Judiciary Hearing Devolves As Democrats Reuse Their Witness To Question Other Witnesses
Amber Athey
Daily Caller
White House Correspondent
December 09, 2019 1:54 PM ET
he House Judiciary Committee’s second impeachment hearing got testy Monday when Democrats allowed a lawyer who had already served as a witness to return to the bench and cross-examine other witnesses.
Lawyer Barry Berke, who was selected to be the Judiciary Democrats’ counsel, started the hearing by presenting his opinion as a witness as to why President Donald Trump should be impeached. After serving as a witness, Berke was then assigned to question and cross-examine other witnesses at the hearing.
As Berke started questioning the Republican counsel, Steve Castor, Republican Texas Rep. Louie Gohmert interrupted to clarify if a witness could also serve as a questioner under House rules. Judiciary Chairman Jerry Nadler refused to acknowledge Gohmert’s point of order.
“There is no rule or precedent for anybody being a witness and then getting to come up and question, so — the point of order is he’s inappropriate to be up here asking questions,” Gohmert asked.
“How much money do you have to give to get to do that?” Gohmert added, presumably referencing the fact that Berke has donated over $100,000 to Democrats.
Nadler responded by urging Gohmert not to “cast aspersions” on members of the committee.
Several journalists questioned the arrangement on Twitter, indicating that allowing someone to serve as both a witness and a questioner was unprecedented.
Martha MacCallum
@marthamaccallumWhy is witness Barry Burke now asking witness questions @replouiegohmert is asking? Good question! Never saw this before.
- - - - - - - - - -
Kimberley Strassel
@KimStrasselWow. Nadler has his counsel sit a witness, then has him walk up to the dais and grill his fellow witness. Yah, that's normal and fair... (Not.) What a zoo.
- - - - - - - - - -
Melissa Francis
@MelissaAFrancisI just went to grab a salad and when I came back the witness who was testifying before is now +up on the dais+ interrogating the guy who was previously sitting next to him. Am I seeing things?
#ImpeachmentHearing Did I miss the musical chairs music?
#1: nolu chan To: Vicomte13 (#0)
nolu chan posted on 2019-12-09 16:30:22 Reply Private Reply
#2: Stoner To: nolu chan (#1)
Only in commie run regimes.
THIS WHOLE THING IS A SHAM !!!!
If the GOP ever regains the house, they should put those assholes through the wringer, if not run them out of the house !!!
Nadler & Shiff should be marched out at bayonet point !!!
Stoner posted on 2019-12-09 16:56:30 Reply Private Reply
#3: WWG1WWA To: Stoner (#2)
WWG1WWA posted on 2019-12-09 18:08:02 Reply Private Reply
#4: Stoner To: WWG1WWA (#3)
Okaaay.
Let me know when the perp walks, with orange jump suits & chrome bracelets begin.
Have been waiting a loooong time,so I am not going to hold my breath.
Regards.
Stoner posted on 2019-12-09 18:31:54 Reply Private Reply
#5: nolu chan To: WWG1WWA, Stoner (#3)
https://www.scribd.com/document/439059650/House-Rule-XI-2-J-i-2019-Procedures-of-Committees-and-Unfinished-Business
nolu chan posted on 2019-12-09 19:47:41 Reply Private Reply
#6: Vicomte13 To: nolu chan (#1)
In trials, it very rarely happens that an attorney for one side will be called to testify by one or both sides. the reasons for the rarity of that are obvious: the inherent bias in the testimony, the loss of attorney-client privilege. the only time i can think of it happening is when the lawyer for am estate trust, who was also the lawyer who drafted all of the documents and who had known the decedent well, as a close friendd and associate, is called by the estate to probate to give clear testimony to dispel nonsense claims and falderal being spewed by jealous heirs. but even then the lawyer usually delivers his testimony as a comprehensive written statement.
this business going on in the Democrats' kangaroo court here? nah. this is just Star Chamber inquisitional 'let's get 'I'm" crap.
Vicomte13 posted on 2019-12-19 07:25:55 Reply Private Reply