Both the original thread posting and subsequent posts have addressed my thoughts on this matter, Padre.

http://www.let.rug.nl/usa/outlines/government-1991/the-legislative-branch-the-reach-of-congress/oversight-powers-of-congress.php

Nothing new really, as Mr. Schiff is following in the historical footsteps of (among others) both Trey Gowdy and Devin Nunes. They were only two of the last to exercise p**********l oversight power given to congressional committees of the legislative branch by the United States Constitution. Not surprisingly, throughout the history of this country, numerous presidents have questioned legislative oversight when it pertains to their particular administration.

Keep in mind that all these investigations originated with republican leadership and Trump appointees. Perhaps GOP leadership never thought they would ever cede power to democrats in the house.

Do you think President Trump was right when he urged to stop "ridiculous partisan investigations” during his 2019 State of The Union Address and why?

Alex Denethorn, British citizen

There's only one particularly prominent investigation going on in the US right now, and it's one that Trump is right in the middle of. Sadly for him, it can't really be considered partisan: traditionally, an investigation with a Republican administration involved would be run by a Democrat.

Instead, a Republican President appointed a Republican AG, who in turn appointed an Assistant AG who thereby empowered a Republican Special Investigator to look into the possibility of foreign interference in a P**********l e******n, and to follow any leads, direct or otherwise, that might stem from that investigation.

Partisan? No: what we have now is a Republican President as a subject of a Republican-led investigation.
Bear in mind that this is the same man who (still) often leads his supporters in chants of "Lock her up!" at his political rallies, and who has often used suggestion of criminal misconduct by those who disagree with him as a means of slander. He has attacked President Obama, Hilary Clinton, even James Comey, all suggesting that they have engaged in high levels of criminal activity, yet without providing any evidence of this that would trigger the DOJ to act on it. For someone who is apparently against 'partisan investigations', he sure seems quick to point the finger - particularly for a man who has many close allies and colleagues currently under indictment, and for a man who has even been implicated in several criminal activities himself. Funny, that.

Trump is well aware that his actions both before and during his time as President have not been particularly above-board. He also knows that the priority of the Democrats in the House is now to reassert the oversight prerogatives that the Republicans have largely been ignoring (in their complicity of Trump's actions) over the past two years.

If any President had done half of what Trump has done, you could guarantee that hearings and impeachments would have been the result - hell, look at what was done to Bill Clinton. The restoration of the Democrats to congressional authority was largely on the basis of trying to regulate the President's overreach of authority, and ensure that he is held responsible for his actions - and the Democrats would be failing in their duty to the e*****rate not to follow through.

More than that, though, Trump is scared to death of Robert Mueller, and that's very telling. They do say that an innocent man has nothing to fear, and I feel that applies here. Trump is continuing his usual line of attempting to discredit investigations that are clearly pointing to him - but Mueller was empowered precisely because he is a diligent investigator known for his integrity and thoroughness, on both sides of the aisle. He's the type of man that won't stop until he's reached the very bottom of the barrel, and that scares the crap out of the President. If he's as innocent as he likes to claim, one has to ask: why?

Using the platform of the State of the Union to express this just goes to show how desperate Trump must be feeling - that was a personal plea to put an end to something that is clearly going to have significant ramifications for the President, something he very much seems to fear. I'm again brought back to that single thought: if he has nothing to hide, he should have nothing to fear. That he is responding this way, continuing that same consistent need to undermine judicial oversight…it says he's not innocent at all. He has something to hide, and he's terrified that wh**ever it is (whether kompromat, or something worse) is going to end up exposed.

End the 'partisan' investigations? Why would we do that: they've borne fruit so far, and for Trump to continue to react this way suggests that there's yet more to come. It isn't in the best interest of Donald Trump for the investigation to continue, but it's most definitely in the interests of the United States to get answers - something any other President would understand and even appreciate, I suspect.

Perhaps you missed my view that chairmen and majorities of all the investigative committees believed any cause but their own as unjust. But, by virtue of each being constitutionally allowed, they are/were legally justified.

Lest you forget, there were at least seven republican investigations on the B******i debacle. For wh**ever reason one can conjure up, they all proved "futile." On the other hand, the singular republican investigation of collusion between members of this administration and the Trump e******n campaign with the Russians has proven far more successful with numerous guilty pleas, indictments and convictions. All of those came under the control of republican leadership, to include p**********l appointees. Plus...not to be forgotten...much more time was spent on B******i than has been on Russian collusion.

So, based on these facts alone, Schiff's cause is clearly constitutionally justified

Perhaps you missed my view that chairmen and majorities of all the investigative committees believed any cause but their own as unjust. But, by virtue of each being constitutionally allowed, they are/were legally justified.

Lest you forget, there were at least seven republican investigations on the B******i debacle. For wh**ever reason one can conjure up, they all proved "futile." On the other hand, the singular republican investigation of collusion between members of this administration and the Trump e******n campaign with the Russians has proven far more successful with numerous guilty pleas, indictments and convictions. All of those came under the control of republican leadership, to include p**********l appointees. Plus...not to be forgotten...much more time was spent on B******i than has been on Russian collusion.

So, based on these facts alone, Schiff's cause is clearly constitutionally justified