How dare you try to grandstand in my grandstanding hearing.


Watch: Jim Jordan takes Matt Gaetz to the woodshed for derailing Trump conviction hearing

David Edwards
June 13, 2024 12:47PM ET




House Judiciary/screen grab




Rep. Matt Gaetz (R-FL) clashed with Rep. Jim Jordan (R-OH) at a hearing on Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg's prosecution of former President Donald Trump.

Moments after the hearing got underway on Thursday, Chairman Jordan called on Gaetz to question witnesses for five minutes. However, Gaetz offered a motion to subpoena Bragg and Assistant District Attorney Matthew Colangelo.

Rep. Jerry Nadler (D-NY) objected to the motion.

"It's a little absurd because Mr. Bragg and Mr. Colangelo have already agreed to appear before the committee on July 12th," Nadler noted. "I don't know what this debate is about."

Jordan stepped in to ask Gaetz to withdraw his motion.

"Mr. Bragg and Mr. Colangelo have agreed to come on the 12th," Jordan observed. "If they don't show up on the 12th, they will be subpoenaed. I would ask the gentleman if he could withdraw the motion."

Gaetz, however, refused to withdraw the motion.

"I've made a motion to subpoena these people now, pursuant to the rules, and I want to vote on my motion, or I want someone to move to table it," the Florida Republican demanded.

ALSO READ: Republican dodo birds have a death wish for us all

After a Democrat moved to table the motion, Jordan scrambled to prevent a vote.

"It's not debatable," Gaetz insisted.

"This is crazy," someone could be heard saying.

"Committee will stand in recess," Jordan ordered.

Several minutes later, the committee was back in session, and Gaetz had a sudden change of heart.

"I will withdraw my motion," he conceded.

Watch the video below or at this link.




https://www.rawstory.com/matt-gaetz-jim-jordan/

 

'A stinging rebuke': Jim Jordan under fire after Supreme Court quashes conspiracy theory

David Edwards
June 26, 2024 1:44PM ET




House Oversight/screen grab




Rep. Jim Jordan (R-OH) faced criticism Wednesday after the U.S. Supreme Court dismissed the conspiracy theory that states were harmed by social media censorship over COVID-19 misinformation.

In a 6-3 decision, Justice Amy Coney Barrett said that two states lacked legal standing to challenge the government's communication with social media companies.

"The plaintiffs, without any concrete link between their injuries and the defendants' conduct, ask us to conduct a review of the yearslong communications between dozens of federal officials, across different agencies, with different social-media platforms, about different topics," Barrett wrote for the majority. "This court's standing doctrine prevents us from exercising such general legal oversight of the other branches of government."

Following the ruling, Rep. Jerry Nadler (D-NY) insisted Jordan's "conspiracy theory" had failed.

"As expected, the Supreme Court has issued a stinging rebuke to Jim Jordan and his multimillion-dollar conspiracy theory fueled witch hunt," Nadler said in a statement. "The Court concluded that the social media platforms' exercised their own judgement' with regards to content moderation-which is precisely what we have heard from the dozens of witnesses that Jim Jordan has dragged before this committee."

ALSO READ: Marjorie Taylor Greene buys condo in 'crime ridden hell hole'

"The Court also pointed out that the basis for House Republicans' partisan reign of harassment against social media companies was inaccurate and outright false," he added. "I hope that after this humiliating defeat Chairman Jordan and his colleagues will end their failed investigation into the companies, universities, and individuals who have been trying to stop the spread of harmful misinformation and disinformation on social media."










Rep. Nadler
@RepJerryNadler
·
Follow
Today, the Supreme Court issued a stinging rebuke to @Jim_Jordan and his multimillion-dollar conspiracy theory fueled witch hunt. My statement on the decision in Murthy v. Missouri: Show more



9:34 AM · Jun 26, 2024



https://www.rawstory.com/jim-jordan-supreme-court/

 

Now the second time the SCOTUS decision, Murthy V Missouri is being reported on this forum.
SPAM I tell you!!
SPAM!!

 

Jim Jordan Reacts to SCOTUS Punt on Social Media Censorship

Katie Pavlich | June 26, 2024 1:45 PM

The Supreme Court ruled 6-3 Wednesday that the state of Missouri lacked standing in its lawsuit against the Biden administration over social media censorship.

House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jim Jordan, who has been investigating the partnership between big tech and the Biden White House to subvert the First Amendment, is calling for legislative reforms in the aftermath of the SCOTUS decision.

"The First Amendment is first for a reason, and the freedom of expression should be protected from any infringement by the government. Our country benefits when ideas can be tested and debated fairly on their merits, whether online or in the halls of Congress," Jordan released in a statement. "The Committee and the Select Subcommittee on the Weaponization of the Federal Government have uncovered how and the extent to which the Biden Administration engaged in a censorship campaign in violation of the First Amendment. While we respectfully disagree with the Court's decision, our investigation has shown the need for legislative reforms, such as the Censorship Accountability Act, to better protect Americans harmed by the unconstitutional censorship-industrial complex. Our important work will continue."



Meanwhile, Youtube is the last platform censoring lawful and constitutionally protected actions.