By now, I'm sure that everybody knows that on Wednesday during a hearing on the weaponization
of the federal government, Marjorie Taylor Greene whipped out Hunter Biden's, naked pictures.
Marjorie Taylor Greene had taken naked pictures of Hunter Biden and a, there was a woman in the
pictures. Her face was blacked out. Uh, they were performing sexual acts in these pictures
that Marjorie Taylor Green, uh, green blew up poster size and showed to the whole world.
These are pictures that were found on Hunter Biden's laptop,
which were technically his private data. So that alone raises questions of legality
about whether or not they're even able to be shared. But Green showed these to the world
without Hunter Biden's permission, without the permission of the other woman in these pictures.
And for some reason, this was somehow related to the weaponization of the government against
political enemies showing naked pictures of the President's son.
Um, yeah, not sure how that worked out. Marjorie Taylor Greene tried to
suggest that these photographs were somehow evidence that he was involved in trafficking
or perhaps prostitution. But either way, Marjorie Taylor Greene needs to worry a little less about
Hunter Biden breaking the law and needs to be more worried about the potential laws that she broke
when this happened. I got on Twitter, which by the way, if you're not following me on Twitter,
you ought to be actually go follow me on threads instead at Fair and Balance. But Marjorie Taylor
Greene, I argued on Twitter, likely violated Washington DC's Laws against Revenge.
If I say the word, YouTube's gonna, you know, penalize the video. So I'll just say it starts
with a p and ends with corn. So from this point forward, we would just call them revenge laws.
Washington DC has very strict statutes, uh, some of them categorizing the sharing
of naked photos of individuals or individuals involved in sexual acts.
Uh, it can be anywhere between a felony and a misdemeanor, depending on how many people you
share them with. And considering the fact that Marjorie Taylor Green shared them with the world,
I would say she would probably be treading into that, uh, felony territory. But after I
posted this on Twitter, somebody mentioned to me, aha Faron, but Washington DC law does not
apply because she was in a federal building, which is under federal jurisdiction. So at that point,
okay, I gotta do a lot of research. So I looked into it, and it turns out that federal law does
apply when you're in a federal building, no matter where the federal building is.
So does state or district law. So just because you're in a federal building or on federal
property, does not mean that local laws do not also apply. The difference is if there
is a superseding federal law, then that takes precedent and that becomes the enforceable law
versus the other law. A great example of this, by the way, is ports of entry in the
United States. In the southwest. Many of those states have actually decriminalized marijuana,
but marijuana is not decriminalized and is still illegal on the federal level. So if you
walk into a border checkpoint in a southern state or, or southwestern state here in the
US and you have marijuana on you, the federal law is what's applied and it's still illegal,
even if it's legal in the state where that federal property is located, because ports of entry are
federal property. Another great example of how this works is with the Capitol rioters.
They were on federal property when they broke the law. However, most of them were actually
prosecuted under District of Columbia law instead of federal law. So in terms of does the DC revenge
law apply to what Marjorie Taylor Greene did, the answer would be yes, because there is no
federal law on revenge Korn. Um, so yes, that law would apply, but then somebody pointed out,
aha, but the speech or debate clause protects her from prosecution on this.
So once again, I gotta do a lot of digging look into what's real and what's not. And it turns out
it would not protect her because speech or debate does not protect against a lawmaker committing
treason or committing a felony of any kind. And depending on how this could be prosecuted,
Marjorie Taylor Greene, if she were hit with felony charges under the revenge law,
wouldn't be protected by speech of debate clause.
But then something happened that rendered all of my hours of research completely moot
because Marjorie Taylor Greene got on a computer and sent out to her entire email
list the video of her showing Hunter Biden's naked body to everyone on her email list.
So all of that work, that I put in finding out if she could be prosecuted,
the answer is yes, it becomes moot because all of those caveats no longer apply once
she sent it out in an email blast to all of her supporters. So then the answer is,
hell yes, she can be prosecuted for this a hundred percent cuz she didn't do it from
federal property. It wasn't part of her official duties in Congress. She just sent it out there.
And here's where it gets worse. According to a report from the New Republic, Marjorie
Taylor Greene does not have any age limit for anybody to sign up for her email list,
which means they're very likely could be minors, people under the age of 18 on her email list,
in which case she sent them, uh, Korn material, which is illegal to send to children.
So Marjorie Taylor Greene, if there is a single person on that email list that is under the
age of 18, also violated laws regarding sending expletive, uh, material to kids.
So there are multiple different ways that you could prosecute Marjorie Taylor Greene for what
she did. And all of it, of course, underscores the bigger point. None of what she brought up
was relevant to Hunter Biden's taxes, which is what they were even talking about at the hearing.
The two witnesses they brought in couldn't provide any information at all. In fact,
one of them even said, I don't have evidence that the DOJ interfered with the uh, uh,
investigation, even though that's what I'm trying to tell you did happen.
I still can't prove it. So they brought in two people with no evidence at all, made total asses
of themselves. And Marjorie Taylor Greene decides, you know, what, if we can't do what we're trying
to do, how about we just show naked pictures of the president's son? That is what happened during
that hearing. That is why she went all out to, to show us these pictures, and then made the grave
mistake of sending the video of her showing these pictures to her email list, which could violate
the laws between, uh, uh, uh, regarding sending obscene material to children under the age of 18.
So I think Hunter Biden has a lawsuit on his hands. I think prosecutors in Washington DC
possibly even in Georgia, depending on where the email list originated from, I think they have a
very solid case on their hands. And if convicted, this actually could, if they decide to prosecute,
which I, I unfortunately, I'll tell you they're probably not gonna do it,
but if they did, Marjorie Taylor Green would probably be going to jail for many years
if they wanna prosecute, because this is a rock solid case.
Because those photographs, even though they blur out the, uh, um, private parts of the individuals,
because you can make out Hunter Biden's face and tell who it is, it does fall under the DC law. And
because one of the photographs, even though the woman's face is blurred, shows them engaged in an,
uh, uh, sexual activity, it is 100% under the purview of those laws. And in my opinion,
prosecutors in DC probably prosecutors in uh, Georgia as well, need to be working on charges
against her because every single part of what she did during that hearing was likely criminal.