CunningCanuk
Well-Known Member
From the mind that gave us gazpacho police.
January 6th hearings on Trump's failed insurrection.
- Thread starter hanimmal
- Start date
cannabineer
Ursus marijanus
best served cold!
DIY-HP-LED
Well-Known Member
They were part of a conspiracy that went off the rails when the capitol was attacked, they had knowledge beforehand. What we see are panicked texts, where the truth comes out, when they themselves felt threatened by the mob. They knew he was behind it and could stop it, they were part of other schemes and plots that were part of a larger conspiracy and included fake electors. Meadows is withholding even more text messages, I wonder what is in them?
What can one say but sedition and treason, anybody who votes for them is a fucking traitor who hates some Americans more than they love their country. Jesus Christ, a century ago the lot of them would be publicly hung on the capitol lawn.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CNN obtains 2,319 texts that Mark Meadows gave to Jan. 6 panel
What can one say but sedition and treason, anybody who votes for them is a fucking traitor who hates some Americans more than they love their country. Jesus Christ, a century ago the lot of them would be publicly hung on the capitol lawn.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CNN obtains 2,319 texts that Mark Meadows gave to Jan. 6 panel
printer
Well-Known Member
Not the select committee but I'm sticking it in here as it is a hearing also. Here, here.
Attorney who questioned Greene says her testimony ‘stretches credulity’
The attorney who questioned Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-Ga.) during a hearing last week that examined her eligibility to serve in public office following the Jan. 6, 2021, Capitol riot said the congresswoman’s response to some questions “stretches credulity.”
Asked on CNN’s “New Day” on Monday morning if Greene committed perjury during the hearing and if he plans to make a referral, Andrew Celli Jr. said that determination will be made by a judge in the Peach State.
“The question of perjury is really for other people to decide and most importantly for Judge Beaudrot down in Atlanta to decide. He has to find the facts here,” Celli said.
thehill.com
You know, all this is just a result of Trump not walking down the street with everyone as he said he would.
Attorney who questioned Greene says her testimony ‘stretches credulity’
The attorney who questioned Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-Ga.) during a hearing last week that examined her eligibility to serve in public office following the Jan. 6, 2021, Capitol riot said the congresswoman’s response to some questions “stretches credulity.”
Asked on CNN’s “New Day” on Monday morning if Greene committed perjury during the hearing and if he plans to make a referral, Andrew Celli Jr. said that determination will be made by a judge in the Peach State.
“The question of perjury is really for other people to decide and most importantly for Judge Beaudrot down in Atlanta to decide. He has to find the facts here,” Celli said.
Attorney who questioned Greene says her testimony ‘stretches credulity’
The attorney who questioned Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-Ga.) during a hearing last week that examined her eligibility to serve in public office following the Jan. 6, 2021, Capitol riot said the …
thehill.com
You know, all this is just a result of Trump not walking down the street with everyone as he said he would.
cannabineer
Ursus marijanus
It’s thoseNot the select committee but I'm sticking it in here as it is a hearing also. Here, here.
Attorney who questioned Greene says her testimony ‘stretches credulity’
The attorney who questioned Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-Ga.) during a hearing last week that examined her eligibility to serve in public office following the Jan. 6, 2021, Capitol riot said the congresswoman’s response to some questions “stretches credulity.”
Asked on CNN’s “New Day” on Monday morning if Greene committed perjury during the hearing and if he plans to make a referral, Andrew Celli Jr. said that determination will be made by a judge in the Peach State.
“The question of perjury is really for other people to decide and most importantly for Judge Beaudrot down in Atlanta to decide. He has to find the facts here,” Celli said.
“But I will say it stretches credulity that this woman can make these kinds of statements, make them publicly on her Facebook page in front of her hundreds of thousands of Facebook followers and the millions of people who view her comments all the time, and then claim she doesn’t remember. It’s shocking to me,” he added.
Greene testified on Friday after a group of Georgia voters challenged her candidacy, claiming that her alleged role in the Jan. 6 Capitol insurrection disqualifies her from running for or serving in Congress. They are seeking to have Greene struck from the primary ballot for her reelection bid next month.
The voters are citing a provision in the 14th Amendment of the Constitution, known as the Disqualification Clause, that blocks people from holding federal office if they previously took an oath to protect and defend the Constitution but “engaged in insurrection” against the U.S.
They say she played a key role in stoking the riot and should be held responsible.
During her testimony, Greene said she did not remember the answer to a question a number of times, including if she spoke to government officials about planned protests on Jan. 6 and conversations she may have had with other lawmakers.
Celli told CNN that the case is a “developing situation.”
“Our work in Georgia was really just part of trying to enforce the Constitution. The 14th Amendment to the Constitution forbids someone engaged in insurrection from standing for election to federal office. That’s essentially what we’re trying to do,” Celli said.
“There are other investigations. There’s a federal investigation, there’s a congressional investigation, and this story has not played out yet,” he added.
At Friday’s hearing, Greene’s lawyer argued that her efforts to block the certification of Electoral College votes for the 2020 presidential election were “legitimate political speech” and protected under the First Amendment.
Attorney who questioned Greene says her testimony ‘stretches credulity’
The attorney who questioned Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-Ga.) during a hearing last week that examined her eligibility to serve in public office following the Jan. 6, 2021, Capitol riot said the …
You know, all this is just a result of Trump not walking down the street with everyone as he said he would.
printer
Well-Known Member
I try to stay away from opinion pieces but...
If found guilty, the Constitution won’t save Greene and Cawthorn
If after a due process hearing Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-Ga.) or Rep. Madison Cawthorn (R-N.C.) are found to have engaged in insurrection against the United States by attempting to prevent Vice President Mike Pence from counting state-certified electoral votes on Jan. 6, 2021, they are disqualified from seeking reelection under Section 3 of the 14th Amendment. Both incumbents are confronting challenges to their eligibility for reelection.
Section 3 is self-executing, meaning it takes effect immediately and without the need for congressional intervention.
It adds a constitutional requirement for holding federal office, namely, refraining from insurrection or rebellion against the United States after taking an oath to support the Constitution. All other constitutionally prescribed limits on holding federal office are self-executing: the two-term limit on the presidency; age and citizenship requirements for the House, Senate, and president; and residency requirements for the House and Senate. There is no policy or textual reason for Section 3 to be interpreted differently.
Indeed, the text argues in favor of self-execution. Section 3 provides that “Congress may, by vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability [from holding public office].” That language presumes a preexisting disability imposed by Section 3 without further congressional action.
Moreover, constitutional prescriptions are inherently shielded from the legislative process, a precept that contradicts an argument for requiring federal legislation to implement Section 3. Constitutional rules do not depend on the outcome of elections, as Justice Robert Jackson underscored in 1943 in West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette.
Additionally, the 14th Amendment was one in a triptych of Civil War amendments. The 13th Amendment prohibition of slavery and the 15th Amendment prohibition of racial discrimination in voting are both self-executing. The United States Supreme Court amplified this in 1883 during The Civil Rights Cases: “This [Thirteenth] amendment, as well as the Fourteenth, is undoubtedly self-executing without any ancillary legislation, so far as its terms are applicable to any existing state of circumstances. By its own unaided force and effect it abolished slavery, and established universal freedom.”
It is argued that Section 3 is incomplete by neglecting to establish specific procedures for determining whether a candidate has engaged in insurrection or rebellion. The argument overlooks the prohibitions in Section 1 of the 14th Amendment and the Fifth Amendment against state governments or the federal government depriving any person of the liberty to pursue public office without due process of law. Procedures that satisfy due process may vary and should include notice, an opportunity to respond, adduce favorable evidence, cross-examine adverse testimony and an impartial decisionmaker.
The detractors of self-execution fall back on an ill-considered 1869 circuit court decision of Chief Justice Salmon Portland Chase, hungry to run as a Democrat in the 1872 presidential elections, in the case In re Griffen. There, a defendant convicted of shooting with intent to kill argued the conviction was void because the presiding judge, properly appointed before the ratification of the 14 Amendment, became disqualified from office by Section 3 for engaging in rebellion. Chase could have rejected the challenge by relying on the de facto officer doctrine as later explained in Ryder v. United States:
“The de facto officer doctrine confers validity upon acts performed by a person acting under the color of official title even though it is later discovered that the legality of that person’s appointment or election to office is deficient. ‘The de facto doctrine springs from the fear of the chaos that would result from multiple and repetitious suits challenging every action taken by every official whose claim to office could be open to question, and seeks to protect the public by ensuring the orderly functioning of the government despite technical defects in title to office. The doctrine has been relied upon by this Court in several cases involving challenges by criminal defendants to the authority of a judge who participated in some part of the proceedings leading to their conviction and sentence.”
Chief Justice Chase gratuitously declared Section 3 was not self-executing to avoid these consequences in lieu of invoking the de facto doctrine. Moreover, he failed to consider that the due process clauses of the Fifth and 14 Amendments safeguard against any arbitrary or discriminatory application of Section 3. Finally, the circuit court opinion was rejected by the Supreme Court in The Civil Rights Cases which concluded that the 14th Amendment “is undoubtedly self-executing.”
In sum, the candidacies of Greene and Cawthorn will be stillborn if they are proven to have engaged in insurrection against the United States on Jan. 6.
If found guilty, the Constitution won’t save Greene and Cawthorn
If after a due process hearing Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-Ga.) or Rep. Madison Cawthorn (R-N.C.) are found to have engaged in insurrection against the United States by attempting to prevent Vice President Mike Pence from counting state-certified electoral votes on Jan. 6, 2021, they are disqualified from seeking reelection under Section 3 of the 14th Amendment. Both incumbents are confronting challenges to their eligibility for reelection.
Section 3 is self-executing, meaning it takes effect immediately and without the need for congressional intervention.
It adds a constitutional requirement for holding federal office, namely, refraining from insurrection or rebellion against the United States after taking an oath to support the Constitution. All other constitutionally prescribed limits on holding federal office are self-executing: the two-term limit on the presidency; age and citizenship requirements for the House, Senate, and president; and residency requirements for the House and Senate. There is no policy or textual reason for Section 3 to be interpreted differently.
Indeed, the text argues in favor of self-execution. Section 3 provides that “Congress may, by vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability [from holding public office].” That language presumes a preexisting disability imposed by Section 3 without further congressional action.
Moreover, constitutional prescriptions are inherently shielded from the legislative process, a precept that contradicts an argument for requiring federal legislation to implement Section 3. Constitutional rules do not depend on the outcome of elections, as Justice Robert Jackson underscored in 1943 in West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette.
Additionally, the 14th Amendment was one in a triptych of Civil War amendments. The 13th Amendment prohibition of slavery and the 15th Amendment prohibition of racial discrimination in voting are both self-executing. The United States Supreme Court amplified this in 1883 during The Civil Rights Cases: “This [Thirteenth] amendment, as well as the Fourteenth, is undoubtedly self-executing without any ancillary legislation, so far as its terms are applicable to any existing state of circumstances. By its own unaided force and effect it abolished slavery, and established universal freedom.”
It is argued that Section 3 is incomplete by neglecting to establish specific procedures for determining whether a candidate has engaged in insurrection or rebellion. The argument overlooks the prohibitions in Section 1 of the 14th Amendment and the Fifth Amendment against state governments or the federal government depriving any person of the liberty to pursue public office without due process of law. Procedures that satisfy due process may vary and should include notice, an opportunity to respond, adduce favorable evidence, cross-examine adverse testimony and an impartial decisionmaker.
The detractors of self-execution fall back on an ill-considered 1869 circuit court decision of Chief Justice Salmon Portland Chase, hungry to run as a Democrat in the 1872 presidential elections, in the case In re Griffen. There, a defendant convicted of shooting with intent to kill argued the conviction was void because the presiding judge, properly appointed before the ratification of the 14 Amendment, became disqualified from office by Section 3 for engaging in rebellion. Chase could have rejected the challenge by relying on the de facto officer doctrine as later explained in Ryder v. United States:
“The de facto officer doctrine confers validity upon acts performed by a person acting under the color of official title even though it is later discovered that the legality of that person’s appointment or election to office is deficient. ‘The de facto doctrine springs from the fear of the chaos that would result from multiple and repetitious suits challenging every action taken by every official whose claim to office could be open to question, and seeks to protect the public by ensuring the orderly functioning of the government despite technical defects in title to office. The doctrine has been relied upon by this Court in several cases involving challenges by criminal defendants to the authority of a judge who participated in some part of the proceedings leading to their conviction and sentence.”
Chief Justice Chase gratuitously declared Section 3 was not self-executing to avoid these consequences in lieu of invoking the de facto doctrine. Moreover, he failed to consider that the due process clauses of the Fifth and 14 Amendments safeguard against any arbitrary or discriminatory application of Section 3. Finally, the circuit court opinion was rejected by the Supreme Court in The Civil Rights Cases which concluded that the 14th Amendment “is undoubtedly self-executing.”
In sum, the candidacies of Greene and Cawthorn will be stillborn if they are proven to have engaged in insurrection against the United States on Jan. 6.
DIY-HP-LED
Well-Known Member
Meadows only released 2/3s of his texts, he withheld over 1000 messages and if these messages are an indication, those he is trying to hide should be interesting. This guy is looking at a lifetime behind bars, the feds can squeeze his balls until his eyeballs pop out to roll over on Trump.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Meadows Is ‘Up To His Eyebrows’ In Potential Federal Crimes
New York Times congressional reporter Luke Broadwater and former U.S. attorney Harry Litman discuss how former White House Chief of Staff Mark Meadows was warned of potential violence on January 6th.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Meadows Is ‘Up To His Eyebrows’ In Potential Federal Crimes
New York Times congressional reporter Luke Broadwater and former U.S. attorney Harry Litman discuss how former White House Chief of Staff Mark Meadows was warned of potential violence on January 6th.
DIY-HP-LED
Well-Known Member
George Conway reacts to Marjorie Taylor Greene's text
Conservative attorney George Conway reacts to texts from GOP leaders to former President Trump's White House chief of staff Mark Meadows on January 6.
Conservative attorney George Conway reacts to texts from GOP leaders to former President Trump's White House chief of staff Mark Meadows on January 6.
printer
Well-Known Member
New details show extent of GOP effort to unwind Trump’s loss
Documents and texts stemming from the House investigation into Jan. 6, 2021, offer new details about the extent House Republicans, particularly members of the Freedom Caucus, were involved in plans to unwind the 2020 election — even as lawyers at the White House warned them their proposals could be illegal.
The content — released in the committee’s court battle against Mark Meadows and in a trove of texts to the former chief of staff obtained by CNN — outlines a lengthy list of Republicans involved in conversations with the White House about planning for the rallies on Jan. 6 and efforts to oppose the certification of votes that day.
thehill.com
Documents and texts stemming from the House investigation into Jan. 6, 2021, offer new details about the extent House Republicans, particularly members of the Freedom Caucus, were involved in plans to unwind the 2020 election — even as lawyers at the White House warned them their proposals could be illegal.
The content — released in the committee’s court battle against Mark Meadows and in a trove of texts to the former chief of staff obtained by CNN — outlines a lengthy list of Republicans involved in conversations with the White House about planning for the rallies on Jan. 6 and efforts to oppose the certification of votes that day.
New details show extent of GOP effort to unwind Trump’s loss
Documents and texts stemming from the House investigation into Jan. 6, 2021, offer new details about the extent House Republicans, particularly members of the Freedom Caucus, were involved in plans…
thehill.com
DIY-HP-LED
Well-Known Member
More audiotapes show Republicans McCarthy, Gaetz, Scalise and Mo Brooks feeding on one another
As The New York Times continues to release audio recordings of Republican politicians made around the time of the January 6, 2020, attack on the US Capitol, we hear politicians like Representatives McCarthy and Scalise criticizing and complaining about the dangerous conduct of other Republican politicians like Representatives Gaetz and Brooks. McCarthy and Scalise discuss how Gaetz is "putting people in jeopardy" and how Brooks instructions to Trump's angry mob on January 6 to go to the Capitol and "take names and kick ass" were even more incendiary than Trump's statements.
This is today's Republican Party. But people have a surefire antidote to today's Republican Party, as this video discusses.
As The New York Times continues to release audio recordings of Republican politicians made around the time of the January 6, 2020, attack on the US Capitol, we hear politicians like Representatives McCarthy and Scalise criticizing and complaining about the dangerous conduct of other Republican politicians like Representatives Gaetz and Brooks. McCarthy and Scalise discuss how Gaetz is "putting people in jeopardy" and how Brooks instructions to Trump's angry mob on January 6 to go to the Capitol and "take names and kick ass" were even more incendiary than Trump's statements.
This is today's Republican Party. But people have a surefire antidote to today's Republican Party, as this video discusses.
Bagginski
Well-Known Member
Nah, that was BoebertIt’s those
cannabineer
Ursus marijanus
My bad. They’re all stamped to the same shape from the same sheit metal.
Bagginski
Well-Known Member
What’s baffling to a lot of us, I think, is that so many pieces of the Jan 6 mess are so explicitly self-evidentiary - MTG’s own video on her own web page, calling people to Washington because “we can’t just have a peaceful transition of power like Joe Biden wants”, is a great example - that it seems it could all be prosecuted in a day & had everyone barred from office, fined, in jail, etc by the weekend. Knitting it together so that the connections are made explicit, that it can all be *TOLD* - THAT will be front-and-center this summer, careening into Election Day.
For some weird reason, national/presidential politics here go thru cycles or phases: the election of Roosevelt in ‘32 began a wave; Kennedy in ‘60 built on that wave. In ‘80 another wave started with Reagan, continued thru Clinton & Shrub & Obama…and having engulfed the mainland entirely in ‘16, it now seems determined to drain away, sucked to death by its own emptiness. Good riddance.
To recap the MTG shit, suit was filed in Georgia to strike MTG from the ballot for cause; MTG petitioned to dismiss the suit; the hearing last Friday was for her to show cause for the suit to be dismissEd. That’s ALL.
She was supposed to back up her motion to dismiss with y’know *reasons*, some fault or impropriety or unsound legal basis or lack of standing material to the suit - or, y’know, *something*. All she had was bullshit and evasion…and a smug, shit-eating grin *very* well-known to judges all across the south…even if the judge were on her side, with the attention centered in his courtroom, he can’t ignore the utter horseshit of her performance, or her arrogance in his court. Her motion to dismiss will be denied. I expect the suit to strip her from November’s ballot to succeed.
For some weird reason, national/presidential politics here go thru cycles or phases: the election of Roosevelt in ‘32 began a wave; Kennedy in ‘60 built on that wave. In ‘80 another wave started with Reagan, continued thru Clinton & Shrub & Obama…and having engulfed the mainland entirely in ‘16, it now seems determined to drain away, sucked to death by its own emptiness. Good riddance.
To recap the MTG shit, suit was filed in Georgia to strike MTG from the ballot for cause; MTG petitioned to dismiss the suit; the hearing last Friday was for her to show cause for the suit to be dismissEd. That’s ALL.
She was supposed to back up her motion to dismiss with y’know *reasons*, some fault or impropriety or unsound legal basis or lack of standing material to the suit - or, y’know, *something*. All she had was bullshit and evasion…and a smug, shit-eating grin *very* well-known to judges all across the south…even if the judge were on her side, with the attention centered in his courtroom, he can’t ignore the utter horseshit of her performance, or her arrogance in his court. Her motion to dismiss will be denied. I expect the suit to strip her from November’s ballot to succeed.
captainmorgan
Well-Known Member
Treason is now a political opinion.
Bagginski
Well-Known Member
A distinction only - no difference
captainmorgan
Well-Known Member
Proud Boys member Louis Enrique Colon has just agreed to reveal names and every detail regarding the planning of January 6
cannabineer
Ursus marijanus
not Carrio?
printer
Well-Known Member
Jan. 6 panel announces eight hearings to be held in June
The House select committee investigating the Jan. 6, 2021, attack at the Capitol will be holding eight hearings in June, according to lawmakers on the panel.
“Eight’s a lot of hearings,” committee member Rep. Jamie Raskin (D-Md.) told CBS’s Robert Costa on Thursday when asked about the specific number following an announcement from Chairman Bennie Thompson (D-Miss.).
“You know most issues or subjects get one hearing or maybe two hearings. So we looked at essentially the comprehensive story that we have to tell, and we divided it up into chapters that will allow for the unfolding of the narrative, and we hope that it will make sense to people,” Raskin added
Thompson told reporters earlier on Thursday that eight public hearings will be slated for June, including ones scheduled for primetime and daytime.
“We’ll tell the story about what happened,” the House committee chairman said, according to CBS News. “We will use a combination of witnesses, exhibits, things that we have through the tens of thousands of exhibits we’ve […] looked at, as well as the hundreds of witnesses we deposed or just talked to in general.”
The first of the eight hearings is anticipated to be held on June 9, according to Thompson.
He also said that by the end of the week, three House Republicans — House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.) in addition to Reps. Jim Jordan (R-Ohio) and Scott Perry (R-Pa.) — would be contacted by the committee, CNN reported.
Asked what would happen if any of the lawmakers refuse to testify, as all three of them have in the past, the panel chairman said, “Well, we’ll cross that bridge when we get to it,” according to CNBC.
In Raskin’s interview with Costa, the congressman indicated that the panel had not made up its mind over whether it wanted former Vice President Mike Pence to testify.
“I don’t know that that’s been decided yet. And you know, he’s spoken at length in public as to the major points, and so I think we have what we need from him, but I don’t think the committee’s decided yet,” Raskin explained.
thehill.com
The House select committee investigating the Jan. 6, 2021, attack at the Capitol will be holding eight hearings in June, according to lawmakers on the panel.
“Eight’s a lot of hearings,” committee member Rep. Jamie Raskin (D-Md.) told CBS’s Robert Costa on Thursday when asked about the specific number following an announcement from Chairman Bennie Thompson (D-Miss.).
“You know most issues or subjects get one hearing or maybe two hearings. So we looked at essentially the comprehensive story that we have to tell, and we divided it up into chapters that will allow for the unfolding of the narrative, and we hope that it will make sense to people,” Raskin added
Thompson told reporters earlier on Thursday that eight public hearings will be slated for June, including ones scheduled for primetime and daytime.
“We’ll tell the story about what happened,” the House committee chairman said, according to CBS News. “We will use a combination of witnesses, exhibits, things that we have through the tens of thousands of exhibits we’ve […] looked at, as well as the hundreds of witnesses we deposed or just talked to in general.”
The first of the eight hearings is anticipated to be held on June 9, according to Thompson.
He also said that by the end of the week, three House Republicans — House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.) in addition to Reps. Jim Jordan (R-Ohio) and Scott Perry (R-Pa.) — would be contacted by the committee, CNN reported.
Asked what would happen if any of the lawmakers refuse to testify, as all three of them have in the past, the panel chairman said, “Well, we’ll cross that bridge when we get to it,” according to CNBC.
In Raskin’s interview with Costa, the congressman indicated that the panel had not made up its mind over whether it wanted former Vice President Mike Pence to testify.
“I don’t know that that’s been decided yet. And you know, he’s spoken at length in public as to the major points, and so I think we have what we need from him, but I don’t think the committee’s decided yet,” Raskin explained.
Jan. 6 panel announces eight hearings to be held in June
The House select committee investigating the Jan. 6, 2021, attack at the Capitol will be holding eight hearings in June, according to lawmakers on the panel. “Eight’s a lot of hearings,” committee …
thehill.com
printer
Well-Known Member
Greene spars with CNN’s Acosta on Trump texts: ‘You’re a liar’
Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-Ga.) clashed with CNN anchor Jim Acosta this week over questions about her text messages calling for former President Trump to declare martial law after rioters stormed the Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021.
In a video posted to Twitter by Greene, Acosta is seen walking with her outside the Capitol, first asking if she recalled calling Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) a traitor.
“You know Jim, you have a show, and, in all fairness, you try to present this image of me to your viewers and it’s just really not correct,” she says.
“Well, we’re just trying to get some answers,” Acosta replies.
According to text messages provided to the House committee investigating the Capitol attack, On Jan. 17, 2021, three days before President Biden’s inauguration, Greene texted former White House chief of staff Mark Meadows that members of Congress were suggesting Trump’s final chance to “save our Republic” was to call for “Marshall law,” referring to martial law.
thehill.com
Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-Ga.) clashed with CNN anchor Jim Acosta this week over questions about her text messages calling for former President Trump to declare martial law after rioters stormed the Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021.
In a video posted to Twitter by Greene, Acosta is seen walking with her outside the Capitol, first asking if she recalled calling Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) a traitor.
“You know Jim, you have a show, and, in all fairness, you try to present this image of me to your viewers and it’s just really not correct,” she says.
“Well, we’re just trying to get some answers,” Acosta replies.
According to text messages provided to the House committee investigating the Capitol attack, On Jan. 17, 2021, three days before President Biden’s inauguration, Greene texted former White House chief of staff Mark Meadows that members of Congress were suggesting Trump’s final chance to “save our Republic” was to call for “Marshall law,” referring to martial law.
Greene spars with CNN’s Acosta on Trump texts: ‘You’re a liar’
Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-Ga.) clashed with CNN anchor Jim Acosta this week over questions about her text messages calling for former President Trump to declare martial law…
thehill.com