GOP lawmaker mocked for apparently linking ‘kangaroo court’ to kid’s show ‘Captain Kangaroo’

A Republican representative was lambasted on social media Tuesday for appearing to confuse Donald Trump’s reference to a ‘kangaroo court’ to the decades-old show Captain Kangaroo.

Matt Gaetz accused Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff of lying about some details surrounding recent revelations of a whistle-blower alleging the president engaged in an inappropriate call with his Ukrainian counterpart.

‘What we see in this impeachment is a kangaroo court and Chairman Schiff is acting like a malicious Captain Kangaroo,’ Florida Congressman Matt Gaetz told reporters on Capitol Hill Tuesday.

Captain Kangaroo was a children’s television series that ran on CBS from 1955-1984.

The show had a loose structure, but was built around life in the ‘Treasure House’ where the Captain Kangaroo – name for the big pockets in his coat – would tell stories, meet guests and engage with recurring human and puppet characters.

A so-called kangaroo court, on the other hand, is a court characterized by irresponsible or irregular procedures where usually the principles of law and justice are disregarded or perverted.

Rep. Matt Gaetz (center) was ridiculed on social media after appearing to believe the term ‘kangaroo court’ was somehow linked to the children’s TV show Captain Kangaroo

He claimed that Adam Schiff, who is leadings the hearings around the impeachment inquiry, is a 'malicious Captain Kangaroo'

He claimed that Adam Schiff, who is leadings the hearings around the impeachment inquiry, is a ‘malicious Captain Kangaroo’

A former Daily Beast reporter wrote that Gaetz is an 'incredible idiot'

A former Daily Beast reporter wrote that Gaetz is an ‘incredible idiot’

A Time opinion writer said Gaetz should be disbarred for thinking this

A Time opinion writer said Gaetz should be disbarred for thinking this 

A former CIA officer reference another character from the kids' TV show, claiming Mr. Green Jeans is even more 'malicious' than Captain Kangaroo

A former CIA officer reference another character from the kids’ TV show, claiming Mr. Green Jeans is even more ‘malicious’ than Captain Kangaroo

A Washington Post reporter patronized Gaetz, claiming that it was actually Marshall of the Kangaroo Court who presides over a 'kangaroo court' and not Captain Kangaroo

A Washington Post reporter patronized Gaetz, claiming that it was actually Marshall of the Kangaroo Court who presides over a ‘kangaroo court’ and not Captain Kangaroo

DID CAPTAIN KANGAROO START KANGAROO COURTS?

A kangaroo court references a courtroom that is operating with a disregard for justice. It is also known as a court that operates with unauthorizes or irregular procedures. 

The first traceable usage appeared in print in a 1853 book about Texas. But it is known that the first kangaroo courts originated in the U.S. around the time of the California Gold Rush in the late 1840s. 

It is thought that the term came from the fact that the courts were classified by their rapid and unpredictable movement from one place to another – like ‘jumping.’  

‘This incredible idiot thinks that the term ‘kangaroo court’ comes from the TV show Captain Kangaroo,’ former Daily Beast reporter Timothy Burke posted to Twitter, along with a video of Gaetz’s comments.

Washington Post reporter Dave Weigel patronized Gaetz, writing on Twitter: ‘Gaetz is incorrect: It is the Marshall of the Kangaroo Court, not the Captain, who presides over trials.’

‘If Gaetz thinks Captain Kangaroo is malicious, wait until he meets Mr. Green Jeans,’ a former CIA officer – and current podcast host – wrote, referencing character Mr. Green Jeans, played by Hugh ‘Lumpy’ Brannum.

An opinion writer for Time said that Gaetz’s ability to practice law should be stripped since he doesn’t know the difference between the children’s TV show and the vernacular used to describe a haywire courtroom.

‘Does Congressman Gaetz think the phrase ‘kangaroo court’ came from Captain Kangaroo? That alone should qualify for disbarment,’ Christopher Hale tweeted.

Gaetz was invoking rhetoric used by Trump earlier in the day, when the president said he wasn’t going to allow U.S. Ambassador to the European Union Gordon Sondland testify before Democratc-led committees he claimed were conducting unfair practices.

‘I would love to send Ambassador Sondland, a really good man and great American, to testify, but unfortunately he would be testifying before a totally compromised kangaroo court, where Republican’s rights have been taken away, and true facts are not allowed out for the public to see,’ Trump tweeted Tuesday morning.

The president is referencing the Intelligence Committee’s questioning of former U.S. special envoy to Ukraine Kurt Volker last week.

Gaetz was invoking Donald Trump's rhetoric – when the president referred to the Democratic inquiry as a kangaroo court

Gaetz was invoking Donald Trump’s rhetoric – when the president referred to the Democratic inquiry as a kangaroo court

Captain Kangaroo was a children's show that ran on CBS from 1955-1984

Captain Kangaroo was a children’s show that ran on CBS from 1955-1984

Here Captain Kangaroo (right), played by Bob Keeshan, can be seen with supporting character Mr. Green Jeans (left), played by Hugh Brannum

Here Captain Kangaroo (right), played by Bob Keeshan, can be seen with supporting character Mr. Green Jeans (left), played by Hugh Brannum

Volker, who resigned after Congress called him to testify, gave a deposition to panel members in a closed-door session, which at times was chaired by President Trump’s nemesis, California Representative Adam Schiff.

Republicans protested ahead of the hearing that they were not being given the same amount of time as Democrats were to question Volker.

‘We would sure like to see the Volker testimony released before we continue the depositions and transcribed interviews,’ Gaetz said, joined alongside by fellow Republican Reps. Jim Jordan, Mark Meadows, Lee Zeldin and Scott Perry.

‘We would like to unpack the last set of Schiff lies regarding the Volker testimony before we go to the next set of Schiff lies on Sondland or any further witnesses,’ the Trump-ally continued.

Volker’s testimony, and the committee’s desire to question Soundland, come after a whislte-blower revealed Trump pressured his Ukrainian counterpart to investigate political rival Joe Biden and his son Hunter.

Revelations of the July 25 phone call led House Speaker Nancy Pelosi to announce the lower chamber was launching an impeachment inquiry into the president.

Trump maintains that his talk with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky was ‘perfect’ and says it is his duty to weed out corruption – which he says the Bidens were involved with in Ukraine.

Soundland was scheduled to voluntarily appear for a deposition at the House of Representatives Tuesday morning, but was instructed by the State Department not to show up.

As a State Department employee, Soundland had to comply with the instructions, his attorney said.

Now House Democrats will subpoena Ambassador Sondland to testify in their impeachment inquiry.

‘We consider this interference to be obstruction of the impeachment inquiry. We will be issuing a subpoena to Ambassador Sondland for both his testimony and documents,’ Schiff, as well as Oversight Chairman Elijah Cummings and Foreign Affairs Chairman Eliot Engle, said in a joint statement Tuesday afternoon.

WHAT HAPPENS NEXT? THE VERY COMPLICATED STEPS INVOLVED IN IMPEACHING DONALD TRUMP

Nancy Pelosi announcing a formal impeachment investigation is only the start of what will be an epic legal and constitutional clash.

Here is how impeachment goes from here.

1) Investigations step up

Six committees are now tasked by Pelosi with investigating Donald Trump with the intention of deciding whether he should be impeached. They are the House Judiciary, Oversight, Intelligence, Ways and Means, Financial Services and Foreign Affairs committees. All of them are now likely to issue a flurry of subpoenas which is certain to lead to a new: 

2) Court battle over subpoenas – which could go to the Supreme Court

The Trump administration has so far resisted subpoenas by claiming executive privilege and is certain to continue to do so. Federal judges are already dealing with litigation over subpoenas for Trump’s tax and financial records and many more cases are likely to follow. But the courts have never settled the limits of executive privilege and whether an impeachment inquiry effectively gives Congress more power to overcome it. If Trump fights as hard as he can, it is likely to make its way to the Supreme Court. In the meantime, expect: 

3) More hearings

Democrats know they need to convince the public that Trump needs to be put on trial and the best way to do that is hearings like those which electrified the nation during Watergate. They botched the Mueller hearing but if they produce question and answer sessions with people from Trump-world which cause public outrage, they are on their way to:

4) Drawing up formal articles of impeachment in committee 

The charge sheet for impeachment – the ‘articles’ – set out what Trump is formally accused of. It has no set format – it can be as long or as short as Congress decides. Three such set of articles have been drawn up – for Andrew Johnson on 1868, Richard Nixon in 1974, and Bill Clinton in 1998. Johnson’s were the most extensive at 11, Nixon faced three, and Bill Clinton four but with a series of numbered charges in each article. Once drawn up, the judicial committee votes on them and if approved, sends them to the House for:

5) Full floor vote on impeachment

The constitution says the House needs a simple majority to proceed, but has to vote on each article. Nixon quit before such a vote so Andrew Johnson and Bill Clinton are the only precedent. The House passed two out of the three articles against Clinton and all 11 against Johnson. Passing even one article leads to:

6) Senate impeachment trial

Even if the Senate is clearly not in favor of removing the president, it has to stage a trial if the House votes for impeachment. The hearing is in not in front of the full Senate, but ‘evidentiary committees’ – in theory at least similar to the existing Senate committees. The Chief Justice of the Supreme Court presides over it, but the procedures are set by senators. Members of the House prosecute Trump as ‘managers,’ bringing witnesses and presenting evidence to set out their case against the president. The president can defend himself, or, as Clinton did, use attorneys to cross-examine the witnesses. The committee or committees report to the full Senate. Then it can debate in public or deliberate in private on the guilt or innocence of the president. It holds a single open floor vote which will deliver:

7) The verdict

Impeachment must be by two-thirds of the Senate. Voting for impeachment on any one article is good enough to remove the president from office. There is no appeal. 

Read more at DailyMail.co.uk