MovieChat Forums > Marjorie Taylor Greene Discussion > Testifying as part of legal challenge to...

Testifying as part of legal challenge to her candidacy

posted 3 years ago by Ranb (10168)
19 replies | jump to latest

Marjorie Taylor Greene is testifying as part of a legal challenge to her candidacy.

https://www.fox5atlanta.com/news/hearing-friday-in-challenge-to-rep-marjorie-taylor-greenes-candidacy

https://www.npr.org/2022/04/22/1094273441/marjorie-taylor-greene-is-in-court-as-part-of-a-legal-challenge-to-her-candidacy

https://www.c-span.org/video/?519623-1/rep-marjorie-taylor-greene-testifies-administrative-hearing

I've yet to watch any of it, but I think we will see lots of "I don't recall" or "I didn't do that"
even when they play video of her insurrectionist views or display her tweets on Twitter.

Maybe she can beat the Jones and Trump family records of taking the 5th (as is her right to do so). But then as Trump says, only the mob takes the 5th.

[–] Ranb (10168) 3 years ago

Yep, she is using the "Reagan defense". https://www.yahoo.com/entertainment/marjorie-taylor-greene-afraid-stand-172853728.html

“Pretty much, but your testimony as you sit here today under oath is that you didn’t talk to anybody in government about the fact that there were going to be large protests in Washington on Jan. 6?” Fein asked.
“I don’t remember.”

She was asked if she talked to Rep. Andy Biggs (R-Ariz.)
“I don’t remember.”

She was asked if she talked to Rep. Paul Gosar (R-Ariz.)
“Sorry, I don’t remember.”

What about anyone in the White House?
“I don’t remember.”

Did she hear anyone mention the potential for violence on Jan. 6?
“I don’t remember.”

[–] SpikeMike (470) 3 years ago

Liked the part where they questioned her calling Pelosi a traitor which she denied and immediately back peddled as soon as they were submitting evidence to that very fact.

[–] Phids (777) 3 years ago

What exactly are her "insurrectionist views" that you think she has?

[–] Ranb (10168) 3 years ago

I don't know of any specific views of that flavor.

I do think she is a horrible human being. If she is an insurrectionist, then she needs to be held accountable. If not, then she can run for re-election and let the voters decide if they are stupid enough to want her kept in office.

[–] Phids (777) 3 years ago

A word to the wise: if a person does not have "insurrectionist views", then please don't falsely claim that the person has "insurrectionist views" as you did in your first post.

[–] Ranb (10168) 3 years ago

The people accusing her of insurrection are playing her videos and displaying her tweets that they say are insurrectionist. At least one of those videos was of her encouraging people to flood the Capital and stop everything.

It sucks to be her.

[–] Phids (777) 3 years ago

You falsely claimed she did yourself. Don't blame other people for what you did. You said:

I've yet to watch any of it, but I think we will see lots of "I don't recall" or "I didn't do that"
even when they play video of her insurrectionist views or display her tweets on Twitter.

If you wish to retract your claim, then do so now.

[–] Ranb (10168) 3 years ago

So you're claiming that she does not have any insurrectionist views that are a matter of record?

[–] Phids (777) 3 years ago

No, that's not what I'm claiming, because I don't know of any she has made, just as you don't know (as you admitted when you said, "I don't know of any specific views of that flavor.")

So since you don't know whether she has insurrectionist views, don't claim that she holds them.

Just go ahead and retract your original claim, and we'll call it a day.

[–] SamNoyoun (5918) 3 years ago

Marjorie, is that you? 🤣🤣🤣🤣

[–] Ranb (10168) 3 years ago

I was too lazy two hours ago to provide a quote from a link in my first post. Yeah, that is my fault. But I'll deal with it.

Here is one for you. I did provide the links for you to read. Did you read them?

"You can't allow it to just transfer power peacefully like Joe Biden wants and allow him to become our president. Because he did not win this election. It's being stolen."

Insurrection can be defined as "The act or an instance of open revolt against civil authority or a constituted government."

She sounds like an insurrectionist to me.

[–] Phids (777) 3 years ago

That's quite a broad and subjective interpretation of "insurrection" that you're using. You might as well label Rosa Parks and Martin Luther King, Jr. as "insurrectionists" as well. The fact that you evidently think a mere comment, without action, constitutes "insurrection" means that all sorts of people - from Black Lives Matter to Antifa to the entire Civil Rights movement - are all "insurrectionists".

You may want to adopt a better definition of "insurrectionist".

[–] snepts (11123) 3 years ago

In the dictionary next to "insurrectionist" is a picture of MTG.
Now you tell us your definition of MTG.

[–] Ranb (10168) 3 years ago

Of course they were insurrectionists and they knew it. Rosa Parks was arrested for breaking the BS law of sitting in a seat a white man coveted. King paid and even bigger price with his life. These are the insurrectionists I admire.

King urged people to fight for the rights protected by the constitution and denied by racist state laws and bigoted leaders.

MTG is not. MTG is trying to ruin it for everyone, including her constituents.

I went with a dictionary definition. How about you tell me your definition if you don't like the commonly accepted one.

Did you read the links I provided or did I waste my time with you?

[–] Phids (777) 3 years ago

So you are admitting that you admire insurrectionists. You're basically undermining your very argument.

However, let me cut to the chase and tell you that your argument is terribly unconvincing. Of course MTG is not an "insurrectionist", just as MLK and Rosa Parks were not "insurrectionists".

We can stop this silly game of semantics now. And no, I did not read the links you included in your first post because I was commenting on your own words, not on the stories you linked to.

[–] Ranb (10168) 3 years ago

Surely you understand that the judge providing over the MTG case is going to issue a legal definition of insurrection? This is still the same kind of politics that impeached and failed to convict Clinton and impeached and failed to convict Trump twice.

Get used to it.

[–] Phids (777) 3 years ago

Then surely you must understand that the legal definition of words is often quite different from casual definitions of words. In addition, you must understand that the definition you provided earlier will not be used as the legal definition.

[–] Rorikon (18042) 3 years ago

She should resign. The fact she can't remember things is a clear sign of her candidacy.

[–] OnanTheBarbarian (12477) 3 years ago

I saw one of the lawyers who brought the constitutional question to Congress on MSNBC today.

She was weak and seemed to praise Taylor's Greene's obstruction. Then of course she went onto say Taylor Greene should be ruled unqualified to run for re-election. But the lawyer was an idiot to waste half her time saying Taylor Greene did a great job. She did not.