As the op-ed expressed concerns over, at issue is not just legitimacy but constitutional rights, not helped by the shadowy manner in which the select committee is conducting its affairs:
With no effective check on its power, the Select Committee is trampling on fundamental Constitutional rights. It is investigating the political speech of private citizens and demanding access to their personal records and private communications. When disputes over the requests arise, the committee refuses to engage and seeks to punish.
There is no presumption of innocence; instead Chairman Bennie Thompson declared citizens who invoke the Fifth Amendment are “part and parcel guilty to what occurred.”
Rather than operating openly, the Select Committee is working behind closed doors and selectively leaking cherry-picked information. When it has presented some evidence in public, the committee’s been caught deliberately altering documents—including a text message pertaining to one of us—to malign conservatives.
One would expect this sort of inquiry from a banana republic, not from the U.S. House of Representatives. By subpoenaing us and three other Republican members, the Select Committee is escalating its abusive tactics. This attempt to coerce information from members of Congress about their official duties is a dangerous abuse of power, serves no legitimate legislative purpose, and eviscerates constitutional norms. Just because members of Congress are responsible for writing the laws doesn’t give a select few license to subvert them.
The op-ed is full of strong words to be sure, but such remarks actually have teeth to them as well. And there have been concerns before with the select committee,
especially when it
comes to committee members
doctoring text messages.
When news broke on May 12 that the subpoenas were being issued, McCarthy and Jordan were at a loss for words initially on responding, as they told members of the inquiring press that they had not actually seen the subpoenas they were being questioned about.
When news broke on May 12 that the subpoenas were being issued, McCarthy and Jordan were at a loss for words initially on responding, as they told members of the inquiring press that they had not actually seen the subpoenas they were being questioned about.
Here's what the op-ed has to add to that:
In January, we sent the Select Committee
letters in response to its request for interviews, raising good-faith concerns and seeking to protect the prerogatives of the House. Our letters went unanswered and unacknowledged for four months. The Select Committee now rushes to issue these unprecedented subpoenas in May, just in time for its pre-scheduled prime-time hearings next month.
And in case one doubts the political nature of this “investigation,” Rep. Adam Schiff sent a campaign fundraising email about the subpoenas before Republican members had even received them.
To begin, the Speaker has failed to act in accordance with the Rules of the United States House of Representatives (“Rules of the House” or “House Rules”) she put forth, and as a result, the Select Committee has operated both in composition and manner that deviates from the duly authorized Resolution that created it. The Select Committee failed this mandate from the outset when Speaker Pelosi violated 232 years of continuous precedent by refusing to allow the minority party to select its representation on the committee. It has since engaged in a series of actions that further distance it from its authorizing resolution in violation of the House Rules and precedents. At no time in the history of the House has the majority denied the minority the right to select its representation nor constituted a Congressional committee in violation of the Rules of the House. And at no time in the history of the House has the majority failed to honor the House’s deposition and subpoena authority.
To be sure, the Constitution grants broad authority for the House to draft its own rules. Specifically, Article I, Section 5, clause 2 states, “[e]ach House may establish the Rules of its proceedings.” And rightly so. Of course, once established, the idea that the separation of powers or the Rulemaking clause itself allow the House to toss aside the rules it drafts, debates, and passes is as nonsensical as it is undemocratic.
Specifically, the Select Committee’s authorizing resolution, H.Res. 503, states that the “Speaker shall appoint 13 members to the Select Committee, 5 of whom shall be appointed after consultation with the minority leader.” The Speaker did not appoint 13 members to the Select Committee. The Speaker did not appoint five members after consultation with the minority leader. To be clear, while it is undemocratic to not allow the minority party to select its representation on the Select Committee, the violation of the Rules of the House did not occur until the Speaker failed to adhere to the Resolution passed by the House. H.Res. 503 is a brief resolution, and the section on Composition is unambiguous. There is no justifiable excuse for the Select Committee or the Speaker to fail to adhere to the required “Appointment of Members” clause. Federal courts, including the Supreme Court, have confirmed that “[t]he competence of the tribunal must be proved as an independent element,”6 and that “[a] tribunal that is not competent is no tribunal…. .”7
In addition to the failure of the Speaker to properly constitute the Select Committee within the structure voted on and approved by the majority of the House, the subsequent decisions to deny the minority even the patina of representation of a Ranking Minority Member makes compliance with the Select Committee’s subpoena issuing authority and subsequent deposition authority of the House impossible. Specifically, for the Select Committee to issue a subpoena, H.Res. 503 provides, “[t]he Chair of the Select Committee, upon consultation with the ranking minority member, may order the taking of depositions, including pursuant to subpoena, by a Member or counsel of the Select Committee, in the same manner as a standing committee pursuant to Section 3(b)(1) of House Resolution 8, One Hundred Seventeenth Congress.” You have named Representative Cheney as the Vice Chair of the Select Committee, as she was appointed as one of the original eight appointments by the Speaker and not appointed in consultation with the minority leader – and she is clearly not the ranking minority member. In order for you, as the Chair of the Select Committee, to comply with the dictates of H.Res. 503, it is unclear which member of the Select Committee you consulted with in accordance with H.Res. 503 prior to issuing the subpoena for deposition testimony.
In an article headlined, “House Republicans Question Former News Executive’s Work for Jan. 6 Committee,” CBS News reported yesterday that House Republicans sent a notice letter to Committee co-chairs Zoe Lofgren (D) and Bennie Thompson (D), informing them that the employment of a former TV producer to help put on a gala show tonight violates all kinds of House rules, regardless of whether the producer is being paid or is just a volunteer.
