The plaintiffs’ attorneys, Ron Fein and Andrew Celli, presented Greene with a series of statements she made that they said demonstrated a pattern of advocating for violence in the two years leading up to her election in 2020. They also questioned her about her knowledge of the potential for violence on Jan. 6, and statements she made spreading lies about a rigged election and urging Trump supporters to stop the transfer of power.
Celli’s cross-examination began with comments by Greene in 2019, when she said that treason is “a crime punishable by death” and that “Nancy Pelosi is guilty of treason.” She also liked a comment on Facebook that said “a bullet to the head would be quicker” to remove Pelosi from office. Not long after that, during a trip to Washington, D.C., in February 2019, Greene said on Facebook Live that Pelosi would “suffer death or she’ll be in prison” because of her “treason.”
Greene, for her part, spent most of her time on the stand, under oath, telling the lawyers that she did not remember or recall making such statements. When shown video evidence of her past comments, she tried to downplay her remarks, argued that a video might have been edited or incomplete, or claimed that her social media postings might have been made by members of her staff.
... During questioning, Greene said she did not know if she had liked the comment about a bullet to Pelosi’s head. “I have had many people manage my social media account,” she said. “I have no idea who liked that comment.”
Celli then moved on to comments made by Greene after the 2020 election. He spent a long time discussing the context behind her comments the day before the insurrection that referenced the American Revolution. “This is our 1776 moment,” Greene said on Jan. 5 during an interview with Newsmax, a right-wing TV station.
“What was done in 1776 was to stop a tyrannical government with guns?” Celli asked Greene. She agreed: “Sure.” But she added, “I’ve always said I’m against violence.”
Greene claimed her reference to 1776 was a comment only about objecting to the certification of the election results in Congress.
But Celli asked her about another comment. He asked if she had said that “the peaceful transfer of power” should not be allowed. “I don’t recall,” Greene said. In response, Celli said, “Let’s go to the videotape.”
He played a video of her entire comment. “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,” she had said....
A clown with a flamethrower still has a flamethrower.
-- Charlie Sykes on MSNBC
1312. ETTD.
Maybe they did it, but good follow-up would be like "so it's possible you did say that?" etc.
Make her seem as stupid a lying sack of shit as you can.
Idk about the particular exchange, but the seemingly competent plaintiff/s' attorneys put a fair amount of effort into trying to pin her down. They stymied some of her deflections, but it's hard to fight a committed, "I don't recall," defense. They did use contemporary video, tweets, posts, etc to make their points.
I might have preferred it if they walked over and punched her in the nose during mid-smirk, but that's just me.
A clown with a flamethrower still has a flamethrower.
-- Charlie Sykes on MSNBC
1312. ETTD.
"I don't recall" works for a lot of things. But for something as memorable as "did you suggest (Trump) declare martial law" it just looks ridiculous. In that case, "I don't recall" would have to mean "I may have - I considered it, but I don't remember if I said it" - and even that is ridiculous in that context of speaking to the effin' President*.
"I don't recall" works for a lot of things. But for something as memorable as "did you suggest (Trump) declare martial law" it just looks ridiculous. In that case, "I don't recall" would have to mean "I may have - I considered it, but I don't remember if I said it" - and even that is ridiculous in that context of speaking to the effin' President*.
Ludicrous and beyond credible but unprovable.
Guess that's why it works.
Eamus Catuli~AC 000000000101010202020303010304 020405....Ahhhh, forget it, it's gonna be a while.
"I don't recall" works for a lot of things. But for something as memorable as "did you suggest (Trump) declare martial law" it just looks ridiculous. In that case, "I don't recall" would have to mean "I may have - I considered it, but I don't remember if I said it" - and even that is ridiculous in that context of speaking to the effin' President*.
I don't really know but I'm guessing that:
Looking ridiculous risks the judge saying she's FOS and ruling for the plaintiffs;
Looking ridiculous risks losing a primary or general election;
Admitting seditious activity guarantees being removed from the ballot.
A clown with a flamethrower still has a flamethrower.
-- Charlie Sykes on MSNBC
1312. ETTD.
Admitting seditious activity guarantees being removed from the ballot.
No to mention criminal liability.
Yeah, but there is another line of defence - she could admit to specific actions but deny those specific actions was disqualifying or constituted sedition. Given that this entire effort is ploughing some new ground not well defined by case law, that would have some risk but not be an unreasonable approach.
Admitting seditious activity guarantees being removed from the ballot.
No to mention criminal liability.
Yeah, but there is another line of defence - she could admit to specific actions but deny those specific actions was disqualifying or constituted sedition. Given that this entire effort is ploughing some new ground not well defined by case law, that would have some risk but not be an unreasonable approach.
Seems like a cart before the horse approach. New case law sounds incredibly expensive and in her case to be avoided.
Eamus Catuli~AC 000000000101010202020303010304 020405....Ahhhh, forget it, it's gonna be a while.
She's going to be part of case law like it or not. It's just hard to deny (or not remember) something that's on more than one video. You can only say "fake" "photoshop" "not me" so many time. But you can explain it or put it into a better context. Might not work, but if you don't explain/context it, the opposition will.
She's going to be part of case law like it or not. It's just hard to deny (or not remember) something that's on more than one video. You can only say "fake" "photoshop" "not me" so many time. But you can explain it or put it into a better context. Might not work, but if you don't explain/context it, the opposition will.
As the whole world (that aren't wingnuts) are watching and saying bullshit, what is the criteria for the judge? Is her obvious deflection and obscuration enough to let this proceed to whatever is next?
Eamus Catuli~AC 000000000101010202020303010304 020405....Ahhhh, forget it, it's gonna be a while.
Is her obvious deflection and obscuration enough to let this proceed to whatever is next?
My guess is yes, unless the decision is based on some technicality of terminology or standing of plaintiffs or something. If the ruling is on the merits of evidence and credibility of witness, she's toast. Unless - they rule that ya she did it, but it's not enough to call sedition or insurrectionist. I don't really expect her to be disqualified, but it looks like there's a possibility of perjury if they pursue it.
