While we're on break, what is the evidence you've seen presented IN COURT...

[brooklynite]

...that points to engagement in an insurrection, sufficient to have MTG thrown off the ballot?

I haven't seen anything. The Plaintiff has been trying to show her being sympathetic to the stop the steal protests, but hasn't come up with anything that promotes violence or shows personal engagement.

[nolabear]

1. I'm afraid I haven't either.

My hope is that enough damage is being done to insure many would recognize how incompetent and disgusting she is. But frankly they are clever enough to couch what they say so they can claim interpretations and not fact of insurrection mongering.

[Hoyt]

2. Not any that should be used in a democracy to keep people you can't beat at polls off ballot.

[bottomofthehill]

3. Winner.

[MarineCombatEngineer]

31. +100. nt

[Hassin Bin Sober]

4. I thought you said she wouldn't speak?

[brooklynite]

6. I suspect that, as with Trump, her lawyer suggested that she not...

...and she decided to anyway for the benefit of her political fans.

[FBaggins]

5. The only relevant fact I learned...

... was that the opposing attorney has apparently never read any Dylan Thomas.



In short... no. I'm not sure that her attorney even needs to cross. They haven't established anything close to a connection - let alone a reason to believe that it would be covered by 14A if they could.

[Novara]

7. There's video of her saying that there can't be a peaceful transfer of power

I don't know what the burden of proof is in this case but it certainly goes to her mindset.

Is this a preponderance of the evidence? People have been convicted of plenty of crimes without having a smoking gun of direct evidence. And this isn't a criminal trial; it's a hearing, so I don't know how much of what kind of evidence is needed to keep her off the ballot.

[Mossfern]

8. I just hope that

this doesn't make her a martyr figure.

[brooklynite]

10. No, its going to make her "innocent" in the mind of most voters.

Absent a better case made by the 1/6 Committee or the Attorney General.

[Baitball Blogger]

19. Unless evidence surfaces to show she's committing perjury.

Like a phone recording. Or a person who is facing charges for the Insurrection who is willing to turn on her with key information in return for a plea deal.

All of her statements are building a foundation for that very reason.

[brooklynite]

23. And no such evidence has surfaced.

Several leaders of the Proud Boys have reached a plea-deal with DOJ where they will admit to planning for a breach of the Capitol. They will NOT implicate anyone in the Administration or Congress.

https://openargs.com/oa587-alex-jones-continues-to-be-completely-porked/

[Baitball Blogger]

25. But, no one had someone like Marjorie Taylor Greene on a witness stand under oath, until now.

[brooklynite]

27. You can't go on a fishing expedition

You can't ask if she attended a planning meeting of the Trump campaign where insurrection was discussed (or whether she left a pipe bomb at DNC headquarters as another post suggested) unless you've built a foundation that such an activity happened.

[Baitball Blogger]

30. I think this hearing establishes a foundation. Maybe nothing else.

But, if she lied, I suspect we'll know soon.

And, I could have sworn that he did make some ground by getting her to admit that Biden was not legally elected. Now we just need a witness or a tape to expose her true involvement. And that might happen in another case.

Personally, I hope it happens when the Jan. 6 investigation gets to the point when they have amassed enough evidence to call her in. That would be a more public platform for her defrocking.

[brooklynite]

32. If there was "a witness or a tape" this Hearing would have been a lot shorter.

I don't CARE about "we can get her next time". We're discussing a Hearing on ballot access THIS time. And based on the case presented by the Plaintiff lawyer, she deserves to win.

[Baitball Blogger]

34. I disagree.

We have a baseline to work with, that we didn't have before.

[brooklynite]

35. A baseline for WHAT?

She'll be left on the ballot. End of discussion.

[Baitball Blogger]

39. Omigod! Why aren't you seeing the big picture?

This is a small hearing in Georgia. We haven't even started to hear about what is coming out of the Jan. 6 investigation committee led by Liz Cheney. But MTG, is now on their radar. If they find something that counters her testimony, they'll have a reason to pull her in.

[brooklynite]

40. Because I'm dealing with a Hearing in Georgia.

I have no evidence that MTG is under investigation by the 1/6 Committee or DOJ. Nor have I seen any evidence that suggests she should be.

Add to which, the excitement here when this started was about kicking her off the ballot.

[Ohio Joe]

33. Where does it say that?

I only see one plea agreement linked at your link and I'm not seeing where it says anything where they will not implicate anyone in the Administration or Congress... Is it in one of the other links there?

[brooklynite]

36. Its a podcast with the host lawyer breaking down the plea agreement.

[Ohio Joe]

41. That is not at all what the actual agreement says...

I'll quote from section e of the cooperation section:

(e) Your client shall testify fully, completely and truthfully before any and all Grand
Juries in the District of Columbia and elsewhere, and at any and all trials of cases or other court
proceedings in the District of Columbia and elsewhere, at which your client’s testimony may be
deemed relevant by the Government

https://openargs.com/oa587-alex-jones-continues-to-be-completely-porked/

So... Unless someone can quote the agreement to show otherwise, the podcaster (whoever that is, I don't see names) is completely wrong.

[Ohio Joe]

42. And for the other PB, Joshua James, that has made a plea deal, it's the same...

The podcasters only linked to one of the plea agreements so I had to go get the other one for Joshua James but it is the same... From (e) of the cooperation section:

(e) Your client shall testify fully, completely and truthfully before any and all Grand
Juries in the District of Columbia and elsewhere, and at any and all trials of cases or other court
proceedings in the District of Columbia and elsewhere, at which your client’s testimony may be
deemed relevant by the Government.

https://www.justice.gov/opa/press-release/file/1479546/download

So... They are both bound to testify to everything they know on any case.

[Gore1FL]

9. Did she give aid an comfort to those involved? That's the criteria.

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.

[brooklynite]

11. And the Plaintiff's lawyer presented no relevant evidence of that.

[Gore1FL]

12. That I can't speak to. I am unable watch the hearing.

It all depends on how those words are defined.

[Whiskeytide]

13. Not yet. But I don't know the attorney examining her. And I don't ...

… know the procedural rules of the forum. I assume, however, that they will be given an opportunity to present additional evidence from other witnesses/documents.

The attorney seems to have set a number of traps by asking her direct questions and getting unequivocal answers. If - and that’s a big if - they present additional, credible evidence that directly impeaches her testimony on material facts, then it can be argued that she has been shown to have been untruthful. In that event, her entire testimony can be disregarded by the fact finder.

That moves them along substantially on the merits.

I still don’t agree with this lawsuit. I think it’s a political mistake. And I confess I’ve only been half-ass paying attention. But if they can prove she did have direct communications with some of the ringleading rioters about being prepared for violence or using violence as a tool to stop the certification - contradicting her denials - there could be something there. We’ll see what they have, I presume.

[brooklynite]

15. Disagree...

Greene is no longer testifying. If Plaintiff's had evidence to refute her statements, the time to present it is when she's on the witness stand.

[Baitball Blogger]

21. I disagree.

The purpose of her testimony is to present a baseline. NOW the prosecutor has a chance to introduce evidence to show she perjured herself.

Now or later.

[brooklynite]

24. There ISN'T a prosecutor...

This is a civil hearing.

The Plaintiff's lawyer presented no evidence to refute her statements. Both lawyers have rested.

[Baitball Blogger]

26. She's still under oath.

And her statements are on the record.

[Baked Potato]

14. From what I've seen this hearing probably makes her more attractive to

her constituents. She is just an empty suit to fluff and vote R.

[FBaggins]

16. In an R+45 district?

Yeah... she doesn't have to worry about public opinion shifting from this hearing.

[Baked Potato]

18. Good point! Nt

[Emile]

17. Why was her Twitter account dropped?

[Baitball Blogger]

22. I know, right. Seems to be evidence right there.

[brooklynite]

28. For claiming that the election was stolen...

...which is perfectly legal under the First Amendment. Does not equate to insurrection.

[bluecollar2]

20. None...n/t

[budkin]

29. She just says "I don't recall" over and over

And she'll get off scott free.

[maxsolomon]

37. Does the 14th am, Section 3 require evidence?

Evidence that would be accepted in court?

[brooklynite]

38. It requires evidence to convince the person deciding if she violated the Insurrection clause

Unless your argument is that a claim by plaintiffs is sufficient.

Why do you imagine they're holding a hearing?

[maxsolomon]

43. That section is pretty vague as to process, no?

Only how to undo the disqualification:

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.

I don't know what the facts (not evidence) about her involvement were, but I've read she purportedly gave tours to insurrectionists on Jan 5th. Probably not enough to disqualify.

Nonetheless, I applaud this effort to harass and keep her defending her actions.