• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Marjorie Greene testifies live

Lord of Planar said:
That will not fly in a court of law. Like the defending lawyer eluded to. If she is inelibeble, she should be in jail. They have no legal evidence she engaged in insurrection.
Click to expand...
Wrong.
 
Lord of Planar said:
That will not fly in a court of law. Like the defending lawyer eluded to. If she is inelibeble, she should be in jail. They have no legal evidence she engaged in insurrection.
Click to expand...
The little I know of the law causes me to agree that this procedure is a little suspect. Innocent until proven guilty and I would think that there would be a charge for Greene to defend against. Is there a precedent for this?
 
Rexedgar said:
The little I know of the law causes me to agree that this procedure is a little suspect. Innocent until proven guilty and I would think that there would be a charge for Greene to defend against. Is there a precedent for this?
Click to expand...
This is an administrative hearing, not a criminal one.
 
The Bopp guy is presenting more than an opening statement. These arguments are for the meat of the case, imo.
 
Rexedgar said:
The little I know of the law causes me to agree that this procedure is a little suspect. Innocent until proven guilty and I would think that there would be a charge for Greene to defend against. Is there a precedent for this?
Click to expand...
Beyond that, like the lawyer is talking of now. The judge will need to base this on what insurrection meant at the time the 14th amendment was written. There was no armed rebellion.

It should have never gone this far to begin with.

The law is required to base the actions on what the word meant during the time something was written. You do not take past contracts, laws, etc. and change them as a definition or perceived definition changes.

Think about it. What did "insurrection" mean in 1868.
 
Cardinal said:
This is an administrative hearing, not a criminal one.
Click to expand...
The consequences are preventing her from being on the ballot, right?


If they fail to keep MTG off the ballot, they will have created a bigger monster than she already is.
I don’t put that past the democrats…..
 
The argument that her speech was "free speech" actually plays into the petitioner's argument that she engaged in "coded messaging."
 
Lord of Planar said:
Beyond that, like the lawyer is talking of now. The judge will need to base this on what insurrection meant at the time the 14th amendment was written. There was no armed rebellion.

It should have never gone this far to begin with.

The law is required to base the actions on what the word meant during the time something was written. You do not take past contracts, laws, etc. and change them as a definition or perceived definition changes.

Think about it. What did "insurrection" mean in 1868.
Click to expand...
You can turn that argument on more than the 14thAmendment.
 
Rexedgar said:
The Bopp guy is presenting more than an opening statement. These arguments are for the meat of the case, imo.
Click to expand...
Maybe he is hoping the judge will dismiss the case as soon as he is done and asks the prosecutor a few pointed questions?

Just a thought.
 
Rexedgar said:
The consequences are preventing her from being on the ballot, right?


If they fail to keep MTG off the ballot, they will have created a bigger monster than she already is.
I don’t put that past the democrats…..
Click to expand...
I don't buy that. It will really depend on the strength of the petitioner's case. It's no different than both impeachments failing. The problem wasn't the strength of the arguments in favor of them, but the fact that the jury was bought and sold. If the arguments had been weak, we would have remembered them for the Democrats looking foolish.
 
It’s going to be a long day…..
 
Cardinal said:
I don't buy that. It will really depend on the strength of the petitioner's case. It's no different than both impeachments failing. The problem wasn't the strength of the arguments in favor of them, but the fact that the jury was bought and sold. If the arguments had been weak, we would have remembered them for the Democrats looking foolish.
Click to expand...
Is this in front of a jury or is the judge the decider?
 
Rexedgar said:
Is this in front of a jury or is the judge the decider?
Click to expand...
Judge. Based on this hearing he'll be making a recommendation to Raffensperger.
 
This should be good, her lawyer is trying to reduce this to nothing more than heckling
 
Cardinal said:
Judge. Based on this hearing, he'll be making a recommendation to Raffensperger.
Click to expand...
How much leeway does Raffensperger have?
 
Rexedgar said:
How much leeway does Raffensperger have?
Click to expand...
I guess as the secretary of state he has the power to keep her from being a candidate. (That's speculation).
 
Cardinal said:
The defense's strategy is to put everyone to sleep. Clever.
Click to expand...
It appears to be working on the judge.


You couldn’t pay me enough to have to sit thru this!
 
americanwoman said:
We'll see. MTG doesn't seem like the brightest bulb to follow the rules so this will be interesting to listen to.
Click to expand...

MTG is not very sophisticated or knowledgeable, but full of a lot of blind rage, confusion, and misunderstanding- a classic Trumpian.

If the prosecutors play this right, they can really exploit that to get a lot of information out of her: maybe get her a little riled up at first to put her in the Trumpian mode- and once there, it wont' be too far a stretch to get her gushing out her usual seditionist rhetoric. You know it's all there. It's just like a large pus pocket ready to burst. You just have to scratch the surface a little bit before all that putrid pus just comes spewing forth. It does so regularly on the campaign trail. You just have to work it a little before it all starts coming out here as well- under oath. That's all that's needed.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom