's December 9 hearing. Presentation of evidence by Committee counsel is consistent with the procedures followed during the Nixon impeachment inquiry—and in no impeachment inquiry has the House relied upon evidentiary presentations from another Member. Finally, the Ranking Member's request to hear testimony from other witnesses such as Hunter Biden was well outside the scope of the impeachment inquiry and would have allowed the President and his allies in Congress to propagate exactly the same kinds of misinformation that President Trump corruptly pressured Ukraine to propagate for his own political benefit. Such witnesses were entirely irrelevant to the question of whether President Trump abused his power for his personal gain.
Third, the Minority requested that it be entitled to a day of hearings pursuant to House Rule XI.2(j)(1), which entitles the Minority, upon request, to call witnesses to testify regarding any "measure or matter" considered in a committee hearing "during at least one day of hearing thereon." The Minority requested a hearing day on the subject of constitutional grounds for impeachment, as discussed at the Committee's December 4 hearing. However, as Chairman Nadler explained in ruling against the Ranking Member's point of order, this Rule does not require the Chairman "to schedule a hearing on a particular day," nor is the Chairman required "to schedule the hearing as a condition precedent to taking any specific legislative action." [2] Indeed, a report accompanying this provision when it was first promulgated stated that its purpose was not "an authorization for delaying tactics."[3] Chairman Nadler further explained that the Minority had been afforded the opportunity to have its views represented through its witness during the December 4 hearing, who testified at length. Additionally, the Chairman said he was willing to work with the Minority to schedule a Minority day for a hearing at an appropriate time.[4]
Fourth, the Minority has contended that the proceedings before the Judiciary Committee were inadequate because the Committee did not hear from "fact witnesses." The evidence in the House's impeachment inquiry consists of more than one hundred hours of deposition or interview testimony by seventeen witnesses, followed by five days of live televised hearings with twelve fact witnesses.[5] At bottom, the Minority's objection instead amounts to a claim that fact hearings do not count unless they occur before this Committee. That notion is inconsistent with both the Nixon and Clinton impeachment inquiries, in which the Judiciary Committee relied on, inter alia, public and private testimony before the Senate Select Committee in the case of President Nixon, and transcripts of grand jury proceedings in the case of President Clinton. In this instance, HPSCI and the Committees on Oversight and Reform
- ↑ Id.
- ↑ H. Res. 755, Articles of Impeachment Against President Donald J. Trump: Markup Before H. Comm. on the Judiciary, 116th Cong. (Dec. 11, 2019) (ruling on point of order by Chairman Nadler) (hereinafter "H. Res. 755 Markup").
- ↑ Legislative Reorganization Act of 1970, H. Rep. No. 91-1215, at 6 (1970).
- ↑ H. Res. 755 Markup (ruling on point of order by Chairman Nadler).
- ↑ Ukraine Report at 7.
26
