Official MTG hearing thread: OMG

[rainy]

the judge is very biased. He doesn’t allow the prosecution to get direct answers. The defense is constantly interrupting. I get 😡

[Claustrum]

1. Sorry, I haven't followed this at all.

What is the legal theory behind keeping her off the ballot?

[rainy]

2. 14 th amendment disallows a candidate

to run for office if they participate in an insurrection.

[noiretextatique]

3. She's already perjured herself

Twice, at least.

[Hoyt]

4. The Judge is biased? Maybe because it was a stupid lawsuit. We need to beat these MFers

at the polls -- that's how democracy works -- and stop junk like this action.

[Nevilledog]

6. Can you explain why you're so against these challenges?

[brooklynite]

7. One: they're a waste of time.

Two: if we establish precedent, the same will be applied to Democratic candidates in the future.

[Emile]

10. What's your common sense telling you?

MTG is
Guilty
Not Guilty

[brooklynite]

14. Honestly? Not guilty.

I think she was happy that it happened, but I've seen no indication that she was involved or aware in advance.

[bluestarone]

12. I DO agree with you to a point. BUT

To the point of it will be applied to Democrats, i say, THIS group of RETHUGLICONS of today WILL do this no matter about what going on now! THIS i'm 100% sure of.

[stopdiggin]

25. +1 terrible precedent

and so many of us seem to have a real blind spot ...

[Hortensis]

55. Well, one: They focus some attention to wrongdoing.

Two: Refusing to act against malefactors for fear of actions being misused against self is a losing move. Like ordering troops to hold fire for fear engagement might cause the enemy to increase fire. The future we need requires good standards that are enforced, but we have to get there.

[Tommy Carcetti]

9. The Wet Blanket Brigade is strong today. nt

[agingdem]

23. never happy, always anticipating the worst..

as for Maggot Traitor Gangrene, I want her off the ballot...I want her censured and out of congress..but she mirrors her constituents...white/christian/antisemitic/xenophobic/racist..never mind she's crude/cruel/delusional/verbally challenged/psychotic/a buffoon...she's one of them..she hates who they hate

[Hoyt]

28. Want her off the ballot, even if there is no evidence? Thankfully, not how it works in a true democr

democracy.

We need to beat these MFers at polls, not trying to force them off the ballot.

[agingdem]

52. Yes..

but if that is not to be I want her beat in the primary...I know the question is: will the primary winner be worse?..after all, Greene is the enemy we know...and my answer: no, as long he/she doesn't speak in tongues, threaten House members, shuts up during the State Of The Union address, doesn't advocate treason, encourage an insurrection...

[PSPS]

78. LOL. "We need to beat these MFers at polls"

Sorry, but that's not how it works here in the real world. These house seats are gerrymandered to make it impossible for a republican to lose.

[Hoyt]

87. Actually, redistricting this year seems to favor Democrats. Besides, you post is exactly why I

think this whole lawsuit is BS. It's like saying, if we can't beat her at the polls, find some BS to keep her off the ballot.

Not part of any democracy I'm interested in.

[PSPS]

90. Gerrymandering is antithetical to democracy. Sorry you think otherwise.

Also sorry you think that using what few tools are available to overcome obstructions to democracy is "BS."

[Hoyt]

95. Redistricting in not necessarily gerrymandering. Redistricing this year seems to favor Democrats.

So, you are OK with GOPers going after Biden by going after his son, since it's "one of the tools available?"

[mzmolly]

114. If I may?

Biden's son is a private citizen. MTG conspired to overthrow a democratically elected President.

[Hoyt]

118. I'm assuming you have evidence she "Conspired" to overturn election. Wouldn't put it past her, but

it takes more than that to convict someone or keep them off the ballot.

[mzmolly]

119. Are you watching the hearing?

Are you familiar with what the coup plan was on January 6th?

[Hoyt]

120. Didn't see any evidence of "conspiring." Clearly she's a POS and stupid.

[mzmolly]

121. You might consider her own words,

tweets and loaded language, along with the events of January 6th. Not to mention her close 'friendship' with 1.6 organizers.

I'm glad to see Democrats standing up in every way possible.

[Caliman73]

45. I would prefer her not to be on the ballot either, but...

Are we a nation of law and due process, or are we like the Republicans who would use dirty tactics and eschew law and custom to win?

I am not saying that the lawsuit is dirty or eschews law. It was granted by the courts and there is validity to it.

However, you are already assuming that Greene is guilty and that has not been established.

If we expect that we retain our current system of government, then we need to respect the processes and accept that Greene may prevail because of lack of evidence tying her directly to the insurrection.

I said in another thread that we know Greene is disgusting, her views are horrible, and she seems morally and ethically unfit for service. Unfortunately, the voters in her district think otherwise. To this point, she has not done anything that legally bars her from office. That may change, but as it stands now, that is the situation.

I was on a jury panel once and we were in selection. The attorneys for the prosecution gave a brief scenario of the charges and background on the suspect. Then they asked the potential jurors, "Based on what was presented here what would your verdict be, right now?" of the 20 people in the panel all said "guilty". I said "not guilty", to which the prosecutor asked "Why?" I said, no evidence of the suspect's guilt has been presented and under our legal system, the suspect is presumed innocent until guilt is proven beyond a doubt.

The judge said that I was the only person on the panel to give the right answer. I was immediately dismissed by the prosecution using a preemptory challenge.

As scummy as people are, their guilt has to be proven with evidence to directly tie them to a crime before any legal repercussions are meted out.

[Ms. Toad]

97. Hard to tell from your summary what was actually presented to you -

But it seems like a thought exercise - asking "if we prove all we just said, what would your verdict be?" (Since the jury does not render a verdict before the evidence is presented, asking about a verdict puts you at the point in the trial AFTER the evidence is presented.)

If that is the case, yours isn't the right answer. (The other answers aren't necessarily the right answer either.) But, as you described it, you weren't being asked about a legal principle (the presumption of innocence) - you were being asked to think about the proposed evidence, and how you might react to that body of evidence.

As to MTG, she may well have done something which legally bars her from office. The law being asserted against her does not require having obtained a guilty verdict. The current proceeding is charged with evaulating whether she engaged in behavior which disqualifies her. It is not a criminal case (it is an administrative matter). The standards are different (likely a preponderance of the evidence - i.e. 51%, rather than clear and convincing). There is no presumption of innocence (that only applies in criminal trials).

[Caliman73]

103. True, but we have to go through the process ...

and the decision belongs to the judge or whatever other entity has been empaneled to rule on the merits of the case.


Regardless of the scenario presented to me, as I said, the question was, "What would your verdict be, Right Now?". Before any evidence is presented the verdict is "Not Guilty".

The problem here is that people are assuming that Greene clearly violated the law, without allowing the process to play out because Greene is a disgusting person.

We don't make legal decisions based on our dislike of the defendant. We make them on the bases of the facts presented whether preponderance of the evidence or the more stringent "beyond a reasonable doubt" needed in criminal cases.

I dislike Greene as much as anyone on DU, but I am not willing to take away her rights based on my dislike of her and nothing else.

[Ms. Toad]

109. You left out a critical part of the question -

based on what you have heard so far. As I noted, if you are at the point of rendering a verdict you are at the stage of the trial AFTER the evidence, summarized by the prosecutor, has been proven.

What the prosecutor appears from your summary to have been asking was - assuming I've provided the evidence I've summarized for you, what is your verdict? That might be guilty, that might be not guilty. (Note: This is not a path I would follow, as either prosecutor or defendant, since a jury composed of lay people generally have no knowledge of the elements that have to be proven.) But the question asked is a thought exercise, not whether you know the defendant is entitled to the presumption of innocence. If the prosecutor had been asking about a legal principle, they wouldn't have put you in the position of hearing a summary of the evidence and then rendering a verdict.

There are a lot of people here who don't understand the law. I haven't listened to these hearings, but there are tons of armchair lawyers here who comment in virtually every legal proceeding which doesn't go our way that any negative verdict or ruling (from our perspective) is the result of bias, and that the only legally correct verdict was the way we wanted it to come out. We saw that most recently in the case against those accused of conspiring to kidnap the MI governor. So I entitrely agree that the general level of legal knowledge on DU isn't much better than the general population - and that we have a tendency to assume that because we dislike someone they must be guilty/liable.

On the other hand, your assertion - that she has not done anything to disqualify her from running may well be incorrect. It goes a bit overboard in the other direction. She has already done whatever it is that she has done. Nothing in this proceeding will change whether she has done something to disqualify her from running or not. The only legal question is whether what she has done disqualifies her under the constitutional standards from holding the office she is running for. (The proceeding will also determine, for purposes of this proceeding and resulting appeals only, factually what it is that she has done.) The outcome will merely allow her to be on the ballot, or not, based on her prior actions. No prior finding of guilt is necessary; she is not entitled to a presumption that she did not participate in an insurrection.

[Nevilledog]

48. I support these challenges.

This is not a frivolous challenge. This is basically an unexplored area of law, and I appreciate the GA voters and their attorneys willing to tackle this.

This shows Dems putting up a fight and we need more of it. I think it hurts us when we don't even try to argue for what's right.

[Tommy Carcetti]

53. I know.

Not referring to you.

[Nevilledog]

56. I know.

[Hortensis]

63. "This is not a frivolous challenge." Agree.

It's an extremely important issue.

[agingdem]

69. you're right...

sedition, treason, insurrection...as grave as it gets...Marc Elias took on Trump's election team and won every frivolous lawsuit..we Dems have stopped playing nice and it shows...about damn time

[noiretextatique]

50. +1 nt

[Hoyt]

11. Because we are wasting our friggin time on crud that is in the past. We have things to do for people

I believe we will be punished at polls in a few months for junk like this.

But, yeah, the 30% that is the base love it.

[crimycarny]

31. Agree--she will fundraise off of this

This is the sort of thing that will get her base completely fired up and she will fundraise off of this. She had reported negative numbers in her fundraising before this fiasco, and the Dems have just resurrected her chances. She'll be seen as a "fighter against the libs".

I hope I'm wrong, I really do, but this sort of thing always backfires. MTG was running out of material, her base was getting bored with her, Dems just gave her a lifeline.

[Torchlight]

32. I don't see how one can legitimately assert they are wasting your time. Or mine.

They just are arguing a legal case. Their arguments in court against someone who supported the insurrection take nothing away from the polls. The case takes nothing away from your efforts or mine, your concerns or mine or your agenda or mine.

I think assertions such as yours are far more punishing and depressing at the polls than just arguing a court case.

[Hoyt]

35. In a democracy, you don't try to remove folks from the ballot. You vote against them. Sorry.

[Torchlight]

37. No need to apologize, simply support your assertions with data.

There are restrictions on who is eligible to be a candidate. No children. No foreign premiers. Not inanimate objects. I'd be curious to see a nation that allows anyone to run regardless.

[noiretextatique]

62. A judge disagreed with you nt

[Hoyt]

67. What judge? Do you have a citation.

[noiretextatique]

71. The judge who allowed the case to proceed nt

[Hoyt]

76. Allowing a case to proceed isn't finding her guilty, unqualified, etc.

[noiretextatique]

79. i never said it was, but you said the only means to remove her is by the ballot, or should be nt

[Hoyt]

85. Nope. I said we need to vote her out, not try some BS to keep her off the ballot. Besides, there

are hundreds of folks just like her in that District (that went 80% for trump). Wasted effort. Highly unlikely she will not be excluded from ballot or taking office, not matter how much we despise her.

[noiretextatique]

88. I just read what you wrote again, but whatever nt

[Hortensis]

70. Are we missing that the point here is to DESTROY

the representative democracy that interferes with what RW factions want?

No standards at all is incompatible with a healthy, functional democracy and extremely dangerous. Not allowing traitors who tried to overthrow our representative democracy infiltrate congress through elections is not just VERY basic, necessary good sense, but honorable protection of the democratic principles you advocate.

Of course, if it's not legally considered an insurrection, how can she be guilty of furthering insurrection?

[stopdiggin]

22. biased or not

(and lets face it, the judiciary has plenty of people on that side of the aisle. deal with it.) But I can assure you that pretty much anybody on the bench - is gong to have a fairly jaundiced view of keeping somebody off a ballot - barring some really strong and compelling evidence. And - a fist pump for demonstrators (Hawley) - or running your mouth in furtherance of declaring yourself an as*hole and an ignorant buffoon (Taylor-Greene) - comes in well short of that standard.

Unless MTG was actually buying ammo for Oath Keepers and Proud Boys on Jan 5th ... This one probably wasn't going anywhere.

[Torchlight]

68. Stupid lawsuit and junk, eh? "Do you have a citation?"

[Siwsan]

5. I had to stop watching because I came to the same opinion about the judge

I'm doing my best to keep my anxiety under control.

[rainy]

13. definitely makes me shaky!

[brooklynite]

16. I'm not seeing any bias...

As with many issues, I think too many people's views about the process of Court cases come from what they see on LAW & ORDER.

[Siwsan]

26. You may just have sussed me out! I'm a 'Law and Order' addict!

Yea, it's pretty much just my perception.

[brooklynite]

44. My wife was a former Federal Prosecutor

I sat in on a number of her trials. They're very procedural and very slow.

[Siwsan]

47. I fully admit I'm waiting for a 'Colonel Jessup pushed to the brink' kind of moment

"YOU'RE DAMN RIGHT I HELPED INSTIGATE AN INSURRECTION!!!!"

(I'm also addicted to watching 'A Few Good Men'.

[Caliman73]

49. Yep, usually boring as hell, unless you are into the actual practice of law.

Arguments and evidence is really interesting. Technocratic and nothing like the fiery diatribes on the "Court Shows".

[redstatebluegirl]

8. Google the Bopp Law Firm.

That is her attorney, they show what they do and what they have done. Far right wing crazy stuff.

[Caliman73]

59. That may certainly be the case...

Thing is, it is the preponderance of evidence that wins the case. If the Bopp Law firm can poke holes in what the other side is alleging, then that "far right wing crazy stuff" law firm might win.

Tucker Carlson was sued for defamation, which we likely all think he is guilty of. He lies about people for the purpose of damaging their reputation constantly. His attorneys defended him by saying, "Yeah Tucker Carlson lies all the time. He's an entertainer and no reasonable person would take what he says as true, therefore, he didn't defame the plaintiff. Carlson won.

We need to understand that while Greene is a scumbag of the highest order, there may not be enough evidence to find her in violation of section 3 of the 14th Amendment and kick her off the ballot.

[tishaLA]

15. Whatever one might think of the suit

the judge should demand that she give direct answers to questions.

[a kennedy]

17. and OH MY GAWD, she's wearing her cross. 🤬 🤬 🤬

[AngryOldDem]

107. Isn't that always part of her get-up?

Like a clown’s big shoes and red nose?

[a kennedy]

18. Yup, do not care for this judge at all.....🤮 🤮 🤮

[RamblingRose]

30. Who was he appointed by? n/t

[a kennedy]

33. Yah, I wonder that as well......

[a kennedy]

91. Some info on the judge in the MTG hearing......

In 2012, Judge Beaudrot was appointed by Georgia Governor Nathan Deal to serve as the first Chief Judge of the Georgia Tax Tribunal. In 2014, Judge Beaudrot returned to Morris, Manning and Martin as a Senior Partner in the Tax Practice. However, he was appointed to serve as a Special Assistant Administrative Law Judge with OSAH. Judge Beaudrot is a frequent speaker on tax, partnership and corporate topics for numerous sponsors such as the Georgia Society of Certified Public Accountants, the Institute for Continuing Legal Education in Georgia and the Georgia Real Estate Tax Conference. Judge Beaudrot has been particularly active in the area of flow-through entities in Georgia, having participated in the drafting process for Georgia’s LLC and LLP legislation. Chambers USA, America’s Leading Business Lawyers: The Client’s Guide identifies him as among the nation’s leading tax attorneys, Legal 500 named him as a leading lawyer for real estate tax, Georgia Trend magazine identified him one of the state’s “Legal Elite,”Atlanta magazine has listed him as one of its “Super Lawyers,” and the Atlanta Business Chronicle has listed him in its Who’s Who in Law. He also teaches Partnership Tax and Contract Drafting as an Adjunct Professor at Emory University Law School’s Center for Transactional Law and Practice program.

John Nathan Deal (born August 25, 1942) is an American lawyer and politician who served as the 82nd governor of Georgia from 2011 to 2019. He was elected to the United States House of Representatives as a member of the Democratic Party in 1992 and switched to the Republican Party in 1995. He was a Democrats then he turned repub in 1995.

[brooklynite]

93. He's doing a perfectly reasonable job.

[noiretextatique]

116. A democratic governor nt

[RamblingRose]

122. Just like Zell Miller was a Democratic Governor.

[noiretextatique]

123. yep nt

[keithbvadu2]

19. Poor little MTG

[a kennedy]

20. and that smug look on her face, may I request a slap??? Or is that inappropriate??

[noiretextatique]

34. she is a smug idiot

Hopefully her arrogance will be her undoing.

[Raftergirl]

21. Her district deserves her.

They are as effing stupid as she is.

[Hortensis]

72. Wow. Our friends in that district have to hear

this kind of statements from frumpist acquaintances. Of course, they and others like them associate as little as possible.

[cilla4progress]

24. These fascists HATE having to accept

rules....

[noiretextatique]

101. where is the evidence of this widespread fraud?

she talked about her husband, and keeps making claims, but where is the evidence? why doesn't he press her on that?

[MN2theMax]

27. There sure is a lot

that she doesn't remember.

[noiretextatique]

29. Judge is not sustaining objections by the defense now

As this liar keeps claiming she doesn't know about all the crap she tweeted or retweeted. "I don't have this Twitter account anymore" She 'doesn't recall" doing anything she did. If her memory is so bad, that should disqualify from running.

[Emile]

36. I don't remember, I don't remember taking the oath of office, I just don't remember.

[noiretextatique]

38. I don't remember: the refuge of a lying coward nt

[Emile]

39. I don't remember defense, LOL.

[tishaLA]

40. Does she suffer cognitive decline?

She seems not to remember much of anything.

[Emile]

42. Brain damage?

[noiretextatique]

43. Forget the 14th: She's making a great case for invoking the 25th!

since she can't remember a damn thing that she did.

[GoCubsGo]

61. Nah, this is just your run-of-the-mill sociopathy in someone who is as dumb as a stump. nt

[jcgoldie]

74. I don't think she had much room for decline

No stairs down from the basement.

[chowder66]

41. She needs a doctor, her memory is concerning. ahem

[noiretextatique]

46. Right?! Here we have an elected official who claims not to recall

A very significant event, just a few days after she took office.

[chowder66]

60. She's lying and she's very proud of it.

[noiretextatique]

65. Clearly...I want to see that smug look wiped off her stupid face nt

[chowder66]

66. Smug is what came to mind for me as well.

[AnotherMother4Peace]

51. "I don't remember" "I don't recall" - when presented with direct evidence.

"antifa & blm were violent" - but I don't remember anything about instigating the violence and insurrection on 1/6 - even when presented with direct evidence.

She's such a liar. I thought she was proud of her role as a trumpster. Why lie about it. And she's blinking up a storm & squirming in her seat.

[noiretextatique]

57. RW nutcases believe the George Floyd protests "justify" the Capitol insurrection nt

[chowder66]

58. Yep. And she just remembered the year 2019 of her Feb video calling for protests.

[noiretextatique]

54. Yet another lie: she's a QAnon nutcase nt

[brooklynite]

64. This is not going well for the plaintiffs

The lawyer is doing a good job with what he has, but he's not establishing that she was involved in planning the Capitol break-in, assisted with it, or supported violence. Absent that, the Judge and the SOS won't assert that she subject to removal from the ballot.

[noiretextatique]

73. true, and there does not seem to be a smoking gun on the horizon nt

[noiretextatique]

75. i don't condone violence of any kind, but i bring my gun to work nt

[Fullduplexxx]

77. The ronnie raygun defense... another waste of life

[Mossfern]

80. I'm sorry

I may be old fashioned, but I do have issue with people wearing hats in the courtroom.
Just an aside

[PatSeg]

83. Same here

It is disrespectful.

[a kennedy]

86. I've said that to my husband tons of times. No one takes their hats off anymore.....😡

Guess I must be old fashioned too.

[Mossfern]

81. Is he dumbing down the questions for her?

Seems like a third grade education on the American Revolution.

[brooklynite]

82. The Plaintiff's lawyer is trying to get MTG to say she supported the insurrection.

Which tells me he has no hard evidence (planning/support) to call up.

[Novara]

84. Oh boy, now she is showing us how little of American history and government she really understands

As if anyone didn't already know she's a moron, wow, is she dumb.

[Mossfern]

89. She doesn't know much about the Proud Boys

Maybe brain damage?

[noiretextatique]

92. one good thing about this case: she is lying under oath

if the Jan 6th committee's upcoming explosive evidence digs up anything solid on her: she will be guilty of perjury. My burning question, if these jerks are so proud of their rhetoric, why don't they ever own up to it?

[Wednesdays]

94. The testimony is a potential gold mine of evidence of perjury

if there's proof of such. And it would be hard to imagine there isn't any.

[noiretextatique]

96. i agree...this dummy is so arrogant she is digging a big gaping hole

for a flood of evidence to refute her ridiculous claims of not remembering what she did and said.

[noiretextatique]

98. now she is claiming the videos of her insane rantings are not authentic or take out of context

keep digging that hole, insurrection barbie.

[rainy]

99. FOR WHAT ITS WORTH!!!

What is this Judges problem? He keeps saying that. He is discrediting the evidence 😡

[rainy]

100. FOR WHAT ITS WORTH!!!

What is this Judges problem? He keeps saying that. He is discrediting the evidence 😡

[Mossfern]

102. I don't think she's taking this seriously

n/t

[noiretextatique]

104. She is not taking it seriously at all

and she is lying through her teeth.

[AngryOldDem]

106. She's not.

Her whole attitude is smartass, borderline insubordinate. I am so tired of that smug smile that I can .

If they don’t get her kicked out for fomenting insurrection, I hope they get her for perjury. Constantly saying “I don’t remember” is lying. Take the damn 5th, moron. But we all still know what you did.

[WiVoter]

105. Reminds Me Of Rottenhouse Judge

Sickening

[Mossfern]

108. Iteresting overhearing discussions on hot mike

between the atty's. and judge.
Maybe not the judge. Talking strategy

[rainy]

110. If MTJ thought the crowd was BLM and antifa

why was she hiding and tweeting out “be peaceful?” To her followers?

[Mossfern]

112. Wish you were

in the courtroom!

[noiretextatique]

117. excellent question nt

[Emile]

111. It's a miracle, her memory is coming back when her lawyer is asking questions!

[Mossfern]

113. She sent that "be peaceful" video

while she was sequestered. I think she was concerned for her own life - it's 180 degrees opposite her usual rhetoric.

[IcyPeas]

115. I just put on an a.m. radio and the hosts are even calling her wacko and said she's not

Doing herself any favors.