Another bid to question the whistleblower whose complaint triggered the impeachment inquiry into President Trump fell flat Wednesday.
A motion by U.S. Rep. Guy Reschenthaler, R-Peters, to subpoena the whistleblower failed when members of the House Judiciary Committee, voting on party lines, moved to table his motion and adjourn.
Reschenthaler, a freshman Republican and former Naval JAG prosecutor, represents Washington, Greene and Fayette counties as well as part of Westmoreland County. He has been a strident critic of the impeachment inquiry, calling it “an illegitimate partisan attempt to undo the 2016 election.”
The inquiry got underway this fall after a whistleblower filed a complaint about Trump’s July 25 phone call with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenksy, in which the president asked him to investigate the family of political rival Joe Biden and allegations of Ukrainian meddling in the 2016 election.
Wednesday’s hearing, which marked the beginning of proceedings before the House Judiciary Committee, got underway with testimony from a panel of four legal experts — three called by House Democrats and a fourth called by Republicans — who were asked whether Trump’s actions met the constitutional bar for impeachment.
Committee Chairman Jerrold Nadler, D-New York, opened the hearing on a somber tone.
“Never before in the history of the republic have we been forced to consider the conduct of a president who appears to have solicited personal favors from a foreign government,” Nadler said. “… If we do not act to hold him in check now, President Trump will almost certainly try to solicit interference in the election for his personal gain.”
A group of Republican committee members went on the attack almost from the start, deriding the process as a sham and calling for an adjournment.
Reschenthaler, however, held back until nearly the end of the morning.
Three legal scholars, called by Democrats, testified that the House Intelligence Committee’s findings merited impeachment and a fourth, called by Republicans, condemned Trump’s actions but said they did not merit impeachment. Only then did Reschenthaler move to insert a motion to subpoena the whistleblower.
While an administration transcript and witnesses in hearings before the House Intelligence Committee supported the whistleblower’s account of the July 25 phone call, Reschenthaler said he and his colleagues want to hear from the original complainant.
“We have a right to hear from the whistleblower, particularly since Chairman (Adam) Schiff was caught in a lie by claiming his committee had no contact with the whistleblower. In fact, his team worked directly with the whistleblower before the complaint was even filed,” Reschenthaler said in an email to the Tribune-Review.
He said his motion would not have unveiled the identity of the whistleblower but would have provided for the Judiciary Committee to conduct a deposition in executive session.
“I strongly support the rights of whistleblowers as they play a vital role in helping our government uncover waste, fraud, and abuse,” Reschenthaler wrote. “Whistleblowers are rightfully afforded significant protections from retribution under the law precisely so they can appear publicly and testify without negative consequences.”
The Associated Press contributed.
