Matt Gaetz tossed out of testimony

[party-free]

No.

Starr was given the green light to investigate Bill lying about WH nooky.

And that was done months before the impeachment inquiry was voted upon. The investigating had already been done for them.

[zantax]

@party-free

No.

Starr was given the green light to investigate Bill lying about WH nooky.

And that was done months before the impeachment inquiry was voted upon. The investigating had already been done for them.

Err no, I provided you what the court approved of him investigating and they were crimes, not getting laid.

[LouC]

@calirepub

The real question is what are people trying to hide from Gaetz. Something smells fishy here.

Oh, sorry, that is probably the anchovy paste I had spread on my cinnamon roll!

[LouC]

@SottoVoce

@calirepub

The real question is what are people trying to hide from Gaetz. Something smells fishy here.

He’s from Florida. Might just be some residual sea air.

There is something about Florida that brings out the weirdly dumb in many people.

Remember on the old Forum all the outside the beltway articles on folks going postal over their drive up food orders being messed up or their counter food orders being wrong or when the restaurant ran out of the item the customer ordered?

It was like we could tell without looking when something insane like that was being reported on that it was a story out of Florida.

There is something about that state? Perhaps it is the proximity to the Bermuda Triangle?

[FreeAndClear]

@Camp

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.

Probable cause. You keep saying probable cause. Who is pushing this narrative? Are they trying to arrest or indict the President?

[BlueTex]

@zantax

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

The constitution requires the senate to consider the evidence presented and make a verdict. They are free to ignore the evidence if they choose.

[NuffSaid]

@Camp

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.

There are no votes. Its inquiries. Testimony. Committees asking questions. Some of the testimony may have sensitive information related to foreign policy that ONLY members of these committees can hear. Having some rogue clown like Gaetz hearing this sensitive information is not good.
And if and when all of the testimonies and inquiries have been addressed, THEN the US House may draw up articles of impeachment.
Public scrutiny? The US House will present its case for articles, and then the public can weigh in on if the charges are valid.
If Trump is impeached, he is not removed from office. There is another layer involved. I don’t understand this notion if Trump is impeached, he is removed. Clinton was impeached. He wasn’t removed from office. None of the votes in the 1996 general election were invalid.

[LouC]

@TheDoctorIsIn

Of course.

It wasn’t an accident that he happened to run into a bank of TV cameras as soon as he left.

Wait, you mean you haven’t witnessed IPPP before? You know Instant Press Podium Phenomena?

[BlueTex]

@zantax

Err no, I provided you what the court approved of him investigating and they were crimes, not getting laid.

What you provided was an EXPANSION of an existing investigation. What was the initial investigation? This is why congress let the independent council statute expire and replaced it with a special counsel with much more limited powers.

[LouC]

@NuffSaid

Gaetz is a worm.

True. A Republican worm, behaving unconstitutionally, violating his oath to uphold the Constitution. Which is really ironically funny since Obese Donald erroneously keeps going on and on about the House behaving outside the Constitution.

[LouC]

@NuffSaid

@Camp

I applaud this stunt and hope we see more of it to emphasize this charade is being carried out by the Secret Society of Congressional Impeachers.

The process was not intended to be held in secret (snipped)

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

Amazing how folks on the side that claims the House leadership is acting in an unconstitutional manner seemingly have no clue how the House leadership is absolutely following the Constitution in this impeachment inquiry process.

Too funny!

[LouC]

@H_Arendt

@Camp

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

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?

Not always, just in this case, with the chosen one! When a Democrat is next in power and a whistleblower spills the beans on them, then no, then the whistleblower should be heard, absolutely, cause then it will be different.

WUDS

[H_Arendt]

@zantax

@H_Arendt

@Camp

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.

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.

How the Senate acts will depend on the evidence presented and political calculus — essentially the same basis being used by Pelosi, Schiff and the House Democrats.

[TommyLucchese]

He clearly did this on purpose to go on conservative media and cry about his persecution. If there’s anything conservatives love more than talking about how tough they are, it’s talking about how victimized and powerless they are.

[party-free]

There were months and months of investigations that took place by Starr before the House voted to open an impeachment inquiry. All the investigating had been done for them. Basically all they needed to was verify Starr’s evidence then vote to impeach.

[Bodecea]

@zantax

He must have thought republicans were in charge of congress and it was the impeachment inquiry of Bill Clinton, when the impeachment inquiry was open and transparent.

Was Gaetz on that committee? Yes or no?

[zantax]

@party-free

There were months and months of investigations that took place by Starr before the House voted to open an impeachment inquiry. All the investigating had been done for them. Basically all they needed to was verify Starr’s evidence then vote to impeach.

Oh? Was it done for Republicans? The same way the Meuller investigation was done for Democrats?

[Bodecea]

@Camp

I applaud this stunt and hope we see more of it to emphasize this charade is being carried out by the Secret Society of Congressional Impeachers.

The process was not intended to be held in secret and the people who Congress represents will reject these manipulated acts of insubordination.

Biden was able to hide his influence peddling for a long time…Only a couple days ago did son Hunter decide that his payola “didn’t look right.”

The more secret the process…the less anyone is going to take it seriously.

“I applaud this stunt”…says it all, doesn’t it?

[party-free]

Weird deflection. Did my point fly that far over your head?

[WuWei]

@Camp

Of…By…and FOR the people.

The impeachment inquiry is the People’s business. Gaetz attempted to disrupt the People’s business. He was wrong.