reSee.it - Tweets Saved By @TheMattBeebe

Posted - September 8, 2023 at 1:36 AM

Saved - September 8, 2023 at 12:02 PM

reSee.it AI Summary

In the Paxton impeachment case, three senators lean forward as they realize the fatal blow to the core claims. Senate Dean Witmire gives a side-eye to the House Managers as their case crumbles. It only gets worse from there.

@TheMattBeebe - Matt Beebe

“That’s right, we took no evidence” 🤯 This is the clip that should be leading every newscast about the #PaxtonImpeachment It’s just remarkable — watch at the end how three Senators in view (jurors — all three of which have telegraphed an anti-Paxton disposition) lean forward in unison as they realize how fatal it is to the core #txlege impeachment claims.

Video Transcript AI Summary

On September 30th, the speaker and their group went to the FBI to report the state's elected attorney general for a crime. However, they admitted that they did not have any evidence to support their claim.

AI Similar Videos

Full Transcript

Speaker 0: I wanna get this straight. You went to the FBI on September 30th with your compatriots and reported the elected attorney general of this state for a crime without any evidence? Yes? That's right. We took no evidence.

@TheMattBeebe - Matt Beebe

Watch a stoic Dean of the Senate John Witmire (D-Houston) drop his poker face for a second and give the side-eye to the #txlege House Managers that are prosecuting a case that is falling apart before their eyes. https://t.co/1IGVN4tqCt

@TheMattBeebe - Matt Beebe

No. It only got worse from there… https://t.co/BZ9rkS9IGK

Video Transcript AI Summary

Speaker 0 asks Speaker 1 if they gained any evidence after a certain point, to which Speaker 1 responds that they weren't collecting evidence. Speaker 0 then questions if they should be able to recall such information. Speaker 1 clarifies that they presented themselves as witnesses, not investigators, when they approached the FBI. Speaker 0 suggests that they made a complaint without evidence, and Speaker 1 disagrees, stating that they believed a crime had occurred in good faith. Speaker 0 interrupts and asks why they didn't talk to Ken Paxton, but Speaker 2 requests that Speaker 1 be allowed to finish answering. The transcript ends.

AI Similar Videos

Full Transcript

Speaker 0: Did you gain any after that? Did you gain any after that? Speaker 1: Well, we weren't collecting evidence. Speaker 0: Did you gain any after that? Speaker 1: Evidence of what, sir? Of Speaker 0: evidence of a crime committed by the elected attorney general in this state elected by over 4,000,000 voters? That guy. Speaker 1: I don't recall if we had collected any evidence. Speaker 0: Don't you think that's something that you should be able to recall, sir? Speaker 1: When we presented ourselves to the FBI, we did so as witnesses, not as investigators to collect evidence. This? Speaker 0: So as complainants, hoping that you would not be named as co conspirators. True? You made a complaint. Yes? Yes, it was. Without any evidence, yes? Speaker 1: No. I'm sorry? Again, these are our good faith beliefs that a crime had occurred? Speaker 0: Respectfully, sir, we are not here in this historic event for your good faith leaves? So if you could just tell these senators who are taking up their time and all of Texas' time with this impeachment. Speaker 2: These sidebar testifying comments are an inappropriate form of cause. If you just ask the question, I have no objection. Speaker 0: I will throttle it down. I I withdraw it? Speaker 1: Pull that back. Speaker 2: Yes. Ask a question. Speaker 0: Mr. Vassar, we got a lot of people whose time is invested in this impeachment proceeding. Did you did you gained any evidence after you went to the FBI? Speaker 1: I'm not sure what evidence That we would have that I can recall. I Speaker 0: You had a good faith belief. We've heard those words a lot in his trial, good faith belief, but without any evidence, correct? Speaker 1: The evidence that we provided Speaker 0: Why didn't you go why didn't you talk to Ken Paxton? Speaker 2: Please let him finish his answer. Overall, he was finished.

@TheMattBeebe — Matt Beebe

Posted - September 3, 2023 at 9:52 PM

Saved - September 4, 2023 at 2:42 AM

reSee.it AI Summary

Georgia Code Title 21 Elections 212503 allows for simultaneous contingent alternate electors. The Joint Session is the final authority on recognizing and counting electors. Until then, both parties' slates remain contingent. Georgia's GOP Electors operated under this clear authority. For more details, visit http://twitter.com/TheMattBee/status/1696620847488799023.

@TheMattBeebe - Matt Beebe

Well, actually Georgia Code Title 21. Elections § 21-2-503 does quite reasonably provide for this scenario: call them simultaneous, contingent, alternate, purported, etc. The "court of last appeal" is the Joint Session, which is the absolute arbiter of which electors shall be recognized and counted. Until such time as that occurred, both party's slates were effectively "contingent". Georgia's GOP Electors were quite clear about the authority they were operating under. See more on GA Code here: https://twitter.com/TheMattBeebe/status/1696620847488799023?s=20…

@ErrataRob - Robᵉʳᵗ Graham 𝕏

@TheMattBeebe @AngryFleas @PNWAlerts @tomladdus @thedooosh @alfa_bette @Maxamegalon2000 @teamphil @HamRadioJoe @GeoffreyPlitt @AndrewLazarus4 @JonRFleming @robert66955 @JoeyMannarinoUS There is no Georgia law that made both slates contingent electors. If there were such a law, you could point to it. The Republicans didn't represent that in their submission. If they did, you could just circle the part where they did.