Jerry Nadler Announces HJC Witnesses for Impeachment “Groundwork” Hearing…

House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jerry Nadler has announced the four selected representatives for the committee “groundwork” hearing on political impeachment.

The hearing takes place Wednesday, December 4th at 10:00am EST and includes:

  • Noah Feldman – Felix Frankfurter Professor of Law and Director, Julis-Rabinowitz Program on Jewish and Israeli Law, Harvard Law School
  • Pamela S. Karlan – Kenneth and Harle Montgomery Professor of Public Interest Law and Co-Director, Supreme Court Litigation Clinic, Stanford Law School
  • Michael Gerhardt – Burton Craige Distinguished Professor of Jurisprudence, The University of North Carolina School of Law
  • Jonathan Turley – J.B. and Maurice C. Shapiro Professor of Public Interest Law, The George Washington University Law School

 

This entry was posted in Big Government, Big Stupid Government, Decepticons, Deep State, Dem Hypocrisy, Election 2020, Impeachment, Legislation, media bias, Notorious Liars, President Trump, Professional Idiots, propaganda, Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

205 Responses to Jerry Nadler Announces HJC Witnesses for Impeachment “Groundwork” Hearing…

  1. sundance says:

    Liked by 34 people

    • JohnCasper says:

      The future must not belong to those who defame their god, the Goa’uld Hussein !

      Liked by 1 person

    • In the Land of Poz says:

      Feldman is a younger more telegenic substitute for the aging, clinically TDSed and ever cranky Lawrence Tribe. He has been a DNC lawfare guy since the 2000 Florida election recount litigation (which he lost for his client) and done many useless and misguided eggheaded things since then, to great acclaim.

      Having never practiced law, been a judge, or worked outside academia, but being mighty pissed that his Supreme Court seat is on hold indefinitely due to MAGA, Feldman will do what he usually does: offer triple-bankshot, high IQ, low relevance theories that are in oddly complete alignment with DNC priorities. And in even more perfect alignment with the project of getting Feldman a permanent slot as the go-to law professor for a TV network, the same job Tribe, Turley and Dershowitz have had for decades.

      Liked by 16 people

      • Deplore Able says:

        That he want to be on the Supreme Court, that makes for a good line of questioning.

        1. Mr. Feldman, if you are nominated for the Supreme Court and you are asked during your Senate confirmation hearing whether the Constitution allows for impeachment of the President based not on a high crime or misdemeanor but for a sitting President’s alleged defamation of his predecessor, would you find that the Constitution allowed it?

        2. What if the sitting President jay walked?

        3. What if the President was just plain mean?

        Make him answer some questions like that, when in the back of his mind, he will know it will be brought up in the event he is ever nominated.

        Liked by 10 people

        • MaineCoon says:

          Excellent line of questioning. Hope Ratcliffe or Jordan sees this. Email it to them?

          Like

        • Tazok says:

          No, that never works unfortunately. Easy deflection:
          “I can’t comment on questions that may come before me as future Justice.”

          Feldman is a Bloomberg Op-ed employee. His columns over the last 5 years were generally reasonable with only some left bias. He went off the rails when Michael Cohen drama happened and started saying how SDNY is a bigger threat to Trump than Mueller. This was before Bloomberg ran since he’s running now, Feldman’s off the wagon completely.

          Like

    • Bob says:

      WHO GIVES A SH&T. THESE YAHOOS WILL DO ANYTHING TO SPEND LARGE SUMS OF TAXPAYERS MONEY….JUST LIKE OBAMA DID. THIS BRAINTRUST OF LAWYERS HAVE NO RELEVANCE…JUST BURNING THROUGH OUR MONEY.

      HOW ABOUT NOBODY SHOWING UP FOR THIS BS….THE PUBLIC WONT CARE.

      Liked by 3 people

    • bertdilbert says:

      Nadler, if he did not eat it first, would impeach a ham sandwich.

      Liked by 7 people

    • L4grasshopper says:

      Seriously?

      We are truly living thru bizarre times….

      Liked by 1 person

    • stephen fenlon says:

      And the first question the Republlcans ask, should be for him to CONFIRM he said that !
      “case closed ! next witness please !”

      Liked by 1 person

  2. hokkoda says:

    I traveled into the future and learned the following from the hearing: there are no hard and fast rules, so the House can do what it wants…the President waived his due process rights by not attending…holding fake hearings that simply reinforce the conclusion you’ve already decided upon are, like, “totally legit”.

    They tried to make the case that HJC can just rubber stamp the HPSCI report which, conveniently, arrives shortly thereafter.

    Liked by 9 people

    • Good. I want to see this in the Senate. President Trump and the Republicans can call witnesses there, and wipe the floor with the Democrats.

      Liked by 3 people

      • hokkoda says:

        I still don’t think that’ll happen in terms of a Senate trial. The GOP instinctively will try to make it “fair” to show the House how to do things right. The Democrats are counting on this to weaken the GOP response and give them time to pick off the weaklings like Romney and Gardner.

        The Dems seem to be moving towards either a quick HJC faux hearing where they rubber stamp the HPSCI report and go straight to articles of impeachment and a floor vote…or they drag this out into February/March to try and slow-bleed Trump.

        Probably the first one…hence the “academic” discussion to give them the all-clear to rush to a vote. The public will hate it, but just like Obamacare, they don’t give two s$$ts what the public thinks. The crazies are in charge.

        Liked by 4 people

        • zekness says:

          the dems are in a determined rush to make every noise the can to drown out the DOJ OIG report. that’s what is driving the current crisis they are about to suffer.

          beyond that is the durham and huber reports.

          so expect this to drag on to gaslight those reports as well.

          then in the big long game, they want as much attention just before the election, but have to be sensitive to frail districts where their constituents are showing weak support for this nonsense. They KNOW they are not going to win this impeachment..its a desperate and clearly well designed play to prevent hemorrhaging..

          the goal here is political…always remember the game here….what they are trying to protect is political power and their electoratzi.

          should have listened to pelosi…now they are playing a bluffers hand…and unwisely.

          they will fail

          and miserably.

          I find comfort that the diseased dems will fall due purely by wild embarrassing and misguided ambition.

          this only happens once in a lifetime.

          pay attention…this is a story you can tell the grandkids and likely them, theirs and so on.

          it has that certain legendary failure aspect that will be long remembered and studied and debated..for a very long time.

          Making America Great AND GOOD again!

          R

          Tim

          Liked by 4 people

          • hokkoda says:

            Trump said last week that Durham would have something to say “shortly after” the IG report is released. So I think he may do that before Christmas, depends on how the DOJ wants to play it in terms of media. But I think they’re going to want to squelch very quickly the idea that the coup plotters are going to walk scot free.

            Lisa Page saying that her texts with Strzok were taken out of context made me want to puke. The crazy part is that we haven’t even been allowed to see all of the texts. We just see them getting worse and worse in little drips and drops of redactions. But the picture gets worse, not better, as you read more “context”.

            This is why Trump’s support with minorities is going up. They often feel victimized by an unjust, biased, legal system. Trump is going through the same thing, and I think people identify with that.

            Liked by 6 people

            • zekfidle says:

              its always a hard tell when ANYONE uses the old gag, “it was taken out of context” and then does NOT even provide the supposed context they assert gives a proper accounting.

              it’s a very old saw.

              I think of it the same way I do when someone is caught doing something very bad and they reply: “you don’t understand”..or “you took it the wrong way”..or “that was never my intent”,,,

              well madam, when you and strozjk were hooking up behind your spouses back..cheating…and talking about your ambition to do whatever you could to make this president fail..

              what context are we missing.

              please go on…supply the context we seemed to have competely skipped when we read your emails that clearly showed your factual bias and suggestions of treason and misconduct..?

              we can wait…

              crickets!

              Liked by 1 person

              • hokkoda says:

                Listening to these people try and defend their actions is like listening to a WaPost or NYT reporter try to claim that their hard-left political bias doesn’t affect their reporting. Or, what they decide to not report.

                The more texts we see, the worse it gets for them. More context hurts their case, which is why the FBI redacted so much of it even though none of it is actually “classified”.

                Like

  3. TarsTarkas says:

    They will all say in lots of words ORANGE MAN BAD Therefore he must be removed from office!

    Liked by 5 people

  4. You can pay your lawyer to say anything.

    Liked by 4 people

  5. Richie says:

    December 2nd?

    Liked by 1 person

  6. jimboct says:

    Curious about what Turley does. He’s been highly critical of the impeachment sham. The witness list promises a boring and one sided Nadler fest of impeachment. Echo chamber becomes deafening.

    Liked by 14 people

    • Harvey Lipschitz says:

      Yabbut they are not witnesses. They merely offer opinion. Nadler does not mask his insecurity when he has to call on shills paid for endorsement. Donors to Hillary.

      Liked by 4 people

    • Honestyoz says:

      Turly is the left plant for the “balnce” of an opposing view just like on MSM. Argues with passion but pathetically. Highlights just how correct the oppisite view. Rember this is staged and scripted, it’s a show.

      Liked by 1 person

    • In the Land of Poz says:

      Turley is the Washington Generals. His job is to be the Reasonable Open-Minded Moderate who eventually reluctantly accedes to the logic of impeachment as articulated by the Harlem Globetrotter witnesses who are playing him 3-on-1 with Nadler and his committee as referees.

      Liked by 5 people

    • grrizzly says:

      Turley is the sole witness picked by the committee’s Republicans. The other three were chosen by the committee’s Democrats.

      Liked by 3 people

  7. Harvey Lipschitz says:

    So no crime reported.

    No witnesses.

    YES men.

    Liked by 2 people

  8. Michael Kunz says:

    Wasn’t Frankfurter in the Rocky Horror show?

    Liked by 2 people

  9. mr.piddles says:

    This whole impeachment exercise is getting increasingly “meta” with each passing week.

    When do The Philosophers testify? Or should we just run 1000 Monte Carlo simulations and call it a day?

    Liked by 8 people

    • Chimpy says:

      If a philosopher talks in the liberal echo chamber, and no one tunes in, does he still make any sounds?

      Liked by 4 people

      • stephen fenlon says:

        Not in a physicality based Universe, but his thoughts whisper through the ether until they can be interpreted by the dialectic mystics of the Mysterions of the Magic Circle, the Magicians Suppository of Nonsensical Bountiful Chants, ( the MSNBC) and circulated to the Cabal of Neurotic Naysayers for public proclamation .

        Sorry !, I think my son has been indoctrinating me into the wonders (?!?) of D&D

        Liked by 1 person

    • zekness says:

      luck and random coin tossing have nothing to do with this…

      ( I fell to the floor laughing on your meta-philosophy-casino ref…priceless)

      next week nonads will be asking Google to roll out the quantum machine..the answer what everyone really wants to know, but has never been possible before will have it big reveal

      Q: what WAS the frame of mind of donald trump..?

      q bit machine: corruption, and high crimes, of course…even when he sleeps, he dreams of corruption and high crimes.

      I don’t know about this new quantum stuff…super-position already exists in the democratic party…you can actually be in two places at the same time and spooky action at a distance is very real:

      schiff is both a congressman AND an idiot…and his spin is spooky at any distance.

      personally, I have used my own magic 8 ball and gotten pretty reliable results.

      Q: have the democrats lost their freaking minds?

      YES

      every
      single
      time

      I even bought a new magic 8 ball thinking mine was broke..

      same answer..

      every time.

      Liked by 5 people

    • Linus in W.PA. says:

      I think the real litmus test is when they bring in the Lepers.

      You know it’s the end when the Lepers come in.

      “When do The Philosophers testify?” -comedic gold, my Man!!! Good stuff!

      Liked by 2 people

      • Redzone says:

        Linus- that won’t affect Nadler. He’ll just break out the bottle of Hooter’s Wing Sauce he carries around in his pocket, eat up the extra meat that has fallen on the floor & move on to the next witness.

        Like

  10. Magabear says:

    Remember when the dimms loved Derchowitz? Wonder what happened? 🤔😉

    Suprised Turley is on the list, not really on board with Nadler’s impeachment hoax.

    Liked by 7 people

  11. trapper says:

    Hello … Newman

    Liked by 2 people

  12. seanbrady says:

    I’ve been following Feldman for years and he is a total lightweight who thinks he’s a historian. He’s also totally one sided and deliberately misrepresents the arguments of people (especially Justice Thomas) that he disagrees with.

    Liked by 7 people

  13. seanbrady says:

    I’ve been following Feldman for years and he is a total lightweight who thinks he’s a historian. He’s also totally one sided and deliberately misrepresents the arguments of people (especially Justice Thomas) that he disagrees with.

    Like

  14. In essence, the House would like for you to believe that the President can be removed from office for making executive decisions that are unpopular with law-school professors. “The President serves at the pleasure of the Congress,” and can be arbitrarily removed for the “high crime” of doing anything disagreeable – such as probing the past criminal behaviors of Presidents, Vice-Presidents, and/or of certain well-known Members of Congress such as Jerry Nadler, Nancy Pelosi, or Adam Schiff … all of whom have had “highly-questionable dealings” in Ukraine. (Things like gun-running, drug-running, embezzlement, that sort of thing … 🤷‍♂️ )

    But, that’s not what the US Constitution actually says. The Founders deliberately broke with British tradition by excluding “maladministration” from the list of impeachable offenses, instead stipulating that the offender must be in actual or imminent trouble with the law. The Founders created three independent, co-equal branches of Government, one of which consists of just one person, none of which exist at the pleasure of either of the other two.

    Liked by 14 people

    • Jim in TN says:

      Mike, that is what I was told too. But as I read the Constitution, there is no list of impeachable offenses. What there is, is a list of offenses that require removal from office should there be a conviction of the President, etc.

      Make sure to read all six mentions of impeachment, not just Article II Section 4. Mentions in Article I Sections 2 & 3 are important too.

      http://constitutionus.com/

      Liked by 1 person

      • The Constitution says “high crimes and misdemeanors,” and further states that the impeached party still faces “indictment, trial, judgment and punishment” at the hands of the Courts. The Founders were very determined that the Government should not serve at the pleasure of the Legislatures. “Bills of Attainder” have a very, very bloody history. Congress is the only party that can make laws, yet it cannot “decide,” purely on its own authority, that someone has broken the laws that it has made. Those powers are reserved to the Executive and Judicial Branches.

        So, Nadler comes up with a handful of professors who disagree with the President, and who concoct interpretations by which, in their opinion, some act might be “an offense.” But these gentlemen are not “judge, jury, and executioner.” And, neither is the US Congress. “No Bill of Attainder […] shall be passed.”

        Liked by 6 people

        • stephen fenlon says:

          For this ignoramus from across the pond,
          what is a Bill of Attainder ?
          Keep reading about it, don’t understand what it is.

          Thanks in advance,
          (and you lot missed a trick in preferring Coffee over proper Tea !! )
          LOL !

          Like

          • gnome says:

            It’s a law aimed at an individual rather than an offence. eg “The Earl of Pondslime is an egregious person and therefore his fingers are to be broken and his estate is forfeit to the Crown”. Or “Donald Trump alone refuses to release his financial records. No-one who refuses to release his past tax records may be included on the ballot paper”.

            Like

      • zekness says:

        pendant point:

        Section 4 of Article Two of the United States Constitution: “The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.”

        notice the careful selection of actual crimes and the word “conviction”…and lastly “other high crimes and misdemeanors”.. One infers that because treason and bribery are both CRIMINAL ACTS…”or”, implies that high crimes and misdemeanors must have the same gravity of a crimnal act.

        for a criminal act to be PROVEN beyond a reasonable doubt…one must follow due processs, witnesses that are hearsay challeged can only be used to corroborate other evidence, if at all, testimonies require cross examination, evidence must follow a factual chain of custody and fact pattern, intent/motivation must be clearly understood and proven for a corrupt intent, harm must have occurred or the attempt whether successful or not would have created harm, and that the defendant have a right face his accusser. In addition, defense will have the right to know all discovery material and call its own witnesses. AND the defendant has the protected right to NOT provide the prosecution with any harmful or damaging material or testimony or access thereof, based on the right to not self incriminate ,,,these are the main legal criminal legal standards…but certainly not all of them..

        the key point here is clear:

        lets go back to Section 4 of Article Two one more time:

        it does mention specific crimes AND also considers “other”…

        the other key point, is that “shall be removed”..

        so for a president to BE REMOVED, must be convicted of one or more of the specific cited CRIMES..a conviction implies due process has been followed, and that a crime has been committed where evidence and a due process trial is the suitable and ONLY process.

        Remember the purpose of this language was to remove a president from office. Nothing less than that. It an essential part of understanding the significance of what the founders had in mind. This implies that anything less than an actual criminal act, would never rise to the removal of a president.

        what this cite does NOT offer is the “standard of reasonable doubt” But that too is implied..If you are following standard due process, then one cannot arrive at a criminal conviction without also meeting the high hurdle of “reasonable doubt” threshold.

        but we can infer the same standard applies for any criminal act of which due process and an otherwise conflict free fair trial is conducted. That wnsitould be normal and is well understood and how the law is practices and handled in every court since this country formed its very genius level and fair law philosophies…codified in statute so there would be no confusion.

        thus far, several areas of misconduct have occurred in the process making a mockery of due process.Several very important aspects of this “trial”.

        the dems are hoping that they can find a way to bypass hundreds of years of law and due process …

        it will not work

        and they will fail

        miserably!

        Liked by 2 people

    • zekness says:

      the dems have to create the illusion they are following some orderly well considered informed legal standard.

      The ONLY questionS I want these “experts” called to answer is simple:

      has the process thus far created a due process problem for a fair trial for the president of the united states who has been accused of a crime.?

      if not, can you point to any case in any impeachment to support your view and opinion.

      if you do agree, what would a normal court of law treat such injuries to the due process misconduct, specifically the actions of a fact witness who interviewed witnesses, none of which save two were eye witnesses, and released selective biased leaks to the press before articles and charges were formed..A person who also is a fact witness and should have been removed from ANY aspect of this impeachment inquiry, rule making, and committing at least 7 separate occassions when he outright lied about prior contact with the source of the complain that predicated this entire matter? How would a normal court of law handle such misconduct.?

      can you please pull the microphone up a little closer and speak louder..

      that is the ONLY set of questions that are relevant at this point…

      the ONLY questions that matter at this point

      I have already asked members of the house judicial committee ask these questions ..even if the “rules” est by nonads say otherwise.

      I want it on record no matter what if the question above are permitted.

      even if the member is rebuked..especially if it draws that reaction.

      We WANT people to know PROCESS MATTERS.

      it is the heart of the entire charade..

      The people need to understand what makes this process a fraud…in a legal doctrine and language they can understand.

      nonads: You can’t handle the truth
      GOP: I want the TRUTH.

      we know how it ends.

      this was a code red from day one.

      LT Kaffe will own them!

      Liked by 1 person

  15. Ellis says:

    What does it matter what some professors think? Is anyone even paying attention to this?

    Let’s go back to the basics, what crime has the president committed?

    Correct me if I am wrong but he hasn’t even been accused of committing an actual crime.

    Liked by 18 people

    • ezpz2 says:

      Exactly, Ellis.
      That’s what’s been exasperating for me —- Name. The. Crime.!

      This has been an inquisition in SEARCH of a crime, not an investigation of a defined and accused crime.

      Liked by 6 people

    • zekness says:

      I agree the process thus far have terminal cancerous misconduct written all over it.

      and that does need to be addressed with a legal remedy..
      the only remedy I can see that makes any legal standard is to literally strike all testimonies out of the record…because of the obvious due process and conflicts that Schiff has established already..he literally poisoned the well….so that water is done!

      after THAT is corrected, only then may a fair trial, if any remains, to go forward to a Judicial committee process….just like with nixon and clinton …

      most of the chain of procedures are very similar with the two former processes…

      but they really screwed the pooch with how Schifftty handled it.

      he will go down as the single biggest idiot to ever handle a impeachment inquiry.

      at this point, the dems are just going through the motion with hand waving hoping no one cares or can do anything about the misconduct here.

      the will fail spectacularly.

      and watch for it..

      they wil cast off schifftty for blowing this things …as surely as the dems put all the blame on comey for his 11th hour unforced error wrt hrc emails/weinner.

      this is how shockingly stupid the left dems are..they can’t even pull off a decent coup!

      Liked by 2 people

    • CountryClassVulgarian says:

      This is why I generally refuse to participate in this travesty. We discus the evillcrats’ mockery of the country, the office of the President, the legislature and the judiciary process. The whole darn circus is an insult as far as I am concerned.

      Like

  16. 335blues says:

    So ingenious. Bring in 4 communist “professors” from trashy law “schools” of the ivy league and elsewhere.
    Wow. We’re really scared now.

    Liked by 8 people

    • Linus in W.PA. says:

      I think some liberals/leftists are proud of this feces!!!????!!!!

      Like mr. piddles said…..”When do the Philosophers testify??” I can see liberals/leftists being proud of that feces too!!

      Liked by 2 people

  17. Ellis says:

    Which one did the gop call to give an opinion?

    Like

  18. JohnCasper says:

    What about the as yet unannounced 5th star witness, Humpty Dumpty?

    Liked by 5 people

  19. Troublemaker10 says:

    So, do the Republicans get to call four professors to rebut those witnesses?

    Like

  20. Troublemaker10 says:

    So, do the Republicans get to call four professors to rebut those witnesses?

    Like

  21. Tiffthis says:

    That line sounds like a thumping bore. I bet no one watches 💯

    Like

  22. frankmintz9517 says:

    Nadler has lined up his Jewish lawyer pals for a paycheck- FACTS not needed.

    Liked by 1 person

  23. bleep21k says:

    There are days that my “instincts” tell me that it would be OK to watch cnn – of course I expect the minute by minute, hourly “breaking news” negative attacks – and today was one of those days.

    “A weeping and gnashing of teeth” so to speak, that cnn CANNOT break President Donald J. Trump.

    The talking heads ALL have what I describe as “melting faces” – they look like they just cannot smile, as if they have muscular issues in there jaws and cheeks – and this is MOST enjoyable to me, the pain and disappointment in NOT being able to sway any support away from President Trump is visible.

    It started with the mooch Beyatch Scaramucci early, what a joke.

    ANGER at ALL of the republicans supporting President Trump.

    FEAR that whatever these so called HJC hearings are supposed to do, will NOT be effective.

    ANGST about a republican prebuttal (?) report that will nullify a democrat report lol.

    LOW SELF-ESTEEM permeated (and continues at this hour) the entire broadcast day.

    Now Anderson calling the report and the fact that he republicans are “unified”, very “creepy” that they are trying to destroy the Dem report. “Creepy” lol…

    Its been entertaining as well as enjoyable.

    NOW comes the HJC hearings LMAO!

    Liked by 5 people

  24. XO says:

    Start going after these universities and demand these jackasses be fired. The left would be relentless, so should we.

    Liked by 2 people

    • WSB says:

      I have always liked the idea of withholding Federal funds from any college in a sanctuary state or town. Like student loans, which Obama so cleverly transferred from the private sector to Federal responsibility.

      That would bring down the entire current college construct. Oops.

      Liked by 13 people

      • The Boss says:

        Why not really drive the left nuts and SELL all existing federal student loans to banks? Then, have all future student loans issued by banks. We’ll see that loans for useless degrees either are not made, or made under very onerous terms to protect the lender from default by gender studies majors and the like.

        Liked by 5 people

  25. Nessie509 says:

    The House Republican rebuttal to the Democrats is out. Very effective rebuttal.
    President Trump could be on to something. He just tweeted he might have the Supreme Court intervene in this impeachment.
    Just my opinion, but from watching the Clinton Impeachment, the House needs a felony to
    Impeach an officeholder in America.

    Liked by 11 people

  26. TigerBear says:

    Witnesses to what exactly, Watching their toenails grow?! What a big freakin farce being played on America and Americans and adding insult to injury we’re paying for it too. Grrrrrr….😡

    Liked by 3 people

    • 1stgoblyn says:

      Not witnesses, but experts on what constitutes an ‘impeachment.’ IOW the Dims 3 professors will say what VSPGPDJT has done re asking President Zelensky to look into the 2016 election corruption is a ‘high crime and misdemeanor’ and is impeachable. The Rs 1 expert will say it does not reach the standards for HCaM. Three to one, the Dims win.

      Liked by 1 person

  27. NJF says:

    Oh boy, when Turley is the right of center member of the panel. SMH.

    Also of interest.

    Liked by 1 person

    • emeraldcoaster says:

      No surprise, Judge Brown lifted her own stay…and threw a few rocks at DOJ in the process. Another BO appointee doing her best to make Zero proud.

      Liked by 11 people

    • WSB says:

      By the Obamabot.

      Liked by 1 person

    • Lets get through this nonsense and then impeach Ketanji – she actually deserves it!

      Liked by 6 people

      • gnome says:

        No – leave her there but after 2020 pass a law “Ensuring Judicial Integrity” that says in any case where an obama judge is appointed to preside either party can require a different judge be appointed at any stage of the proceedings.

        Let history know what the obama period was all about. (And it doesn’t need two-thirds of the Senate to pass.)

        Liked by 1 person

    • All Too Much says:

      So onward to an appeal.
      Sundance outlined the danger an adverse appellate ruling could have on the impeachment proceedings.

      “Today we have some new background to help see the narrative race and legal race. Pelosi and Schiff are not only racing the impeachment vote against the IG report, they are also racing against the Judicial branch wiping out all prior “impeachment inquiry” validity.”

      https://theconservativetreehouse.com/2019/11/21/two-races-pelosi-and-schiff-are-racing-court-rulings-for-impeachment-vote-and-ig-report-for-narrative/

      Liked by 2 people

    • zekfidle says:

      this ruling was expected.

      for the unaware, what this means, is that McGahn can NOT refuse to walk over to the hearing and put his hand up and sit down for a few hours and drink free water (protip: avoid drinking or eating anything offered by congress..and if you can, hold your breathe until its over)

      what this ruling however CANNOT force him to do is to answer any questions.

      and congress cannot call him into any contempt for doing so.

      although they may allege this is applicable..

      because lets face it…the dim’s seem not declare new powers seeded from simple conjuration.

      he has rights…he can “under the advice of counsel refuse to answer any questions”.

      this court ruling does not compel him in any way to make any replies to any questions, other than that single statement. Nor may the judicial committee that is holding a hearing compel a testimony or response …they are forced under the constitution AND by the very rules they have written that all witnesses will be afforded rights.

      the reason for the legal charade to force his “appearance”..clear..crystal clear:

      the dim small group want it on record that one of trump’s camp refuses to cooperate when he refuses to answer any questions.

      they will refer to his former written testimony as a legal argument that he speak…

      his attorney will respond on his behalf that his written testimony has addressed every single question prepared by congress on that Mueller matter, and that if there are any further considerations they may deliver them to the WH again in writing and he will respond to those as it relates to the Russia “collusion” matter that is no cold and dead to address any spelling mistakes or formatting errors..but that he has no plans to reform any prior statements or to entertain any expansion into that matter..period full stop.

      again, the reason for the dim’s to insist he make an appearance, is part of the ongoing s gimmick to again smear this president with the same lame line of manufactured claims of some made up ..failed impeachable obstruction angle argument..they will do this because it is a political argument and can be used as cannon fodder for more media outlets to talk about in a negative way about the president and his culpability.

      It’s a liar’s gimmick.

      It is also important to note that Mr. McGahn has already provided testimony (written) to the prior special counsel wrt Mueller investigation. not being satisfied with his written testimony for a matter that has already been concluded of which NO charges have been referred to congress…the DIM”s are driving this machine entirely on the combined energy of schifffs deceit and nadlers’ bloviations.

      it will fail..

      and miserably.

      McGahn will be silent and not make any replies.. just as turley recently commented the recent GOP letter response to nadler, “go screw yourself”, was the correct response, so too will McGahn by his silence under the full protection of his protected rights, be saying the same thing: “take a flying leap and go screw yourself”

      take a flying leap..

      McGhan, a member and attorney to the executive branch of government, President Trump does NOT serve at the behest of any other branch of government..not now, and it never has at any other time in our history. period…full stop.

      there are some comments that realize a greater truth here about the dim and the press agenda.

      the dim’s KNOW these rights exist..they understand the separation of powers…

      they just act they are unaware of them..

      that makes them not simple fools but also damned fools.

      they will fail

      miserably

      should have listened to pelosi..

      sad day, when you point to nancy pelosi having the highest IQ level in the room.

      sad day.

      not a good look dims.

      Liked by 1 person

      • NJF says:

        You are exactly correct, but it’s being framed as “he must testify”. And when he invokes exec privilege they’ll scream obstruction.

        Like

  28. Garavaglia says:

    Ah..so we get to hear the legal justifications for impeachment, or this is where they get the script entered into the record. How special.

    Liked by 2 people

    • CountryClassVulgarian says:

      O yes!!! I’m going to hear these “witnesses” and voila!!! I’m going to be persuaded orange man bad. ‘peach fordify…

      Like

  29. jus wundrin says:

    Snore fest…..even the highlights. Dims just trying to legitimize their fascism.

    Liked by 1 person

  30. JohnCasper says:

    Barack Obama: Fellow Goa’uld … I mean fellow Democrats … we can transform a nation. We have the political power. We have the MSM. We have the schools. We have Hollywood. We have the FBI. We have the CIA. We have the House. We have the lies. We have the knives. We have billions of dollars from George Soros. We have the capability to create the world’s first Zombie Nation. America will be that nation. Much better for us than it ever was before. Dumber, weaker, poorer, more dependent, more beaten down, more unhealthy and, most of all, more subservient.

    Liked by 5 people

  31. LDave says:

    I recognize Jonathan Turley’s name. He’s a solid go-to Trump basher for the media.

    Like

  32. 1stgoblyn says:

    Wait…today is Monday, December 2nd. How can they hold this hearing take place Wednesday, December 2nd at 10:00am?

    Liked by 1 person

  33. Linda K. says:

    I don’t plan to watch these hearings, unless it is time for a nap.

    Liked by 3 people

  34. convert says:

    Normal Americans will not watch this bullshit. A bunch of self-important lawyers in love with the sound of their own voice droning for the cameras?. Lol. Only the Antifa 20% will tune in. Epic fail.

    Liked by 4 people

  35. The Devilbat says:

    If this goes to a trial then several demo idiots who are running for the presidency will not be able to go out and hold any political events. Add the fact that the President’s lawyers can call all the witnesses they want including Eric the Putz.

    It will likely also be curtains for Bribery Biden and his dope head son as they too will be called as witnesses. What will make it worse for the democrats is that everything the media has denied covering will be aired on national television.

    The defendant/s will end up being the democrats more than Trump. As a final prize, the democrats who voted for impeachment will almost all lose their seats when election time rolls around. you’ve got to hand it to the democrats, they are not the brightest people on the planet.

    Liked by 2 people

    • If the House cannot point to an actual high crime that the President has committed, such that he does now face or very soon will face an indictment leading to an actual case in an actual court of law for that suspected offense, then the House has no Constitutional authority to adopt Articles of Impeachment. On this point the Founders of our country were quite clear.

      Here is why they specifically excluded “maladministration,” thereby breaking from English law:

      The definition of maladministration is wide and can include:

      Delay
      Incorrect action or failure to take any action
      Failure to follow procedures or the law
      Failure to provide information
      Inadequate record-keeping
      Failure to investigate
      Failure to reply
      Misleading or inaccurate statements
      Inadequate liaison
      Inadequate consultation
      Broken promises

      … in other words, “any damned thing that Parliament wants it to be.” The Founders said “no” to that.

      Liked by 4 people

      • Tom! says:

        Pretty sure he needs to be convicted first in a court before impeachment can begin on that conviction.

        Liked by 1 person

        • “Actually, no.” The second sentence of the Impeachment Clause says that the victim still will face “Indictment, Trial, Conviction and Punishment.” Obviously, the Founders did not want the other two Branches to be able to obstruct the process by refusing to hand down an indictment, but they also made it very clear that the victim was “in trouble with, or very soon to be in trouble with,” the actual Law.

          For example, Richard Nixon, Bill Clinton, and(!) Hillary Clinton were all visibly engaged in textbook “obstruction of justice,” destroying evidence and so forth. Any Grand Jury would readily hand down an indictment, and a Jury would convict, based on what’s clearly writ in Black’s Law Dictionary. Open-and-shut. Congress doesn’t actually have to wait for them to do so. But, neither can it take the law into its own hands (as Congress is clearly trying to do right now), thus crossing into expressly-prohibited “Bill of Attainder” territory.

          In short – “the law doesn’t give a damn what a law-school professor’s opinions are.”

          Like

  36. ezpz2 says:

    Hannity haz bombshell.
    🙄

    Like

  37. All Too Much says:

    Public policy law experts.
    Give me a break.
    Public policy disagreements are not high crimes and misdemeanors.

    Liked by 2 people

    • Justin Green says:

      Can’t get past the paywall. And I have no need for virtual toilet paper.

      Liked by 2 people

      • zekfidle says:

        chrome with uBlock Origin v1.23. Raymond Hill…play store only ..never that malware from sideload.

        ..pretty sure it will work on a windows box…but definitely from a linux distro.

        I refuse to pay for any news…ever…certainly not wapost.

        and always use a throwaway email with no PII linked to anything important.

        because its’ bezos town..(read: coral project)

        that’s the reason to insist in privacy and a nose clip.

        uBlock has a nasty twin…make sure you only load the raymond hill vetted extension.

        Like

    • I don’t accept ANYTHING that the Washington Post says … about anything at all.

      Liked by 2 people

    • sunnyflower5 says:

      Washington Post in first paragraph —“told associates” and “according to people familiar with the matter”
      Sounds legit— Not.

      Like

    • berniekopell says:

      It’s only Monday in terms of the deep state spin. Maybe DEFCON 3. DEFCON 4-5 coming in the next 4 days. Horrible-witz could go to a Michigan v. Ohio State game and declare that all fans cheering are neutral.

      Liked by 1 person

  38. A2 says:

    I looked up Gerhardt and Karlin, the former a straightforward dem worked for Al Gore and Clinton, whilst Karlin , I quote wiki, “ [edit] Karlan told Politico in 2009, “It’s no secret at all that I’m counted among the LGBT crowd”.[11] She has described herself as an example of “snarky, bisexual, Jewish women”.

    All four like to moonlight as talking heads on TV.

    Should be a cozy Lawfare conference. 😂

    Like

  39. burnett044 says:

    this could all be called….”The Selling of the Nothing Burger”

    we get to hear even more of the Dem/left opinions….
    ..some day soon they will get to hear the peoples opinion….and they will not like the sound of that !!!

    Liked by 1 person

    • zekfidle says:

      they are already hearing the people’s opnion…

      they are doing this because its a desperation tactic..they know it will not be successful…they are doing it to provide a pre-text condition they can use politically to address the expected indictments that will showcase to the american people there are agents of foreign powers right there in congress who invented corruption and normalized it…

      they will use this impeachment charade to cloud the people’s judgement on their own complicity in the larger conspiracies they have played a part..either by ignoring the corruption in the former administration..and in some case, profiting by it.

      these are not honest people..they work in shake-down and abusing the office for personal gain…

      this is what this impeachment stop loss campaign is about.

      Like

  40. Justin Green says:

    So, counselor, is investigating a political opponent an impeachable offense?
    It is? Is it illegal somehow?
    It is? So, by your logic, James Comey, John Brennan, James Clapper, Lynch, Stzrok, Page, Clinesmith, Morrel, Halper, Steele, Simpson, both Ohrs, and others need to be prosecuted, correct?

    Liked by 2 people

    • It’s only impeachable when the target is a Democrat.

      It’s perfectly acceptable for a sitting Vice-President to tell the Ukranians that they’re not getting billions of dollars unless they call off an investigation into his son. It means nothing if he says, “call him,” in reference to the then-President. “Nothing to see here. Move along.”

      But … if you dare to suggest investigation of these very-obvious crimes, that’s an impeachable offense! (Particularly since the Speaker and these various Chairmen have all committed similar offenses with regards to Ukraine.) These people aren’t concerned about anything other than saving their own asses. They’re all guilty as hell, and they know it, and they know that PDJT knows it, too.

      Liked by 3 people

  41. Frbrdskmi says:

    Nauseated, angry, exhausted from all this garbage!

    http://redstatewatcher.com/article.asp?id=155495

    Like

  42. Republicans should call “Charlie” Charmarella as their Constitutional expert on impeachment. He understands how a president should be removed based on hearsay by an anonymous CIA mole, just The Way the Framers Intended(tm). And he cared enough to leave his job as John Brennan’s spy and Joe Biden’s Ukrainian Bagman to help gut George Washington’s highly over-rated Peaceful Transfer of Executive Power. C;mon, Eric. Your country needs you now.

    Whatever country that may be.

    Like

  43. Ho-hum – another news less day.

    Liked by 1 person

  44. vicarioushikermom says:

    Bought to you by the Fake Academia Network….o my I see a Freudian slip in that sentence! lol

    Like

  45. Zorro says:

    Just heard on the 9pm Fox Radio News that Barr disagrees with Horowitz’s conclusion that FISA on Trump and associates A-OK.

    Liked by 1 person

  46. Madmax110 says:

    All these so called law experts supporting this abortion should be disbarred for life.
    It looks like we’re back in 1692 Salem. Burn the Witch!

    Like

    • TheLastDemocrat says:

      When you see a bunch of academic bio-ethicists gathering, you can pretty much be sure ethics are pretty far down the list. Much higher on the list is: justifying abortions or justifying euthanasia of old people and costly people, like the heart defect baby in Dallas.

      Like

  47. Bill Dumanch says:

    Bunch of Christmas-cancelling-Steal children’s toys and soup from the poor LAWYERS!

    (Oh, yeah-sorry sundance)

    Like

  48. SHV says:

    FWIW here is the reasoning used for Articles of Impeachment against Nixon:

    “APPENDIX
    Report by the Staff of the Impeachment Inquiry on the
    Constitutional Grounds for Presidential Impeachment,
    Committee Print, Committee on the Judiciary, 93d Cong. 2d
    Sess., Feb. 1974

    https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/GPO-HPREC-DESCHLERS-V3/pdf/GPO-HPREC-DESCHLERS-V3-5-6.pdf
    ****
    Brief read by me, the bottom line, the House can impeach the President for any reason, criminal, political, etc.
    Example:
    “Contemporaneous comments on the
    scope of impeachment are persuasive as
    to the intention of the framers. In Federalist No. 65, Alexander Hamilton described the subject of impeachment as:
    those offences which proceed from the
    misconduct of public men, or, in other
    words, from the abuse or violation of
    some public trust. They are of a nature
    which may with peculiar propriety be
    denominated POLITICAL, as they relate chiefly to injuries done immediately to the society itself.(59)
    Comments in the state ratifying conventions also suggest that those who
    adopted the Constitution viewed impeachment as a remedy for usurpation or
    abuse of power or serious breach of trust.”

    Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s