Lawyers to Take the Stage in Questioning Trump Figures at Pre-Impeachment Hearings
While it's unclear which attorneys will handle questioning, eyes are turning toward Norm Eisen and Barry Berke.
September 12, 2019 at 11:47 AM
6 minute read
Democrats on the House Judiciary Committee voted Thursday to give their counsel the power to publicly question witnesses, handing over more responsibilities to committee lawyers as they decide whether to formally start an impeachment inquiry against President Donald Trump.
The Judiciary Committee voted along party lines Thursday to pass procedures for hearings it holds on the potential impeachment proceedings. Under the rules, lawmakers from both minority and majority staff will be allowed to tap their attorneys for an additional 30 minutes of questioning for each side of witnesses appearing before the panel.
House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jerrold Nadler said the measure "will allow us to develop the record in ways" that the current rules for questioning don't permit. Members are generally given five minutes each to question a witness, meaning that any sidetracking or dodging of questions can quickly use up that time.
Nadler told reporters after the vote that the committee will now start an "aggressive series of hearings" as they weigh whether to start impeachment proceedings.
Thursday's move will spotlight the committee attorneys as the Judiciary panel holds more hearings on a possible impeachment of Trump.
Some have criticized lawmakers for their approach to questioning in past hearings, such as during that of former special counsel Robert Mueller III, claiming the members of Congress were aiming to put on a show rather than glean new information for their investigations.
Michael Conway, who worked on the House Judiciary Committee during its own impeachment inquiry during Watergate, said tasking committee lawyers with the more intensive questioning might lead to better results than letting members handle it on their own.
"The lawyers have one task which is to develop the questioning of a particular witness to elicit the relevant information," Conway said. "They have one item to press, and have fewer distractions than a member would."
While it's unclear which attorneys for the committee will handle questioning, eyes are turning toward a pair of outside counsel hired specifically to help with the Judiciary Committee's investigations regarding Trump and his administration.
Former Obama ethics official Norm Eisen and Kramer Levin Naftalis & Frankel's Barry Berke were hired as special oversight counsel for the committee earlier this year. The new rules could put them and other staff counsel who have been working behind the scenes on the public congressional stage, and add a new level of thoroughness in the questions posed to witnesses.
Berke's hiring caused some internal drama, with Trump Organization lawyer Alan Futerfas reportedly raising concerns to the panel over a potential conflict of interest because of Kramer Levin's prior work with the Trump Organization.
Collins later sent a letter to Kramer Levin asking for more information about Berke's work for the firm. Berke ultimately took a leave of absence from Kramer Levin as he moved forward with the Judiciary's efforts.
The pair of lawyers have been largely behind the scenes since joining the committee staff. But the rules could put them in the spotlight, as they take their legal skills to the committee chambers where witnesses who comply with subpoenas or congressional requests will appear.
The Judiciary Committee attorneys are set to debut their new-found questioning powers in a hearing featuring former Trump campaign head Corey Lewandowski on Sept. 17. Others within Trump's orbit who have been subpoenaed to appear before the committee have defied those requests, citing so-called immunity under executive privilege.
Republicans on the committee will also get to deploy their own staff to interview the witnesses, giving them a chance to either question a witness's credibility or otherwise ask questions that could downplay otherwise damning pieces of testimony.
However, Judiciary Republicans, including the panel's ranking member, Rep. Doug Collins, questioned Thursday why Democrats "desperately want to give their authority away to staff" instead of taking on the witnesses for a longer period of time themselves.
Committee Republican Rep. Matt Gaetz attempted to strike the use of the staff attorneys from the resolution, offering up an amendment that would give the additional questioning powers to lawmakers instead of committee counsel.
Other Republicans on the panel said that if, in the case of an investigation as possible impeachment, only members should be permitted to question witnesses.
"We're talking potentially about impeaching the president of the United States, and when we deal with something that is this serious and has only seriously been considered three times before," said GOP Rep. James Sensenbrenner, "I think it's important that only the members who are elected and are accountable for their actions here in Congress and to their constituents … do the questioning."
Members of Congress have previously tapped attorneys to lead questioning in past investigations, such as the Iran-Contra hearings. Nadler cited those hearings among others in arguing that it made sense for committee counsel to play a role in the impeachment hearings.
At one point, Republican Rep. Mike Johnson asked Nadler whether the procedure addressed an issue of time, or "of competency."
Nadler said it was an effort to address a House rule that limits members to five minutes of questioning. The chairman rebuffed the amendment, pointing to past instances where committee counsel have been given the chance to question witnesses.
But GOP members pushed back, saying the House rules could instead be altered to give lawmakers on the panel—most of whom, if not all, are lawyers or have law degrees—more questioning time.
The amendment was struck down by voice vote.
Thursday's vote played out as Democrats struggle with how to describe their current probe on the potential impeachment inquiry.
Nadler indicated in his opening statement that he was done with the debate on semantics of the investigation.
"Some call this process an impeachment inquiry. Some call it an impeachment investigation," he said. "There is no legal difference between these terms, and I no longer care to argue about the nomenclature."
But that didn't stop members from both sides of the aisle raising the matter throughout the hearing.
Collins, the Republican ranking member, compared the resolution to an Instagram filter, claiming that lawmakers could have carried out many of these procedures without having to pass the resolution.
"The filter might make you think something's happening," he said. "This is not anything special."
Read more:
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllBig Law Practice Leaders 'Bullish' That Second Trump Presidency Will Be Good for Business
3 minute readWhere May Vacancies for Trump Arise? These GOP-Appointed Circuit Judges Qualify for Senior Status
'Even Playing Field?' Wiley Rein Intervenes in Federal Election Campaign Spending Row
3 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Infant Formula Judge Sanctions Kirkland's Jim Hurst: 'Overtly Crossed the Lines'
- 2Election 2024: Nationwide Judicial Races and Ballot Measures to Watch
- 3Guarantees Are Back, Whether Law Firms Want to Talk About Them or Not
- 4How I Made Practice Group Chair: 'If You Love What You Do and Put the Time and Effort Into It, You Will Excel,' Says Lisa Saul of Forde & O'Meara
- 5Abbott, Mead Johnson Win Defense Verdict Over Preemie Infant Formula
- 6How Much Does the Frequency of Retirement Withdrawals Matter?
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250