Read the letter.
The questions have already been submitted.
Deposition is the keyword as far as testimony is considered here.
The rules have been in place since 2009. Reauthorized by unanimous vote in January of this year.
Read the letter
From a Trump supporter.
Lololololol!!!
Then something is funny here. If the questions have been already submitted, a written response should suffice. What would even be the point of having the witness show up?
I see no guarantee that they would not ask more questions.
What could possibly be the reason for not allowing an attorney for the executive to be there if the House already knows what questions they will ask and presumably the witness already knows what answers they would give?
If they ask questions not on the list, he can always decline to answer.
These arenât new rules. They have been in place for over 10 years. Itâs Barr that wants to change the rules
Barr is concerned with executive department rules. Dems are concerned with their House rules. Why not allow an attorney for the department to represent its interests?
Did you read the letter I linked to? They donât want an attorney representing the agency that is being investigated there.
Again, this has been a rule for 10 years. Unanimous vote!
A letter from the Democrat in the committee is hardly to be taken as the only side on this issue. I will wait until I can see the response. Why donât they want an attorney for the agency present?
And was this rule uniformly appled?
You think he lied about a committee rule that has been in place for 10 years?
Uniformly applied? Yes! It has also been approved by UNANIMOUS vote.
Hahahahaha!
No.
Had it been meticulously followed by both the committee and all executive agencies? Didnât say. Even so, a committee rule is not necessarily the law.
What if the executive agency rule is to have an attorney present?
He can have a personal attorney for himself there. He can not have representation from the DOJ because it is the DOJ being investigated. It is a logical rule.
AGAIN, this is a committee rule that was approved unanimously. Why would they want to change it? Why do you want to change it?
I donât want to change it. The agency wants to have an attorney there. I donât see the problem.
They donât want some employee to waive possible executive or process privileges for the agency without knowing what he is doing, apparently.
Can you understand why the Oversight Committee would not want a lawyer representing the agency there to advise the witness?
All of the Committee members agreed that this was the best way for them to conduct oversight. Why would you change it now?
The bolded part is funny. You donât want to change the rule, you just want to break it. LOL
I wouldnât change anything. However, I can see why the executive branch doesnât want a lower level employee to waive possible privileges that belong to the executive branch because that employee didnât understand them.
I see the letter says no such privileges are recognized by the committee. I thing the executive may not agree.
We seem to have a disagreement between the House and the executive.
I suppose thatâs what the courts are there to resolve. Like they did when Holder wouldnât provide requested documents.
What privileges could he have? He is a DOJ employee that is being questioned by the Oversight Committee that is conducting their constitutional duty.
I have confidence that the DOJ can coach this employee well enough for him to understand his rights.
What will libs doâŚhold em in contempt?
Big deal.
But again weâre talking about libs hereâŚthey demand everyone else to comply. 
Nadler is suggesting jail and/or fines for those found in contempt
Again, another Hillary post while ignoring the sleaze bag that you voted to be your coach.
Itâs like iâm watching Fox.
Weâre arguing with people who previously preached transparency for 8 years.
Funny, huh?
