Matt Gaetz tossed out of testimony

Thanks for the history lesson… Now back to the question, was the Starr investigation open to the public?

1 Like

No, because it was an actual criminal investigation, not a political one. More akin to the Meuller investigation than a house impeachment inquiry.

1 Like

No? Where does it say that all testimonies are to held in for the public to hear?

1 Like

Ken Starr did not conduct an impeachment inquiry.

He did the investigating in the heinous crime of Oval Office pleasure.

Yes the procedural, political crime of lying about WH nooky.

1 Like

Criminal investigation? Of what?

That has nothing to do with a vote being overturned by a secret partisan initiative with ZERO evidence of probable cause.

You will need to open the process to public scrutiny in order to have it offer any value.

Failure to do so will result in the political martyrdom of the orange one.

Not to mention the tactic potentially being used again and again and again rendering the vote of the people for the ONLY national office invalid…Third world transition will be complete.

:ballot_box_with_check:

A boss taking advantage of a young intern…metooforgottenalready.

:balloon:

1 Like

Entirely inaccurate.

What crime was he charged with and convicted of?

Whose intent are you referring to here. Clearly not the framers of the Constitution because they made no effort to define the process or indicate whether it was in secret or not.

1 Like

Oh?

What are you waiting for? Correct the record!

You really need me to tell you? Whitewater. But let me remind you, every expansion of that investigation had to be approved by a three judge panel. And what he was investigating was not the affair, just to remind you, what he was investigating was…

from Court Order Expanding Starr's Inquiry Released - 01-29-98

"(2) The Independent Counsel shall have jurisdiction and authority to investigate to the maximum extent authorized by the Independent Counsel Reauthorization Act of 1994, whether Monica Lewinsky or others suborned perjury, obstructed justice, intimidated witnesses, or otherwise violated federal law other than a Class B or C misdemeanor or infraction in dealing with witnesses, potential witnesses, attorneys, or others concerning the civil case

"(3) The Independent Counsel shall have jurisdiction and authority to investigate related violations of federal criminal law, other than a Class B or C misdemeanor or infraction, including any person or entity who has engaged in unlawful conspiracy or who has aided or abetted any federal offense, as necessary to resolve the matter described above.

"(4) The Independent Counsel shall have jurisdiction and authority to investigate crimes, such as any violation of 28 U.S.C. 1826, any obstruction of the due administration of justice, or any material false testimony or statement in violation of federal criminal law, arising out of his investigation of the matter described above.

Having an affair is not a criminal matter but the above, is.

Just did, enjoy.

Of…By…and FOR the people. The people who vote. The people who are represented.

It is time to remind everyone that Schiff, Pelosi, Nadler, are all REPRESENTATIVES.

Not officials unto themselves.

:ballot_box_with_check:

What is your basis for this claim. The Whistleblower complaint was filed. The Inspector General of the Intelligence Community reviewed the complaint, as required by law, and found it legitimate and properly followed.

“Probable cause” is a term for Grand Jury proceedings, not impeachment. But given a validated Whistleblower complaint, how does not that not constitute “probable cause.”

Are you saying a validated Whistleblower complaint should have been ignored?

1 Like

The members of Congress are bound to follow the Constitution. I objected to your statement that the “process” should be public by pointing out that there is no Constitutional requirement to do so. You can paraphrase Lincoln all you want, but you are making up “processes” to fit what you want.

I could do apply the same point to the Executive Branch and use that to argue that every claim of Executive Privilege made by Trump is invalid because we elected Trump President and he works for us. You would never agree to that… which shows how specious your argument is.

There is no constitutional requirement that they do so. But neither is there any constitutional requirement that Senate Republicans endorse or give credence to their process.

So you’re telling us that the investigation of Bill’s process crime was ordered by a 3 judge panel, an action approved by AG Reno, not a House inquiry?

What was your point again?