For those getting excited about Marjorie Taylor Greene's appearance in Court tomorrow.....

[brooklynite]

1. This is an Administrative Hearing and not a trial.
2. It will not address whether she participated in an insurrection.
3. She probably won't speak.
4, In the end, she won't be kicked off the ballot.

[Nevilledog]

1. Where are you getting this info about the hearing?

[Nevilledog]

2. This is from one of the attorneys, John Bonifaz

Link to tweet

Tweet text:

John Bonifaz
@JohnBonifaz
WATCH LIVE: Tomorrow, Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene will face questions under oath about her role in the January 6th insurrection. We will be live-streaming this hearing starting at 9:30 am, Friday, April 22, via the YouTube and FB links in this piece: https://bit.ly/3L33mxB @FSFP

freespeechforpeople.org
WATCH LIVE: Marjorie Taylor Greene Faces Questions Under Oath for Role in January 6th Insurrection...
Tomorrow, our Constitution will be put to the test. Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene will be asked to testify under oath before a state administrative law judge in Georgia about her role in the January...
8:19 AM · Apr 21, 2022

[Hoyt]

3. Thanks for facts. Can't see how MTG, no matter how deplorable, can

be taken off a ballot without a conviction in a case like this.

While my opinion as opposed to facts, this is a frivolous action and will be seen as that by lots of voters. Ultimately, trumpsters and deplorable GOPers win again.

[Trueblue1968]

4. she may not be off the ballot BUT NEWS REPORTERS SAID..... HER VOTE won't count

[Hoyt]

6. Her vote won't count, in what respect? Are you saying someone will invalidate

her vote count in November? Heck, I’m sure some folks will try, and fail again. That junk ain’t helping.

[Nevilledog]

5. What facts?

[Hoyt]

9. OP listed 4. I assume you think she will be labeled an insurrectionist and

prohibited from running in the upcoming hearing? Ain’t gonna happen.

Worse, in her district there are hundreds just like her, or worse, waiting to run.

[Nevilledog]

13. OP also said she's not going to testify. I posted the actual attorney saying differently.

Since nothing like this has been tried since the Civil War, I think stating *as a fact* what's going to happen is unsupported.

[Hoyt]

15. Hey, I hope they lock her up, but doubt it's going to happen.

And if it doesn’t, she wins, trump wins, GOPers win, and we’ve looked bad again. I’m especially getting tired of the latter.

[dpibel]

24. Lock her up was never going to happen

So it's actually not a win for her if they don't lock her up.

This is not a criminal trial.

It is an administrative hearing to determine her eligibility to be on the ballot.

One result that cannot happen is locking her up. I'm sorry you think it will make us look bad, although I'm hard pressed to get the bad look from something not happening that couldn't happen.

[Hoyt]

25. Was not using it in literal sense. She will be on ballot and win in her rube district.

[demmiblue]

33. I have stopped giving the OP's prognostications much consideration; he is often wrong. n/t

[Nevilledog]

16. Here's a chance to read the complaint filed.

https://freespeechforpeople.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/03/fsfp-mtg-14.3-georgia-complaint-2022-03-24.pdf

[Hoyt]

19. Obviously, I just scanned it with thanks to Evelyn Wood. Some of the"evidence"

presented sounds “space laser” crazy. Look, MTG is crazy and unfit for office. But I’ve worked in her district, it’s 80% trump rube. She’s representing her district.

We will not get what we want out of this action, although hope I’m wrong. They’ll win again.

[dpibel]

11. I'm not seeing that requirement

Section 3. No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.

If the drafters of the amendment wanted to require conviction for a DQ, easy enough to drop that word in there.

Certainly, there's not much jurisprudence on the matter, since we're living in the time of the first insurrection since the 14th was adopted.

But by the clear language, a demonstration of engagement should suffice.

Note that this is not a criminal matter, so the burden of proof should be more likely than not.

I'm close to convinced that, assuming the likely outcome that MTG stays on the ballot, this action will have no effect one way or the other on voters. Them what likes her will still like her, and them what don't won't. Do you seriously think there are voters out there who will say, "I was gonna vote agin Marge, but then there was that lawsuit, and everything changed."

[brooklynite]

14. "Note that this is not a criminal matter"

Yes it is, and a Federal one:

18 U.S. Code § 2383 - Rebellion or insurrection

Whoever incites, sets on foot, assists, or engages in any rebellion or insurrection against the authority of the United States or the laws thereof, or gives aid or comfort thereto, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States.

This is the problem; a State agency is NOT going to make a determination that MTG has violated a Federal Law.

[dpibel]

18. The hearing tomorrow is not a criminal proceeding

It's just not.

Yes. Insurrection is a crime.

No. The judge tomorrow cannot find MTG guilty of a crime and ship her off to jail.

There is a difference, whether you can see it or not.

[brooklynite]

21. My point is that BECAUSE its not a criminal proceeding...

...MTG isn't going to be "convicted" of Insurrection, and thus won't be removed from the ballot by the State of Georgia.

[dpibel]

23. And my point

is that there is no requirement in the 14th for a conviction.

Maybe this will help you: OJ Simpson had to pay money because a civil jury found that, more likely than not, he killed his ex-wife. At that point, he'd already been acquitted of murder in a criminal trial. But that didn't mean he won on the civil side.

This is an action to determine whether MTG gets to be on the ballot. It has different standards of proof. I don't honestly know if it's ever been litigated, but the simple fact is that the plain meaning of the 14th is that there has to be a showing that the person engaged in insurrection. But that does not mean there has to be a conviction.

Further, I will say naught, because you clearly know what you know, although you have no support for your conclusions other than your say-so. So you help yourself to the last word, whatever it may conclusorily be.

Here's a fun side fact for ya: I'm reading the complaint in this case. At least according to Bonifaz (and he's a pretty smart and careful guy), in a GA candidacy challenge the burden of proof is on the candidate to show that she's eligible. Degree of proof required is preponderance.

[brooklynite]

28. I'm not arguing that they CAN'T. I'm arguing that they WON'T

A State Administrative agency, especially in a Republican State, is not going take on the task of deciding whether someone committed as egregious a crime as Insurrection against the Federal Government.

That however is irrelevant to the fact that THIS HEARING has nothing to do with deciding that. SOS of State Raffensperger has made no decision, and its not up to the Federal Court to decide. THIS is an Administrative Hearing on whether the State has the RIGHT to do so.

[Walleye]

7. Why do you suppose she is livid and so mad she is sputtering? If she doesn't have to testify

[Hoyt]

12. Because the "mad and sputtering" is just some blogger's description

that is probably wrong.

She, like most GOPers, truly are deplorable. But these kind of actions don’t help us, other than keeping the choir happy.

[Walleye]

17. She sounded pretty mad to me. Trump said she was going through some kind of horror in hell

[Hoyt]

20. Do you have a link to her sounding mad? I mean other than her normal batchit crazy.

[Emile]

27. I saw that too!

[Deuxcents]

8. Interesting considering the 14th Amendment...

My point being is.. isn’t this to find out her role in the 1/6 insurrection? Wouldn’t that have a say in the lawsuit against her running for re election?

[Ocelot II]

10. The Washington Post says otherwise.

It's an administrative hearing and a recommendation will be made to the GA Secretary of State. However, she is expected to testify, and the issue is exactly whether she should be disqualified for participating in an insurrection. She probably won't be, but...

At issue is whether Greene can be removed from the ballot under Section 3 of the 14th Amendment, which disqualifies from office anyone who “shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the” United States, or has “given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof.”

...In the absence of evidence of Greene directly working with insurrectionists — there’s the question of whether inciting an insurrection qualifies as engaging in an insurrection, and meets the 14th Amendment’s standard.

...there’s the matter of whether local judges or officials removing a candidate from the ballot would even pass legal muster. [Rep. Victor] Berger, after all, was excluded by a vote of the House. And the Supreme Court has repeatedly affirmed that the Constitution makes each house of Congress the judge of members’ qualifications to serve. Lawfare’s Roger Parloff, writing in the context of the Cawthorn case, concluded that this question “could well carry the day.”

So we shouldn’t expect that Greene or any other members will lose their seats in Congress because of this. But we might learn some things in the process, including what our courts regard as an insurrection and who they regard as an insurrectionist.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2022/04/20/greene-insurrection-fourteenth-amendment/

[Hoyt]

22. Recommendation to GA Sec of State. He stood strong against trump, but

he’s gonna laugh in private and ignore any recommendation to remove her from ballot. And, that assumes the recommendation is to remove her.

I do appreciate the excerpts from WP. Good insight.

[a kennedy]

26. I'll be watching.......

[Emile]

29. Starts at 9:30 am on CSpan1.

[Tommy Carcetti]

30. Our daily serving of cold oatmeal, DU. nt

[a kennedy]

31. I didn't realize the Judge will give his findings back to the Secretary of State, who just happens

to be a repub……..so she won’t be kicked off the ballot. 🤬 🤬 🤬

[bluestarone]

32. What if she committed perjury?

Any chance of getting her on that?