Ms. Greene, if somebody tried to unlawfully interfere with
the process of counting the electoral votes unlawfully,
that person would be an enemy of the constitution, wouldn't you agree?
>> Does it define that way?
Indeed, that's Marjorie Greene who's been testifying throughout today
to legal attempt to stop her from running for reelection.
Arguing that under one of the provisions of the constitution,
because in the words of those beginning this legal effort.
She gave aid and comfort to the insurrectionists, she became an enemy of
the United States government, that she should be barred from running for office.
And a lot of the testimony went just like you saw there, attempts to pin her down or
question her about particular things that she said and
did in the run up to the insurrection.
That she would answer with a blank stare that I bought 100%.
I don't think it was an act.
I think there was nothing underneath her stare there.
But saying that she didn't remember what she said or
she doesn't understand what tweets mean.
Or she can't be held responsible for her social media activity because anyone could
have liked posts calling for the execution of Nancy Pelosi.
So we're gonna give you a little bit more try to get an idea
of how successful the lawyer might have been and pinning her down.
Here is a little bit about whether the January 6th rioters should be considered
enemies of the state.
>> So if someone broke the law in an effort to interfere with the counting of
the electoral votes, that person would be an enemy of the constitution,
am I right about that?
>> Breaking the law is unlawful.
There's been over 700 people charged for what happened on January 6th.
>> Right, and those people were trying to interfere with the lawful process of
counting the votes for the Electoral College, right?
>> I would assume, yes, they did.
They stop the electoral count.
>> Right, and so those people would be enemies of the Constitution.
You would agree with that, right?
>> I don't know.
>> I think that that's honest, such genuine.
I think there's a lot of things that she doesn't know and
they were very much on display.
She was trying not to get pinned down.
Like she knew enough to know that, she's obviously not a quick thinker.
She's not a particularly like witty person, quick person, anything like that.
But as I was watching that, my thought process was,
if you are trying to make the case that she should not be able to run for office.
I would dispense with any of the attempts to get her to be an active part of making
that case.
Present the evidence and we're gonna give you some of
it the things that she said the times that she's called for
political violence, that is either going to convince the courtroom or it's not.
I wouldn't have tried to get her to define herself into being an enemy of
the constitution.
And I've been pretty clear in my previous coverage of this on the damage report,
that I'm a little bit dubious about this entire case anyway.
And we have more video, but that said, I'm curious what both of you think about this.
>> Yeah, I share your slight skepticism John or maybe significant.
So, I think that saying that she should not be able to run,
is gonna feed into the usual martyrdom of the right wing, right?
Like, my God, cancel culture, etc, right?
Now, but
I asked the democrats to act tough prosecutors to act tough all the time.
So the answer is either applied equally to everyone
who supported the insurrection or don't.
But when you pick out one person, you're not helping the overall cause, it
sounds like it looks like you're targeting or because you don't like, or as opposed
to being principled against everyone that supported the insurrection, right?
So, and I know it's different jurisdictions and so
that makes it much more complicated and harder.
But it creates an issue.
Did she actively supported?
Of course.
And do you think that means she should be barred from running for office?
Well, I think you could make that case, but again,
you'd have to make it uniformly for everyone who did.
>> She's giving the same kinda answers that she gives on like Fox or
Newsmax, right?
Like dancing around the truth, but she's under oath here.
Like she has to answer the questions truthfully by law and
by her not doing that, she's making herself look really silly.
She's like, I don't know, what does the constitution say?
Why don't you tell me?
And she looks ridiculous, but I think you're right John that she's probably not
going to give a straightforward answer and incriminate herself on the stand.
>> Yeah, I wouldn't expect it.
And look, when I say that I'm I've been uneasy about this.
I'm not even really making a case that I think that you couldn't make
the case under the constitution.
I think in theory you could, to me,
I share some of the same concerns with Jake about applying it evenly.
Now look, the the organization and one of the lawyers back in this is with
free speech for people like it is perhaps they're doing this to set a precedent.
There's also a similar case that hasn't gone as far so
far against Madison Cawthorn because different judges have adjudicated it.
Maybe they're just trying to set up a precedent that could then be
applied to other people.
For me, my preference would be she should be unacceptable
as an elected official to a broad base of people.
She should never have been elected in the first place.
We already knew more than we needed to know before she was first elected.
They don't even need all this stuff about what she did about the insurrection.
Like she should be unacceptable to the voters and if not to the voters then to
her party, they should have cast her out any number of times for what she did.
This feels it feels almost like a cheat to me and
I'm not making a constitutional case here.
I'm not saying that the constitutional provision about insurrection
shouldn't apply in this case.
To me, it shouldn't be this way,
she should have been weeded out at multiple other steps.
She never should have won the republican primary for that seat,
let alone a general election.
Even at a red district.
We should be better than this.
The Republican Party should be better than this.
Nobody is apparently better than this.
But this isn't the way I would want it to go down.
>> Yeah, I mean, there's a great irony that John is alluding to here.
I really wanna get to the other clips, but
which is that the republicans are voting for people in favor of ending democracy.
So what do you do when a democracy votes to kill itself?
I don't know, and that's kinda where we are.
>> Yeah, exactly that's exactly what I was going to say.
We've got these people attending the trial who are supporters of
Marjorie Taylor Greene saying stuff like, I don't like them trying to keep her off
the ballot as if they care about the sanctity of elections.
Why are we having this trial at all?
Because she posted thing on Facebook,
like you can't allow a just transfer of power peacefully like Joe Biden wants.
And allow him to become our president because he didn't win this election,
it's stolen.
And so yeah, I think like potentially the insurrectionist disqualification clause of
the constitution applies here.
But yeah, I agree with john that it's disgusting that we have to prosecute
it in a court of law and that she's a viable candidate without that.
>> Exactly, yeah, it's not a solution and it's not by the way,
I'm not saying any of this because I don't think that she is a grave threat.
I think that when it comes down to even more political violence than we've already
seen, because we've already crossed that bridge several times.
I think she's gonna be perfectly happy.
The woman who poses and adds with an assault rifle next to women of color
in politics is perfectly fine for triggers to start being pulled.
That said like, I think the answer is more democracy.
I think the democrats should get off their ass and
actually pass a bill that will make it easier for people's voices to be heard,
to stop the gerrymandering to stop the voter suppression all of this.
But they're not doing anything, they're just sitting by and watching this happen,
but that said, we do have more videos.
So let's get to her quibbling over the word peaceful in this.
>> In your tweet, you mentioned earlier that your words join
hashtag March for Trump in DC on January 6th to fight for Trump.
That you were urging people to come to Washington for
a peaceful demonstration, right?
>> Peaceful demonstration, absolutely.
>> Yeah, that word peaceful is nowhere in the script, right?
Look, that word peaceful is not in the street.
>> I can't read it,
there's only half [INAUDIBLE] >> Let's give the representative of
a paper copy of that one.
I just wanna make sure I'm not missing it.
>> Now [INAUDIBLE] It was scrolled up just a second ago.
>> Okay peaceful is not in there, isn't it?
>> Well, you know like- >> Is the word peaceful in there,
Ms. Greene?
>> Does not say peaceful.
>> That's my question, thank you.
>> You're asking me and I said for peaceful demonstration,
just like people have the right to do in their First Amendment.
I'm asking,
there's not a secret code in there that's supposed to be peaceful, right?
>> Well, I never mean anything for violence.
>> Yeah, look, we know that that is obviously not the case.
I mean not only are the videos that I believe Jessica alluded to earlier where
she on video said Joe Biden wants a peaceful transfer of power.
And we can't allow that that's fairly clear or
even outside of the context of the debate over the results of the election.
She was speaking with Chris Dora gun rights guy and says that the democrats
are gonna steal your guns this interview from a while back.
She said,
the only way you get your freedoms back is it's earned with the price of blood.
Like she has repeatedly she liked the tweet calling for
someone to put a bullet in Nancy Pelosi skull.
She has often called for that.
I would say there's many pieces of evidence that can and should be used.
I found that one the absence of the word peaceful, a lot less effective than some
of the times where she was very clear that she wants people to fight or
not to allow a peaceful transfer of power.
I think that's a little bit stronger and
hopefully the judge paid attention to that.
>> Yeah, I didn't find that portion particularly compelling.
You write 1000 tweets without the word peaceful in it.
So but yes, the ones where she actually says,
I like the idea of murdering the speaker of the house.
That seems to be more compelling.
>> Yeah. >> I'm gonna from my point, and
on a member here and TYT.com/joined to be part of the show.
And we love the points that you guys make, Chicago and I wrote in,
why hasn't she been censured if not removed from Congress?
Well, actually, on January 6th Cori Bush introduced legislation to remove or
to not seat all the republicans that objected to the election?
The logic was, well, you guys said the election wasn't fair.
So why would we see you?
But you because you're telling us no, our election was fraudulent.
Okay, then you're we're not gonna see you.
And of course it was like, people loved it.
The democratic voters loved it.
The media covered it.
It was really well received.
It's a great idea by Cori Bush.
And then democratic leadership was like, let's just drop it and
they're just hopeless.
They're just hopeless and feckless.
So this will be another thing and
the republicans will spin it to their advantage.
The democrats will do nothing.
She'll be on the ballot, she'll win easily, and it will only add to her fame
because the opposition here is just the most impotent thing you have ever seen.
>> Yeah, I think the precedent setting facet of this trial is really
interesting, right?
It's the first time a member of the GOP is testifying about what happened on
January 6th.
>> Yeah. >> And I think we should understand it and
keep our eyes on it with all of this context as well.
But I have this fear that it it could be the also the last member of the GOP to
testify about January 6th.
But we'll see what happens.
>> Look, you're forcing me to say one last thing.
The democrats are doing a January 6th commission.
All Washington is aflutter over.
It hasn't done a damn thing a little bit here, a little bit, all one day, 17 years
from now, we might get Trump to testify about something, maybe a civil proceeding.
Okay, no, when somebody defies your subpoena to testify,
you put them in jail instantly within the hour.
Okay, have the police ready when you send the subpoena or
whatever the time restriction is on winter reply.
Okay, put them in jail, keep them in jail for a long time.
If you think they actually did things that are criminal like Donald Trump,
it's half a dozen very clear crimes, then you must prosecute them.
If you don't prosecute them, it's a giant glaring green light.
It's okay, you can break the law anytime you want, you can go forward.
>> Yeah. >> So that's why there's a little bit of
it at at least some feeling of, hey, at least somebody's been made to ask and
answer a question, a legitimate question.
So there is something very positive in the proceedings in that sense.
But I'm afraid Jessica is right that it'll probably the last time you get any kinda
accountability because the democrats are historically, preposterously weak.