Page:20191203 - full report hpsci impeachment inquiry - 20191203.pdf/213

 House’s power to himselfor to order across-the-board defiance of House subpoenasbased solely on his unilateral characterization of legislative motives or because he opposes the House’s decision to investigate his actions.


 * The Impeachment Inquiry is Properly Authorized: According to Mr. Cipollone, the “House has not expressly adopted any resolution authorizing an impeachment investigation” nor has it “delegated such authority to any of your Committees by rule.”82 However, nothing in either the Constitution or the House Rules requires the full House to vote to authorize an impeachment inquiry.83 The impeachment inquiries into Presidents Andrew Johnson, Nixon, and Clinton all began prior to the House’s consideration and approval of a resolution authorizing the investigations.84 The same is true of many judicial impeachments;85 indeed, numerous judges have been impeached without any prior vote of the full House authorizing a formal inquiry.86 Even though Mr. Cipollone’s argument is inherently invalid, the House has taken two floor votes that render it obsoletethe first on January 9 to adopt rules authorizing committees to conduct investigations, and the second on October 31 to set forth procedures for open hearings in the Intelligence Committee and for additional proceedings in the Judiciary Committee.87 Even following passage of House Resolution 660, whereby the House confirmed the preexisting and ongoing impeachment inquiry, the President and the White House Counsel, acting on the President’s behalf, have persisted in their obstructive conduct.


 * President Has No Valid Due Process Claims: According to Mr. Cipollone, “the Committees have not established any procedures affording the President even the most basic protections demanded by due process under the Constitution and by fundamental fairness,” and the Committees “have denied the President the right to cross-examine witnesses, to call witnesses, to receive transcripts of testimony, to have access to evidence,” and “to have counsel present.”88 Yet, there is no requirement that the House provide these procedures during an impeachment inquiry. The Constitution vests the House with “the sole Power of Impeachment,” and provides no constraints on how the House chooses to conduct its impeachment process.89 Nevertheless, Mr. Cipollone’s complaints are unfounded as the House has implemented procedural protections for the President in its exercise of its Constitutional power. House Resolution 660 authorizes procedures to “allow for the participation of the President and his counsel.”90 The Committee Report accompanying House Resolution 660 explains that these protections for the President are part of the Judiciary Committee hearing process and are “based on those provided during the Nixon and Clinton inquiries.” These procedures include “that the president and his counsel are invited to attend all hearings; the ability for the president’s counsel to cross-examine witnesses and object to the admissibility of testimony; and the ability of the president’s counsel to make presentations of evidence before the Judiciary Committee, including the ability to call witnesses.”91


 * Fact-Finding Was Appropriately Transparent: According to Mr. Cipollone, the Committees conducted their proceedings “in secret.”92 This argument fundamentally misconstrues and misapprehends the fact-gathering process required at this initial stage of the House’s impeachment inquiry. Unlike in the cases of Presidents Nixon and Clinton, the House conducted a significant portion of the factual investigation itself because no