multiple requests that hearing be scheduled and at one point actually telling me as i actually responded to this that we ll rule with it today. we re here today and it is a farce that we are having to rule on this today. there is no other time we re taking up the articles today. so the rule is not the rule this rule is not superseded by any portion of h resolution 660. they were too busy to get it it to floor and chose not to exempt the minority hearing today. now we re not having it so i continue my point of order. if i understand the gentleman s point of order he asserts we are violating clause 2j1 of house rule 11 by conducting the mark-up before we ve held the hearing that the minority members requested on december 4th. in my view the gentleman is claiming a broader privilege than it provides the minority.
from any fact witnesses. all we heard from was a bunch of liberal law professors that you called here that have a known record of dislikeing president trump and then you had staff talk to us. and then again here in this committee our republican members asked for witnesses so we can get questions to get out the truth. let us say our side of the story. but no, so then we turn to okay, under the house rules it says you are required to set a minority hearing so that we can at least call witnesses. so we can get some truth out to the american public instead of this one-sided sham. but no, here again i think you ve said right here no, we re not going to do that. i ll consider a date in the future that you can have a minority hearing. for goodness sakes, we re voting on this today.
been aware of the most recent horowitz report. but it is clear now it is clear now that the whole investigation that has brought us here with crime after crime being alleged and then having to be dropped was a fraudulent effort before the fisa court to have a surveillance warrant done against carter page. they lied initially, said that he was a russian agent, when actually he had been used by the c.i.a. as a spy against russia. and so they lied, it was fraudulent, and there hopefully people that will answer for their crimes and fraud in the department of justice in the days to come and it sounds like that should be the case. and there was fraud all the way through. but for three years we have been hearing about the crimes of the candidate trump and then
keeping the minority position from being represented in the hearing. it is normal procedure for witnesses representing both sides of the issue to give testimony. of course, that did not happen at the december 4th hearing. the minority had a witness at the hearing professor turley, ablely represented their position and was afforded ample time to discuss that position. rather than being shut out they did not get as many witnesses as they would have preferred. but that is not the purpose of the house rule. second, the minority and the president have special protections under house resolution 660. procedures provided under house resolution 660 give the president and the minority a variety of special privileges to present evidence and subpoena witnesses. thus their alternative
precedent we have indicates that a point of order does not lie to delay consideration of articles of impeachment finally, past judiciary committee practice and precedent don t support the gentleman s point of order. last year a number of other members and i sent then chairman goodlatte a minority day request. the chairman never responded to our request and never scheduled a hearing. i don t believe a single member of that majority argued in favor of us being allowed our hearing. then chairman sensenbrenner scheduled a minority day hearing but cut off witnesses, shut off the microphones and lights and ended the hearing while members were seeking recognition to speak. again, no one in the majority argued in favor of protecting our rights. no committee practice or precedent supporting the gentleman s point of order. i do not sustain the point of order. mr. chairman. what purpose does the