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?

3

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.

  • 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 at 13:46
  • 1
    @hszmv: That Constitutional right (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 at 16:34
  • 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. – JJ for Transparency and Monica Oct 30 at 16:47
  • 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 at 17:15
  • 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. – JJ for Transparency and Monica Oct 30 at 17:30

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .