Scott Morefield, What Are You Going To Do About It?
(townhall.com)
You're viewing a single comment thread. View all comments, or full comment thread.
Comments (10)
sorted by:
Rep. Matt Gaetz has publicly revealed a simple plan that could protect DJT from election interference and persecution. Let's first look at the dynamics occurring in congress and rationalize their meaning in accordance of Rep. Gaetz's very public statement.
In a recent WND article posted by u/LakotaPride entitled, "Rep. Jim Jordan announces investigation of Jack Smith's office for 'pressuring' lawyer Attorney told his job application would look better if client turned on Trump", it appears like there may be a multi-tier dragnet that congress is pursuing. Rep. Jim Jordan sending a letter to special counsel Jack Smith's office is further development that seems to follow congressman Matt Gaetz's plan. Gaetz has presented a number of strategies for how he and other Trump allies could protect the former president as he faces dozens of federal indictment charges. For example, he suggested that Republicans subpoena Smith to appear before the House Judiciary Committee, noting that if Smith refused to do so, he could be held in criminal contempt of Congress. House Judiciary chairman Jim Jordan's letter to special counsel Jack Smith may be the start of this action. Will Jack Smith provide the requested communications by September 21st? There is also the subpoena sent to Fulton County DA Fani Willis requesting all communications with the Biden Administration, Special Counsel, and DOJ. Rep. Jim Jordan has already subpoenaed former Manhattan prosecutor Mark Pomerantz to appear before the Congressional Judiciary. Despite Pomerantz repeatedly invoking the 5th Amendment not to answer questions, many tidbits may have been learned from Pomerantz's appearance under oath and what has already been gleaned from his book.
Back in March 2023, Jim Jordan, House Oversight Committee Chairman James Comer, and House Administration Committee Chairman Bryan Steil sent a letter to Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg demanding communications, documents, and testimony relating to Bragg's communication with the DOJ, its component entities, or other federal law enforcement agencies referring or relating to your office’s investigation of President Donald Trump. The deadline was not later than 10:00 a.m. on March 23, 2023. This letter is similar to the letter recently sent to DA Fanni Willis.
Recently, Gaetz suggested that Congress vote to “defund” the special counsel’s office, limiting additional actions that Smith could take against the former president. IMHO, if SC Jack Smith refuses to respond in good faith by the September 21 deadline, Jordan can invoke a 'contempt of Congress' violation against Smith. Furthermore, Gaetz's suggestion of 'defunding' Jack Smith would be accordingly an option the Judiciary Committee should take.
Ultimately, these actions would lead up to bringing DJT in as a witness. As Matt Gaetz stated, "Afterwards, you can actually bring President Trump in to give testimony to the Congress and, in doing so, immunize him."
Do you see how this could be playing out?
Thank you for sharing this information. President Trump then could present evidence to the public legally.
It appears by the course of congressional actions that they are heading in this direction. Why would rep. Matt Gaetz let the 'cat-out-of-bag' by publicly telling us this? Wouldn't it be better not to mentioned it all? Certainly, no other politician has echoed this. Yet, these congressional committees seem to be working in coordination and toward this direction. Is Gaetz a loose cannon, or is his plan confirmation of what is being worked toward? Is the recent Gaetz speech criticizing McCarthy in the house chamber sincere? Or is it all theater to make it appear the republican congress are infighting and that the congressional committees are ad hoc and going nowhere? Matt Gaetz could have been outspoken about the Speaker McCarthy not holding up to his end of the bargain months ago. Why would Gaetz wait now to criticize McCarthy? I find it peculiar that Gaetz waited until Kevin McCarthy announced the impeachment inquiry. IMHO, I believe McCarthy being publicly absent and not speaking out against Biden was due to him waiting for Jordan and Commer's committees to gather damning information on the Biden crime family. These committees had to subpoena and obtain bank and financial records, examine, and collate them. Senators Grassley and Johnson also had information on the Bidens, which would be shared with these committees. All of this takes time.
It appears the committees are ready for the next step, since there has been a lot of Biden Administration stone-walling. The impeachment inquiry would provide the legal authority to overcome and compel production of all information, communications, and transcripts that have been previously stone-walled. It appears to me that Commer and Jordan and others have lined up all their ducks regarding the Biden Crime Family. The impeachment inquiry will publicly present these findings to the American public. I tend to think that impeachment is not the path that will be taken. I believe once all the crimes are presented before the American public, the 25th Amendment will be used to remove Joe Biden from office. Pamela Harris is not a natural born citizen and this disqualifies her from the presidency. This would mean Kevin McCarthy would be next in line to be the president. McCarthy most certainly sees this opportunity and this is why I believe the 25th Amendment route will be taken.
I suspect you are correct. They are making the world aware at this time since everyone is finally listening.