Yes, indeed. I would like to know why the weasel-word “redacted” is used everywhere, too. In other countries its called “censored”.
“Let’s look at the people that they brought before their committee to make their case, Michael Cohen, convicted, had to go to jail. Now John Dean is their latest witness in this, another person who was convicted for lying to Congress. The fact that these are star witnesses tells me everything that they need to know.”
Pretty rich, coming from a serial liar herself, and one who already admitted that, “in the heat of the moment,” her go-to move is to lie.
Chiselin’ Trump: “The Truth? I only knew it for a very short period.”
1 Like
And Eeyore. Don’t forget Eeyore.
Wondering if this is part of the new law and order - respond to a subpoena only if the POTUS permits it.
Seemingly that is the case, for I can’t discern any classification or rank of a current of former government employee Trump has acquiesced to testifying. His orders to refuse are almost universal in scope.
Sorry, but I just have this Pavlovian response…
1 Like
Yes but a select committee would have to include Republicans, and they would have to get a fair chance to question witnesses. A substantial part of the country supports Republicans. Ignoring them is only going to make what ails the nation worse.
actually no, at least not one authorized by the entire house. The speaker appoints the members of select committees. The only restriction is that a majority of its members have to be from the majority party From Rule 1, Clause 11
Committee appointment
11. The Speaker shall appoint all select, joint, and conference committees
ordered by the House. At any time
after an original appointment, the
Speaker may remove Members, Delegates, or the Resident Commissioner
from, or appoint additional Members,
Delegates, or the Resident Commissioner to, a select or conference committee. In appointing Members, Delegates, or the Resident Commissioner to
conference committees, the Speaker
shall appoint no less than a majority
who generally supported the House position as determined by the Speaker,
shall name those who are primarily responsible for the legislation, and shall,
to the fullest extent feasible, include
the principal proponents of the major
provisions of the bill or resolution
passed or adopted by the House.
And there is historic precedent for a single party impeachment related select committee. When the House voted to impeach Andrew Johnson, a select committee was appointed to write the actual articles of impeachment that comprised 7 Republican, and no Democrats. (and wouldn’t it be just delicious to point out that the “Party of Lincoln” established the precedent of a uni-partisan impeachment committee two years after Lincoln was assassinated?)
here endeth Advanced Placement Schoolhouse Rock
A substantial part of the country supports Republicans. Ignoring them is only going to make what ails the nation worse
I agree that the GOP should be offered the opportunity to participate in a productive fashion in any select committee. But that doesn’t mean they get to try and discredit, intimidate, or harrass witnesses, or interfere with the work of the committee. ANY impeachment committee is going to be treated as a witchhunt by Trump and his media – so there is no downside to making sure the committee operates at peak efficiency.
I was speaking politically, not legally or technically. I should have made that more clear.
1 Like