Greene's multiple memory "lapses" refuted by Jan. 6 texts.
April 22 Georgia testimony looks incredulous.
Marjorie Taylor Greene once had harsh words for 79-year old President Joe Biden, calling him a “mentally incompetent, feckless, dementia-ridden piece of c**p"
(www.newsweek.com/marjorie-taylor-greene-biden-state-union-1684031).
But at the Friday, April 22 Georgia hearing to decide whether or not to kick Greene off the May 24 primary ballot, Greene came down with a series of memory lapses to rival that of anyone even remotely guilty of losing a step.
The hearing revolved around a lawsuit alleging Greene urged Donald Trump on Jan. 6, 2021 to impose martial law, thus taking part in an insurrection— an action forbidden for legislators by the 14th Amendment. Throughout the one-day hearing, Greene denied the martial law charge and many other Jan. 6-related claims with repetitions of “I don’t remember” or “I don’t recall.”
The receipts
On Monday, April 25, however, a tide of newly released text messages proved Greene’s memory lapses to be frivolous, if not transparently dishonest.
The texts, part of evidence gathered by the House select committee investigating the insurrection, reveal Greene to be an especially eager new Congressional partner in the plot to overturn the Electoral College certification of the Nov. 3 election and then also later to prevent the Biden inauguration on Jan. 20, 2021.
The evidence is so strong it might form the basis for ousting Greene based on the 14th Amendment, passed in 1862, that makes it a felony to “incite, set on foot, assist, or engage in a rebellion or insurrection against the authority of the United States, or the laws thereof” and prohibits anyone who does from running for and holding office (www.constitution.congress.gov/browse/amendment-14/#:~:text=No%20State%20shall%20make%20or,equal%20protection%20of%20the%20laws).
Greene’s defense: “She’s not Johnny Reb”
On Friday, Greene’s lawyer argued, narrowly, that incitement means “engagement,” like joining or marshaling an insurrectionist army. But an 1894 court in Illinois more strictly specified that “every person who knowingly incites, aids, or abets (an insurrection), no matter what his motives may be, is likewise an insurgent” (www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2022/04/20/greene-insurrection-fourteenth-amendment/).
So in Friday’s hearing, Greene’s demeanor was that of an amused bystander with no understanding of or appreciation for the dramatic and deeply disloyal nature of her texts and postings.
This affect persisted as Plaintiff’s attorney Andrew Celli tried to get Greene to answer questions for which there is much already-published evidence. Still, he got little to no cooperation from the witness.
No total recall
Celli asked Greene:
“Prior to the inauguration, in early 2021 did you advocate for martial law with President Trump?
Greene: No, I don’t recall.
Celli: In (White House) meetings, you discussed with him your advocacy for the idea that there should be martial law declared in the United States?
Greene: I don’t recall.
Celli: Are you saying it never happened or that you don’t recall one way or the other?
Greene: “I don’t recall ever having said that”
(www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fc1qJU4NJKA).
Marshaling martial law
In contrast to Greene’s testimony, the newly released text messages from Greene to former White House Chief of Staff Mark Meadows tell a vastly different story.
They place the 14th District Congresswoman firmly at the center of an effort by Greene and others in Congress to urge then President Trump to impose martial law, which Greene misspells as “marshall” law in her text
to Meadows:
“In our private chat with only Members (sic), several are saying the only way to save our Republic is for Trump to call for Marshall law. I don’t know on those things (sic), I just wanted you to tell him. They stole the election. We all know. They will destroy our country next. Please tell him to declassify as much as possible so we can go after Biden and anyone!”
(www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2022/04/25/greene-text).
Help wanted
Another message Greene could not “recall” on Friday asked for Meadows’ help in enlisting additional House members to object to the Jan. 6 electoral vote certification.
Greene’s plan, described since then as a “soft coup,” called for a majority of Congressional members to object to electoral vote tallies, sending the decision of who would become President into the U.S. Congress.
This would most assuredly secure another term for Trump, by virtue of there being more states that have sent Republican representatives to Congress, even though Democrats hold a numerical majority in the House.
The Greene-to-Meadows text read:
“Good morning, Mark. I’m here in DC. We have to get organized for the 6th. I would like to meet with Rudy Giuliani again. We didn’t get to speak with him long. Also, anyone who can help. We are getting a lot of members on board. And we need to lay out the best case for each state” (www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2022/04/25/greene-text-meadows-raised-topic-martial-law-keep-trump-power/?variant=c44b726edf25a662).
Wiggle room
Greene’s obfuscations, plausibly at the direction of her conservative lead counsel James Bopp, are designed to avoid perjury charges, as they may provide room for “reconsidering” another, truer, answer later.
Greene’s failure to recollect joins with another part of her legal strategy: keeping Greene’s intent indecipherable in court.
“Intent” in cases involving anything except the most basic kind of crimes requires showing that the alleged perpetrator knew something was wrong, but went ahead anyway.
The Jan. 6 committee’s intent standard revolves around two vital questions: Can it be proved that those involved in plotting to overturn the 2020 election:
Knew that their actions were illegal, and …
Pressed forward with a plan to interfere with Congress’s actions that day? (www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2022/04/25/greene-text-meadows-raised-topic-martial-law-keep-trump-power/?variant=c44b726edf25a662)
Since 14th Amendment cases have been rare since 1862, there’s little in the way of case law to guide judges in adjudicating them, given America’s,
until now, storied history of respecting the electoral process as sacrosanct.
Difficult Ascent
In Friday’s hearing, Greene’s verbal dodges, Bopp’s repeated objections based on claims of First Amendment protections, and the judge’s frequent tendency to sustain them, made the plaintiff’s case an even harder hill
to climb.
The combination of the “intent” threshold and the dearth of precedence of such cases can yield enough ambiguity to create a cocoon of security for defendants. The more ambiguity defense lawyers can inject into the proceedings, the better. This gives judges and juries more flexibility to go one way or the other.
Speech that hates
One line of questioning involved Greene’s violent statements about House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, used in the House hearings to remove Greene from her two committee assignments and voted on by an overwhelming House majority, including 11 Republicans, in the House.
Although not directly related to the insurrection, Celli’s line of questioning seemed for the purpose of establishing a violent, hate-all-Democrats state of mind that motivated Greene’s speech and actions.
Celli asked Greene whether she thought House Speaker Nancy Pelosi was a “traitor to the country.”
Greene asserted authoritatively, “I’m not answering that question. It’s speculation. It’s hypothetical.”
But as Celli proceeded in calling up an exhibit showing Greene in a self-made video making that statement, transforming it from ”hypothetical” to “real,” Greene U-turned, raised her finger to her head as if suddenly now remembering, and said:
“Oh wait, no, hold on now. I believe by not securing the border, that that (sic) violates her oath of office!”
(www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fc1qJU4NJKA).
Greene’s lawyer objected, claiming Greene’s comments were nothing more than “political hyperbole,” and thus free speech protected. But this time the judge overruled this objection, requiring Greene to answer using her now sudden recollection of the facts.
In another Pelosi-related question, Celli asked Greene if she had ever “liked” a comment on Facebook calling for Pelosi, former President Barack Obama, and Hillary Clinton to be executed.
”Now do we get to hang them?” “Be patient.”
As background, on one Facebook (FB) post from April 2018, Greene objected to the Iran Deal, Obama’s signature foreign policy accomplishment. A FB commenter asked Greene, "Now do we get to hang them?? Meaning H & O ???," referring to Obama and Clinton.
Greene replied:
"Stage is being set. Players are being put in place. We must be patient. This must be done perfectly or liberal judges would let them off."
To Greene’s post, one commenter suggested, “putting a bullet to the heads” of Obama and (now) House Speaker Nancy Pelosi. And Greene “liked” it (www.cnn.com/2021/01/26/politics/marjorie-taylor-greene-democrats-violence/index.html).
An army of helpers…
CNN, which discovered the FB postings, reached out to Greene for a response. On Twitter, Greene replied she didn’t deny “liking” posts and replying to comments, but blamed her likes on the “many, many people (who) have run her Facebook page.”
And who could have been these “many, many people” who, Greene asserted, could have manipulated her Facebook page? To The Resistant Grandmother (TRG), this would typify a person with an impossibly busy schedule, requiring an abundance of staffers empowered to act with impunity in Greene’s name on social media.
…for a Crossfit trainer
But the incident occurred several years prior to Greene’s running for Congress, when she worked as a Crossfit trainer in a local workout facility.
In the absence of having a high-powered job with no time to personally manage her social media communications, Greene’s need to harness a group of unsupervised apprentices not only to handle her Facebook postings, but feel free to post violence-laced messages, lacks credulity on its face.
Greene: no peaceful transfer of power
But perhaps the most damning evidence to Greene’s complicity in the GOP’s attempt to thwart the election occurred in a video Greene posted in
January 2021.
In it, Greene said:
"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 and the evidence is there” (www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2022/04/20/greene-insurrection-fourteenth-amendment/).
Seems like “can’t allow” the transfer of power evidence could reach the intent threshold, which, again, requires knowing actions are illegal and going forward anyway.
Up to Raffensperger
But the issue wasn’t pressed during the courtroom examination, and so it remains insufficiently challenged in court records. By law the matter proceeds to the Georgia Secretary of State, Brad Raffensperger,
for adjudication.
Raffensperger enjoys a reputation of being a straight shooter, having famously resisted Donald Trump’s strong-arming to “find just enough ballots” to flip Georgia’s 16 electoral votes from Biden’s column to Trump’s.
But Raffensperger is running for reelection, so will not likely be inclined to deny 14th District voters the chance to give Greene a thumbs up or down in the State’s primary election on May 24.
Even if Raffensperger decides in Greene’s favor, a Greene victory doesn’t necessarily appear to be a sure thing, even in the conservative 14th District.
Under achiever
As the lawsuit challenging Greene’s ballot eligibility suggests, Greene faces a more energized opposition than was anticipated, thanks to two years of Greene’s brand of performance politics with little to show for it.
Whereas other members of Congress from both parties can boast of passing laws or finding ways for federal agencies to benefit their constituents, Greene’s 14th District constituents continue to face underemployment, unemployment, opioid addiction, and uneven access to medical care with no help from Greene.
Even in a Democratically-run Congress, Republican Representatives such as Michael McCaul of Texas and Robert Aderholt of Alabama have addressed similar problems in their districts by working their legislative visions and finding Congressional allies to support them, while Greene has not. Instead, Greene has introduced simplistic resolutions with little to no chance of passage and issuing press releases targeting Greene enemies.
As evidence, a visit to Greene’s government website reveals a list of legislative efforts that have gone nowhere, the “referred to committee,” designation signaling an unlikelihood of passage the longer they
languish there.
Good for a laugh
Greene’s accomplishments have instead put herself, and by extension, the 14th District, in the spotlight, but not in a good way.
Greene has offered up a seemingly unending stream of comedic material for late night TV hosts and news pundits, such as her early February mixup of “gazpacho” for “gestapo” when describing, inaccurately, a Capitol police inspection of Congressman Troy Nehls’ office—not to snoop, but perform a security check in light of Nehls’ open office door.
Another issue revolves around Greene’s taking Russia’s side in the Ukraine conflict, with the Congresswoman in videos repeating Kremlin talking points almost verbatim in urging Ukraine to surrender to Russian invaders and would-be overlords (www.youtube.com/watch?v=KVIKOiKpDZs).
Fonda redux?
This hasn’t exactly won friends with District 14’s approximately 31,000 veterans, many from the Viet Nam era when another American woman, actress Jane Fonda, took the enemy’s side, leaving bitter memories, still.
A recent text conversation today with Dr. Charles Lutin, a retired Air Force physician who is running in opposition to Greene on the May 24 Republican primary ballot, led me to check out the GOP’s D. 14 Facebook site to assess Greene’s popularity with some in her district.
Hardly neutral
There, an overabundance of Greene photos and quotes coupled with an under representation of any other current Republican primary contenders heralds the message that the local GOP apparatus is assuredly in Greene’s camp (www.facebook.com/GAGOP14).
Visitors to the site are greeted with a Party-crafted letter supporting Greene in the insurrection lawsuit. Like Greene herself, the letter blames everyone except the current Congresswoman for her spate of legal problems. Democrats, Democratic (Jewish) donor George Soros (a favorite GOP target), and “left wing activists” figure prominently as the real culprits for Greene’s woes.
Do no what?
Projection-style, the letter also accuses Democrats of trying to “steal an election,” an ironic accusation since Greene joined the effort to overturn the election of Joe Biden immediately after taking the oath of office on
Jan. 3, 2021.
Clearly, even though opposition to Greene has grown since 2020, many district voters, including the District 14 GOP party apparatus, still believe Marjorie Taylor Greene can do no wrong.
As Greene’s legal problems grow, the “do no wrong” claim must not only hold up at the ballot box, but also, quite possibly, in Court.
Continuing the discussion…
Ed. Note: Dr. Charles Lutin is on the May 24 ballot to unseat Greene. I asked Dr. Lutin if he had watched the Greene hearings and would like to comment. He did, and this is his response.
”I have spent some time reading and rereading excerpts from MTG’s testimony before an Administrative Law Judge on April 22 and the testimony does not improve with multiple viewings. In addition to the facial appearance and the body language, there are several huge areas of conflict with her provable, published opinions and actions. I don’t know whether she will be disqualified from running, and my personal wish is that she is NOT DISQUALIFIED, but MTG is in a deep hole and can’t stop digging.
In a remarkable piece of attacking defense, the 14th Georgia CD GOP website has a post signed by Denise Burns and Jamie Palmer and another individual blaming the Democrats, George Soros, leftist activists, New York Attorneys, Communists, and seemingly everyone else for the lawsuit and the predicament MTG finds herself in. You folks would do well to consider the words of the first Republican President: “It is better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak and remove all doubt.” While I was on the 14th CD website, I noticed that there is no reference or picture of me on the website and I think that is just wrong. It’s not just me, however, there is also no reference to Cunningham, Strahan, Synstelien, or Haygood, either. It’s almost as if you don’t want anyone to know that there are good alternatives to MTG. How about a little picture and a link to the website and FB page of the challengers?
All this, however, has inspired me to buy a little gift for MTG which is shown here. I hope that you like it, Marjorie, as it is one of my favorite passages from the New Testament. I would have given it to you last night at the Forum. . . had you been there. I look forward to seeing you at the GPB debate on Sunday. I could give it to you then. . .if you make it.”
TRG: Dr. Lutin included a photo of the plaque cited in his posting, which I have not (yet) been able to download, although still working on it. The plaque included these words from John 8:32:
“And you shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free.”