House Judiciary Committee Impeachment Hearing – 9:00am ET Livestream…

The House Judiciary Committee holds their second impeachment inquiry hearing at 9:00am ET. Presentations from the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence and House Judiciary Committee.

Lawfare Counsel Barry Berke (representing the majority) and Republican Counsel Stephen Castor (representing the minority) will make opening arguments to the House Judiciary Committee. Lawfare Counsel Daniel Goldman & Lawfare Counsel Barry Berke will then present the evidence for impeachment. House judiciary member questioning will likely follow last week’s questioning of academic impeachment experts.

C-SPAN Livestream LinkFox News Livestream LinkFox Business Livestream Link



This entry was posted in 4th Amendment, 6th Amendment, Big Government, Big Stupid Government, Decepticons, Deep State, Dem Hypocrisy, Donald Trump, Election 2020, Impeachment, Legislation, Live Streaming, media bias, Nancy Pelosi, Notorious Liars, President Trump, Professional Idiots, propaganda, Typical Prog Behavior, Ukraine, Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

585 Responses to House Judiciary Committee Impeachment Hearing – 9:00am ET Livestream…

  1. Troublemaker10 says:

    Liked by 7 people

  2. Reserved55 says:


    Liked by 5 people

  3. Ironclaw says:

    Why would any network waste air time on the ret@rded communists and their 3-year temper tantrum?

    Liked by 5 people

    • dd_sc says:

      Because they’re paid to be a propaganda and PR firm for the Uniparty.

      Their reporters get access, and I suspect they get the occasional stock tip on which companies (like Burisma) to invest in. How many reporters were involved with the Clinton Foundation and Clinton Global Initiative etc …?

      Liked by 1 person

  4. Troublemaker10 says:

    Liked by 3 people

  5. jeans2nd says:

    From reading your comments, sounds like this is really boring.

    Anyone care to come over and watch my hair grow?
    Ok, we shall watch your fingernails grow, then.


  6. Amber says:

    Castor is focusing too much on process rather than substance

    Liked by 3 people

  7. beach lover says:

    Castor is losing me and Im really really really trying to pay attention.

    Liked by 2 people

  8. Masoyna Morgan says:

    Just got tickets to Trump MAGA Hershey Pa.

    Liked by 6 people

  9. And today it gets worse. The democrats keep insisting that Trump did all this for personal gain. It appears to be the central reason behind the accusations. OK, what is the personal gain?

    Is it constant investigations, 4 more years of name calling and baseless accusations, family attacks, lawsuits, or is it money? Trump is taking no salary and he doesn’t need more money. So really, what is this that the democrats keep insisting on?

    Maybe democrats have some inside information about how “they” gain from elected office. Maybe they are the ones who gain from public office(Biden) and think everyone does it. If the democrats whole point of running for public office is to “personally gain” then every single one should be impeached.

    This question needs to be asked because Trump has nothing to gain personally from reelection. His motivation must be something else. The democrats are so corrupt they can not fathom anyone wanting elected office to actually help America.

    Liked by 3 people

    • 55praises says:

      Yes, what is it that motivates a person to ‘serve’ in Congress or the White House any more? The good-ol’-boys-club definitely has a motive, and our wonderful president is not of that mold, thank goodness. I started reading “Inside Trump’s White House” by Doug Wead and am SO thankful for the motivation our President has: the Good of America!


  10. Troublemaker10 says:

    Good point. Why weren’t Berke and Castor put under oath subject to perjury before their opening statements?


  11. beach lover says:

    oh good.. get Nadler rattled… LOL

    Liked by 1 person

  12. Reserved55 says:

    Dims weekend rehearsal

    Liked by 1 person

    • ATheoK says:

      I think they would be better represented by two Pinkys.
      Sure, the Nan Pinky is smarter than the Adam Pinky, but not by much.

      Though, I am sure that it appears Nan Pinky is a genius compared to Adam Pinky. Keep in mind Adam Pinky’s single brain cell is being compared to Nan Pinky’s two brain cells.


  13. Troublemaker10 says:

    Biggs makes by a point.

    Nadler can’t have it both ways. Berke can’t reject Berke ad a witness and call him simply a staffer (not subject to rules of decorum) one minute….then insist he is a witness the next minute .

    Repubs killing hearing with a thousand cuts of “point of order” protests.

    Liked by 5 people

  14. Jenevive says:

    Can’t this whole case be blown up by two dates
    The date the investigation started? When did Rudy start looking into
    this….and the date Joe Biden announced his run for office?

    It the date the investigation started is before Joe Biden announcement
    the whole case is over because Biden WASN”T POTUS political rival
    at the time the investigation started and since no one is above the law
    that would include Joe Biden.

    Liked by 7 people

    • zimbalistjunior says:

      that is correct
      have been railing on this point for weeks
      its like watching crazy town or absurdist theater

      Liked by 1 person

    • Reserved55 says:

      Nov 2018


    • TarsTarkas says:

      Dates are irrelevant. Biden was a political opponent prior to his announcing his run for 2020. ‘Everyone’ knew he was going to run for President. Even before he did. You always dig up ‘dirt’ on potential opponents. Look at the run-up to 2016. It’s just not OK for Republicans to do so. Because all Republicans are reincarnations of Mr. H as soon as they run for President.


  15. Troublemaker10 says:

    Is Goldman simply going to repeat what Burke said?

    Liked by 1 person

  16. pucecatt says:

    Lol these dem staffers are reading shitty Schiffs script , why are these nut jobs allowed to lie and nobody is able to call them out on these lies ., the one video Berke played about article 2 was stopped before you can hear President Trump refer to Mueller .. grrrrr

    Liked by 1 person

    • Garavaglia says:

      Their lies are not able to be exposed if they are not allowed to tell them. It is the cross examiners job to expose the expressed lie.


  17. This is a Gestapo trial. This is not America- we are now in 1984/ North Korea territory.

    The Demonics are out of control. They have complete contempt and disregard for the Constitution and rule of law.

    Collins and the Rep warriors are doing what they can but because they’re abiding by the Rules, they are outgunned and at a big disadvantage.

    What next, now that the House has gone rogue? Isn’t it about time for some decisive action, like frog marching the criminal thugs, Nadler and Co. out of the hearing room in handcuffs and leg irons?

    I can hardly bear to watch this fiasco. They are completely disrespecting our President Trump and the millions of his supporters who voted for him.

    Liked by 7 people

  18. Reserved55 says:


  19. CTH Fan says:

    I warned you earlier about Castor. He is not on the President’s side. I blame the Republicans at this point. They should have known better when they saw him laughing it up with Schiff at the end of the Intelligence Committee hearing.

    Liked by 2 people

  20. Troublemaker10 says:

    It’s almost funny when you think about it .

    Liked by 2 people

  21. pucecatt says:

    Haha this Goldman guy makes no sense at all , word salad 🥗🤪


  22. Patience says:

    This is a “manufactured crisis” in progress.
    How many ways can excrement be written?


  23. Garavaglia says:

    It’s a Yankee favorite/sarc


  24. Troublemaker10 says:

    Liked by 6 people

  25. beach lover says:

    wait… when do the members get to grill these Dim mouthpieces?? And did I miss them being swearing in??


    • Garavaglia says:

      Uhh..they’re just wingin’ it..with an occasional gavel interjection from Nadler to give the air of officiality.


      • beach lover says:

        yeah.. I noticed someone has to hand him rulings, since he obviously has no clue what they are.

        Liked by 1 person

        • Garavaglia says:

          I watched @ 2 minutes of Goldman laying out his points with slides. I quit as even the slides he was using were sloppy, the words went outside of the white box they should have been in. I am not a pro at graphics (I teach at a University) but I do try to make it look somewhat neat. Very unprofessional. Indicative of the whole thing, and they are making tons of our tax money. Gubmet.


  26. youme says:

    This news came out this morning:

    Liked by 3 people

    • TMonroe says:

      The use of’ interfere’ in itself lends itself to fields of strawmen. The attack on Pearl Harbor was interference in US affairs, as is someone from Canada writing a letter to their American cousin and suggesting they vote for Derek Jeter for president. Both acted to influence American policies and outcomes, so a hyper-focus on whether parties acted to ‘interfere’ is a waste of time versus focus on illegality and impact.


  27. Daniel says:

    All this crap about “to help the president’s re-election.” Seriously? I think both sides and independents ALL see the economy and social issues are guaranteeing Trump’s re-election. Seen a lot of “racism” claims lately? Nope. Seen the economy benefiting all people? Darned tootin’! That’s what’s guaranteeing Trump’s re-election.

    What also helps is the Democrats not having a platform or a plan. What also helps is this visible reality combined with their relentless efforts. They started with half of the nation supporting the Democrat side. But I don’t think they have accepted what their own polls and other information tells them.

    I also have my own pet theories — that they KNOW the numbers supporting impeachment aren’t there and that it’s destroying their party and their positions within that party. I think they are working to protect something higher than themselves along with themselves. Their clumsy and obvious efforts betray their lack of a viable plan. And no one does this, knowing how bad it looks, until there is something they are protecting which is far, far worse.

    Liked by 2 people

    • daylight58 says:

      “I think they are working to protect something higher than themselves along with themselves.”

      Ordinarily I think “Their immortal souls and their place in heaven.” But, they already received their pieces of silver.


    • wildsailor2018 says:

      All the dead people will vote for their side (the Demonrats). It will be difficult to explain this time around how 273.2% of voters came out to vote in the election…


    • cboldt says:

      The “help the president’s relection” candard is based on allegation of Biden wrongdoing. In other words, not helping Trump, but damaging his opponent.
      It is the “candidates are immune” principle. Run for or obtain office, and the laws no longer apply.


    • rayvandune says:

      You are spot on. When Democrats start accusing anyone of “treason”, it means they are up to it themselves! Projection isn’t just something that happens in a little room at the back of the Cineplex!


  28. Patience says:

    12:00 cannot come soon enough

    Liked by 1 person

  29. Goldman is working that Strawman hard: It’s either Russia or Ukraine. It’s both–and whatever they did pales into insignifigance compred to the massive criminal election interference by our own Nat/Sec Apparatus–starting in the Oval Office.

    Liked by 1 person

  30. Reserved55 says:

    Zelensky meeting Putin means Ukraine is our enemy


  31. dom elp says:

    Goldman sounds like he is telling a story to children


  32. freepetta says:

    Not watch the Fatty Naddy show. Waiting for the IG report which I’m sure will be a coverup.

    Liked by 1 person

  33. Paprika says:

    The format of today’s hearing featuring 3 lawyers boring the hell out of any voter, regardless of ideology, for hours on end, only goes to prove out of touch our “Congressional elite” are with the American voter. So far, this is a PR disaster for both sides. More importantly it is an insult to any American capable of critical thinking or desirous of knowing the truth of “the matter”. Nothing of intellectual import has been advanced.

    Hopefully, when it turns to individual Representatives asking questions or pontificating in their usual obnoxious manner, the American people may get a glimpse of what this is all about or at least find amusement.

    Unless you can hold your breath and patience for hours–this is a non event.


  34. Troublemaker10 says:

    Liked by 5 people

  35. daylight58 says:

    I just about fell off my moose when I saw the local news report that Lisa Murkowski (RINO-Alaska) is skeptical of the whole impeachment s_tshow.

    Liked by 5 people

    • Troublemaker10 says:

      Wow. If you’ve lost Murkowski….Romney and Collins will not be far behind .

      Liked by 2 people

    • Roger Duroid says:

      She knows PDJT will take down the entire senate and all their corruption if they go after him.

      Liked by 4 people

    • Paprika says:

      OK, be honest now, Who fell over 1st, you or your moose? (grins)

      Liked by 1 person

    • Baby El says:

      She’s skeptical, but in the end, she’ll vote for it – just to reach across the aisle in a bi-partisan way.

      Given a choice between what is good for the country and a chance to stab someone in the back, she’ll take the latter every time!!


    • rashomon says:

      Per Grassfire:
      U.S. SENATE


      Mitt Romney (UT): “It remains troubling in the extreme. It’s deeply troubling.” (Did not co-sponsor Senate Resolution condemning House impeachment process)


      Lamar Alexander (TN): “I want to know the facts.” (Did not co-sponsor Senate Resolution condemning House impeachment process)
      Roy Blunt (MO)
      Richard Burr (NC): “Gathering the facts.”
      Susan Collins (ME): “President made a big mistake … completely inappropriate”; says she hasn’t made up her mind and shouldn’t until if/when Articles of Impeachment arrive from the House
      Mike Crapo (ID)
      Mike Enzi (WY) (Did not co-sponsor Senate Resolution condemning House impeachment process)
      Johnny Isakson (GA) (Did not co-sponsor Senate Resolution condemning House impeachment process)
      John Kennedy (LA) Said any quid pro quo related to Ukraine was “probably” impeachable.
      Lisa Murkowski (AK) (Did not co-sponsor Senate Resolution condemning House impeachment process)
      Rob Portman (OH) (Did not co-sponsor Senate Resolution condemning House impeachment process)
      Dan Sullivan (AK) (Did not co-sponsor Senate Resolution condemning House impeachment process)


      Marco Rubio (FL): “I don’t think he should have done it.”
      John Thune (SD): “I would prefer he would not raise an issue like that with a foreign leader.”
      Patrick Toomey (PA): Trump’s actions “inappropriate.”
      Ben Sasse (NE): Some aspects “terrible”



      Rep. Francis Rooney (R-FL-19): Not “100% sure” how he’d vote; “What I’ve heard so far is quite troubling.”

      (These GOP reps have not responded to a New York Times inquiry on impeachment.)

      Mark Amodei – Nev. 2
      Gus Bilirakis – Fla. 12
      Paul Cook – Calif. 8
      Anthony Gonzalez – Ohio 16
      Kay Granger – Tex. 12
      David Joyce – Ohio 14
      Trent Kelly – Miss. 1
      Kenny Marchant – Tex. 24
      Bill Posey – Fla. 8
      Christopher H. Smith – N.J. 4
      Van Taylor – Tex. 3
      Mac Thornberry – Tex. 13

      (Sources: WaPo, NYT, Daily Caller, Senate Resolution)


  36. Unlike other US officials, The President of the United States does not have a recusal policy in the event that Executive action might intersect with some perceived benefit to the President. Herein lies the fatal constitutional error that The Russian Hoax and Ukrainian Hoax both commit.
    The United States is never, at any time, without a President, and no other coequal branch may disqualify the President from valid, constitutional activity because of a perceived benefit that may redound to the President’s benefit as result of his actions. Hence, the firing of officials under his command, whether an investigation is ongoing or not in relation to them, can never be considered obstruction, because the Constitution would then leave no other official with the authority to do so.
    This issue is clear: if the House cannot allege an actual crime, and persists in claiming that White House assertions of Executive Privilege are obstruction, then which coequal branch would be constitutionally authorized to assert it, if not the Executive??
    Again, the fatal flaw of constitutional interpretation is that The Executive Branch can ever be recused from its normal Executive prerogatives, or that it may be neutered or paralyzed because of unfounded and baseless investigations.


    Liked by 1 person

  37. Reserved55 says:

    Burisma Biden is Corruption

    Liked by 1 person

  38. zimbalistjunior says:

    you know what would be really worthwhile?
    if the dems could trot out yet another incompetent, abysmally boring and unpersuasive attorney to delineate their incoherent case, repeating every irrelevant detail like a sputtering gatling gun?
    i dont think berke and goldman will suffice
    i say nadler needs to waddle outside and find another non-entity. make it two. there must be some awful attorneys loitering around who can read a script.
    lets keep this going all frikking day and through the night.


  39. Troublemaker10 says:

    This testimony is simply biased lawfare lawyers giving biased resistance testimony based on hearsay witnesses giving their opinions.

    Makes no sense.

    Liked by 2 people

    • islandpalmtrees says:

      Yes, in a way it does – the politicians these people represent don’t what the FACT they are getting money from the Ukraine. This includes Schiff. Millions of dollars!


  40. Reserved55 says:

    Back to quid pro quo


  41. Reserved55 says:

    To Rogue or not to Rogue

    Which is it?


  42. Troublemaker10 says:

    Using Sondland’s testimony as proof of anything is ridiculous since he also testified he was just “assuming”. When he was actually asked he was told the opposite of his presumptions, “no quid pro quo…I want nothing”.


  43. Reserved55 says:

    President’s HAND picked representatives.



  44. islandpalmtrees says:

    Can Daniel Goldman be charged for lying before the House?


    • youme says:

      Goldman is quite the character….

      “Mr. Schiff’s investigators badly wanted the secret Deutsche files. Mr. Broeksmit tried to extract money from them — he pushed to be hired as a consultant to the committee — but that was a nonstarter. An investigator, Daniel Goldman, appealed to his sense of patriotism and pride. “Imagine a scenario where some of the material that you have can actually provide the seed that we can then use to blow open everything that [Trump] has been hiding,” Mr. Goldman told Mr. Broeksmit in a recorded phone call. “In some respects, you — and your father vicariously through you — will go down in American history as a hero and as the person who really broke open an incredibly corrupt president and administration.” (Mr. Broeksmit wouldn’t budge; eventually, Mr. Schiff subpoenaed him.)”


    • willthesuevi says:

      Oh, hell. These days, who knows?

      If he was on the right side of the aisle, you bet. He is a Progressive so he will get a pass. He will get a pass because Democrats control the House.

      If Republicans controlled the House he would also get a pass. You know because they are taking the high road or some such crap.

      That has been the pattern in the past.


  45. bullnuke says:

    Nader asleep yet? i will never degrade clowns again by referring to this sham as a clown show.


  46. Reserved55 says:

    Nobody understands this BS.


  47. topavalley says:

    I think the plan is to bore us all to death.

    Liked by 1 person

  48. House Dems continue to assert that ‘political motivations’ can limit the range of the President’s normal activities. Which version of the Constitution are they reading?


    • LDave says:

      Sundance nailed this topic of “intent” yesterday. When HDR22 broke the law, she was deemed not to have intended to do so. When DJT does a lawful act, they ascribe malicious intent.


  49. Justin Green says:

    OMG will this insufferable moron shut up already?


Leave a Reply

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

You are commenting using your 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