(11-01-2019, 05:49 PM)JagNGeorgia Wrote:

(10-31-2019, 08:56 PM)mikesez Wrote: Passing a subpoena is the same as passing a bill. In theory, the minority can do it, but they need members of the majority to either defect to their side or abstain during the vote.

No, it isn't. You don't "pass" subpoenas. You can set rules that require the committee to agree on the issuance of one, but Adam Schiff can send his own subpoenas. In fact, he refuses to allow the minority members to do the same. He doesn't even want the committee to vote for or against the issuance of subpoenas. That alone should be concerning to you. Subpoenas aren't like bills, and their purpose is to compel people or businesses to disclose evidence. You wouldn't be OK with prosecutors allowing only those that agree with their decisions to testify, so why are you OK with Democrats doing the same?

if the members of the house do not like schiff issuing subpoenas at will and refusing to let them have the same privilege, they can vote to stop him.
if the majority of the house supports what you are doing you can continue to do it.
Democratic members of the house did not issue any subpoenas from January 2011 to January 2019.  You know why.
In general, in the United States, for a given subject matter and place, there is only one authority that can issue subpoenas. if my favorite candidate for Orlando area district attorney doesn't win their election, he or she cannot issue subpoenas. If a state criminal law is violated in orange or Osceola County, there is only one officer can issue a subpoena to investigate that, unless the governor or attorney general decide to appoint a special prosecutor to a certain case.
I'd be open to changing to a system where there are always two competing prosecutors/investigators, but that is not the system we have, and never has been the system we have.

---