if they can satsify rudy, they can satisfy the president. that from a person familiar with the meeting. meanwhile the white house is refusing to cooperate with what it calls an illegitimate effort to overturn the results of the election. referringing to the impeachment inquiry. and one of the main arguments? the president s due process rights have been curtailed without a vote to formalize the impeachment process. now if a vote is held, what could happen? republicans would have the right to argue for more subpoena power. speaker pelosi knows this. she responded this way. the white house should be warned that continued efforts to hide the truth of the powers, the president s abuse of powers from the american people will be regarded as furtherer evidence of obstruction.
demonstrate as fundamental misunderstanding of the impeachment process and what takes place in a house inquiry verse as senate trial. it conflats the two. let s assume what we know to be the true motivation. if you hold a vote like that, the republicans have a chance to say what about us? what do we have the ability to do during this and the optics would be unplay of so you re not going to give the president any rights? he can t interview anybody. clinton s people got to interview people during the ken starr thing. why not do it? i don t know what the political motivations are at play. right now what they are try doing is conduct most of this investigation through the house intelligence committee, which has the purview over this. it could be that by formalusiiz formalizinging it would transfer
the house makes its own rules. the rules could be set the way they were in 1998. why should the democrats have a different perspective on how to deal with delais than republicans did? i m saying the process should be the same as was establish itted in 1974 and 1998. it the house can make whatever rules. this is a very grave matter. we have to have fairness. was it fair when the republicans changed the rules so that democrats that s irrelevant. and that wasn t an impeachment process. but i m saying in 1998 there was no real subpoenaing by democrats. it was done by an independent counsel. in 1974 a different process. they were given these rights. and this is for an investigation. a lot of people have been saying republicans don t need rights to call witness withes because there s not a trial in the house. they do because there will be an
so republicans cannot learn who this person is and they may even testify in the secret location. this is what we see in banana republics or the soviet union. this is not the way the american system of government is supposed to operate. we have to have an open process. republicans have the same rights that happened in 1974 and 1998 for an impeachment process. one, a lot of that would be reserved for the senate trial. that s when you have the need for this kind of exchange. we never had a process in 1974 like the one we have now. nor did we have in 1998 because with clinton was an independent counsel. and when it came time to have him in the house, they only presented one witness. i can know you remember this but for those at home. so for democrats, the koupsal for then president can clinton only got to deal with one witness and it was ken starr. and the biggest problem