3

According to NPR:

The measure will enable public hearings and a release of the witness interviews already taken by House committees and will allow the president and his attorneys to cross-examine witnesses.

What does it mean that "the president and his attorneys" can now cross-examine witnesses? Is this referring to people that appear before Congress in closed hearing or open hearings? What effect can this have - or is it just a moot point?

JJJ
  • 39,094
  • 10
  • 121
  • 182
Burt
  • 6,917
  • 4
  • 33
  • 67

1 Answers1

2

ABC News reports on what Republicans have been demanding (emphasis mine):

Republicans have slammed what they say is a lack of transparency in the impeachment process, as Democrats have called nearly a dozen officials to give depositions behind closed doors. Republicans have called for transcripts of that testimony to be made public, have accused Democrats of cherry-picking information to be released or leaked, and have argued President Trump deserves to have counsel present to cross-examine witnesses.

Having counsel present

From the Bill (emphasis mine):

The House authorizes the Committee on the Judiciary to conduct proceedings relating to the impeachment inquiry referenced in the first section of this resolution pursuant to the procedures submitted for printing in the Congressional Record by the chair of the Committee on Rules, including such procedures as to allow for the participation of the President and his counsel.

The Hill reports based on that:

The resolution further outlines the format for the upcoming public hearings, which will provide for extended time for questioning and allow committee staff to cross-examine witnesses. Only Schiff and the panel’s ranking Republican, Rep. Devin Nunes (Calif.), or committee employees are allowed to ask questions.

So in addition to those part of the committee, the president and his counsel may also ask witnesses questions, i.e. cross examine them.

Calling witnesses by the minority

From the Bill:

5 (3) To allow for full evaluation of minority witness requests, the ranking minority member may submit to the chair, in writing, any requests for witness testimony relevant to the investigation described in the first section of this resolution within 72 hours after notice is given for the first hearing designated pursuant to paragraph (1). Any such request shall be accompanied a detailed written justification of the relevance of the testimony of each requested witness to the investigation described in the first section of this resolution.

Community
  • 1
JJJ
  • 39,094
  • 10
  • 121
  • 182
  • 1
    It would also allow for the President's attorneys and Republican House members to call witnesses to offer rebuttal testimony. The constitutional right to examine all evidence against you and all test results is the same right that allows for cross-examination. Witness testimony is considered evidence and cross-examination is the process by which the opposing side may review the evidence. – hszmv Oct 30 '19 at 13:46
  • 1
    @hszmv: That Constitutional right (https://constitution.findlaw.com/amendment6.html ) applies to criminal prosecutions. An impeachment, or the subsequent trial by the Senate if the impeachment is successful, is not a criminal trial. A mere investigation certainly is not, any more than is the police investigation of a suspected crime. So the process is, under the Constitution, whatever the House wants it to be. If Trump were to be convicted & removed from office (or arguably even if he was not), and THEN brought up on criminal charges, he would be entitled to those Constitutional rights. – jamesqf Oct 30 '19 at 16:34
  • @jamesqf the new bill does grant that right, I didn't include it because I didn't think that was part of cross examination but hszmv makes a good point, I think. – JJJ Oct 30 '19 at 16:40
  • You may want to amend with this information https://thefederalist.com/2019/10/29/schiff-directing-witnesses-not-to-answer-gop-questions/ –  Oct 30 '19 at 16:45
  • @jamesqf: That's wrong. Nixon v. United States ruled that the Senate is the legal body that sets case precedent for Impeachment trials and the resolution Lindsey Graham (President Pro Tempore of the Senate) submitted and cosigned Mitch McConnell (Majority Leader) basically held that the Sixth Amendment applies in Impeachment (as has traditionally happened in all of the 20 impeachments that came to the Senate) and that they would summarily dismiss the Articles of Impeachment should the House continue without following due process (the Senate has only dismissed without trial once). – hszmv Oct 30 '19 at 16:47
  • 1
    @KDog that seems very speculative. I would be very surprised if that is what actually happened, we shall see when the transcript is published. – JJJ Oct 30 '19 at 16:47
  • Seems the Dems have given themselves a veto over the GOP's subpoena power. That's completely lacking in precedent. –  Oct 30 '19 at 17:01
  • 2
    @KDog wait... The federalist link says Schiff stopped a witness answering Republican questions in the closed hearing. So there are Republicans in the closed hearing, questioning witnesses? Then why are other Republican's complaining about a closed process that their party is involved in? – Jontia Oct 30 '19 at 17:15
  • @jonita Yes there are GOP members there, a small number. One of the reasons that the GOP is complaining is that they aren't really allowed to examine evidence. They have to go to a room, get one page at a time in hardcopy and are baby sat by a Dem staffer. And now it looks like they aren't allowed to cross examine witnesses. –  Oct 30 '19 at 17:22
  • 3
    @KDog they are allowed to cross examine witnesses as they requested, that's what this bill proposes. If you think that's not the case, e.g. because I am mischaracterising what's stated in the bill then please post that as answer with emphasis on parts which support that. What you describe now seems to be how these committees are normally set up, I'm not endorsing the setup, but I don't see why it's different from other committees in the US. – JJJ Oct 30 '19 at 17:30
  • @JJJ I don't think you have mischaracterized anything. :) I just think there are some omissions here that would make it better. –  Oct 30 '19 at 17:34
  • 1
    @KDog you seem to argue the opposite of my answer. I argue the bill allows cross examination by the minority. You said: "And now it looks like they aren't allowed to cross examine witnesses." What are you basing that on, if that is based on a different reading of the bill, then I would like to know how we can both come to different conclusions from the same text. So if that is what you're saying, please argue so in an answer. – JJJ Oct 30 '19 at 17:39
  • 1
    @Jontia A number of the Republicans who made a scene barging into a secure room had previously been in the room, had permission to be there, and only left so that they could then dramatically barge in. They do this because they are lying hypocrites whose only remaining defense is to mischaracterize the lawful investigation of high crimes against the United States. – Tal Oct 31 '19 at 14:32