Jump to content

Bleach Blonde Bad Built Butch Body in Congress? Oh you mean Marjorie!

Pancho

By Pancho
in Cloak Room

 Share

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 7.8k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Popular Posts

956 Worldwide
956 Worldwide

Your graph is wrong, it’s showing 1983 as 40 years ago. Pretty sure the 80s are always about 20 years ago. 

HenryJames
HenryJames
NWBuck
NWBuck

Probably just pulled it out of her ass...

Posted Images

A-Tex Devil

A-Tex Devil 2500

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, Longhorn_Fan68 said:

what a superbly dumb cunt

 

Man.... reading through those ostensibly private messages you can better discern the crazies and true believers from the opportunists and grifters.   Seem like there are more of former than latter and I'm not sure that's better or worse. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TwiceHorn

TwiceHorn 32092

Posted
Posted
33 minutes ago, Nice Guy Eddie said:

What's the expected outcome of her trial? I assume a conservative judge is unlikely to hold her in violation of a constitutional amendment meant to keep Confederate leaders out of govt. However I hold out hope that the judge will offer an opinion that her testimony was suspect. 

Ok, this is a federal case that is attempting to enjoin (stop) the Georgia Secretary of State from applying the term of the 14th Amendment to remove MTG from the ballot in Georgia.

There are basically two possibilities:  the federal court lets the GA SOS proceed and then whatever decision is reached by the GA SOS is appealed through whatever channels are provided by Georgia law in the Georgia courts, until it gets to the US Supreme Court for a review of the consistency of Georgia law with any supreme federal law, presumably the 14th Amendment.  The other alternative is that the federal court somehow finds that the 14th Amendment or some other provision does not permit the GA SOS to remove her from the ballot on these "insurrection" grounds and that some other forum, like federal court, or Congress, or God-knows-what, or no forum at all other than a criminal conviction for insurrection will suffice.  

A federal district court in North Carolina ruled in favor of Cawthorn on a similar issue, but it is on appeal at the 4th Circuit and the decision seems erroneous on its face. https://news.yahoo.com/court-revives-challenge-madison-cawthorns-002658753.html  In that case, the Trump appointee held that the Amnesty Act of 1872, which congressionally removed the disability from Confederate insurrectionists, also removed that disability from Cawthorn.  Which is pretty facially ridiculous. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amnesty_Act

I suspect any ruling in this case will leave as many questions open as answered.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Pato del Muerto

Pato del Muerto 53566

Posted
Posted
8 minutes ago, BehoId, The Underminer! said:

we should enact a law that you can't declare martial law if you can't spell it.  i hate that we are going to lose our democracy, but i hate it even more that we lose it to people operating at an 8th grade level.

You flatter them with that description 

  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Horn Dog

Horn Dog 10180

Posted
Posted
5 hours ago, Nice Guy Eddie said:

What's the expected outcome of her trial? I assume a conservative judge is unlikely to hold her in violation of a constitutional amendment meant to keep Confederate leaders out of govt. However I hold out hope that the judge will offer an opinion that her testimony was suspect. 

But I was told that intention doesn’t matter when it comes to the Constitution.  The only thing that matters is strictly the words that were written!  Or does that only apply to the second portion of the second amendment?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Pods

Pods 7637

Posted
Posted
7 hours ago, TwiceHorn said:

 

A federal district court in North Carolina ruled in favor of Cawthorn on a similar issue, but it is on appeal at the 4th Circuit and the decision seems erroneous on its face. https://news.yahoo.com/court-revives-challenge-madison-cawthorns-002658753.html  In that case, the Trump appointee held that the Amnesty Act of 1872, which congressionally removed the disability from Confederate insurrectionists, also removed that disability from Cawthorn.  Which is pretty facially ridiculous. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amnesty_Act

MTG has the same attorney Cawthorn did.

He spent a significant amount of his close making this argument. He kept saying that the Amnesty Act of 1872 provided both prospective and retrospective immunity and that the Amnesty Act of 1898 confirms this was intentional by only providing retrospective immunity.

Absurd. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Pods

Pods 7637

Posted
Posted
On 4/23/2022 at 4:42 PM, TwiceHorn said:

To be fair, it was a preliminary injunction hearing in a case she filed against the state proceeding before the Georgia Secretary of State.

By nature, there tends not to be much or any discovery on those.  And, I'm not sure that whether she "engaged in insurrection or rebellion" within the meaning of the 14th Amendment was really "teed up" as an issue.

The issues were more likely something pertaining to the authority of the Georgia Secretary of State to determine the eligibility of a candidate, which is generally "plenary."  That is, does Ga. SOS have the authority to make that determination, or to make it on the 14th Amendment ground.

While it probably wasn't strictly legally necessary to determine those questions, a little bit about her activities was probably on point, and she probably tried to make a self-serving denial of same, opening herself to cross-examination.

The petitioner asked for both discovery and for MTG to be deposed. There was the option to do both, but the judge refused. Discovery and depositions were the only chance to actually ascertain the truth. 

https://www.cnn.com/2022/04/08/politics/marjorie-taylor-greene-candidacy-challenge-lawsuit/index.html

Quote

The administrative judge already rejected a request for Greene to testify at a deposition. The challengers also demanded that she turn over a wide array of documents related to the 2020 election and January 6, including any emails she may have exchanged with rally organizers or members of extremist groups that were involved in the attack. Greene opposes these efforts.

Whether that is conventional, or not, what followed was a farce. The judge repeatedly allowed MTG to impugn the evidence this decision forced the petitioner into presenting and to not answer the questions. My understanding of court rooms is that a judge doesn't usually allow the witness to attack the integrity of the petitioner, CNN, Facebook, Twitter and/or Nancy Pelosi with extended diatribes that are clear non-responses to yes/no questions. 

Earlier in her testimony MTG testified that NO ONE used her Twitter account without her authorization. Later, every time she was confronted with a post/like, she claimed to have no idea who was posting/liking content. The judge told the petitioner she had answered the questions and to move on rather than allowing them to nail her with this. 

MTG brought up Q unprompted and disavowed believing in it. The judge did not allow the petitioner to pursue this and cut them off when they said they had a right to follow it up. 

The judge repeatedly refused to allow the petitioner to examine whether MTG violated her oath of office, because that's apparently not relevant. The judge did allow MTG to claim multiple times that Nancy Pelosi was a traitor, who had violated her oath of office, because that apparently is relevant. 

He refused to allow them to explore comments she made about citizens going to DC to take over Congress and flood the capitol in 2019, because they were too long in the past and made before she was a Congressperson. 2019 was too long ago to possibly be relevant.

Those are just a few. It was bad.

The reason we didn't get any answers from this hearing is because the judge didn't allow it. 

  • Like 1
  • Rage+1 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Satchel

Satchel 6983

Posted
Posted

Hillary Clinton’s appearance before the House Select Committee on Benghazi today was her 3rd public testimony on the 2012 attacks.

It came on the 130th day of her 2016 presidential campaign and 101 daysbefore the Iowa Caucuses.

The session began at 10:01 am ET. It ended at 9:00 pm ET on the dime.

Clinton spent 500 minutes, or more than 8 hours, testifying in the chair. Her entire session on the Hill, including breaks, ran 11 hours.

The word ‘email’ mentioned nearly 300 times.

The late Ambassador Chris Stevens was mentioned 130 times. Clinton confidante Sidney Blumenthal mentioned more than 78 times during the hearing.

The House Select Committee on Benghazi is the 8th congressional investigation into the attacks.

This committee has spent over 17 months or 532 days investigating (the committee started in May 2014) -– longer than the Watergate committee investigation.

The committee has interviewed 54 witnesses. Republicans intend to interview at least 20 more witnesses.

The House Select Committee on Benghazi has cost taxpayers $4.8 milliondollars so far.

At least 10 different agencies, Senate and House committees have opened inquiries into the Benghazi attack, including the State Dept, FBI, and selected Senate and House committees on intelligence…

…and Mean Green still managed to forget more in a couple of hours than Hillary ever did.

  • Rage+1 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites
jimmyjazz

jimmyjazz 47258

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, WhatTheBuck said:

Damnit. It took me a little but before I got it.

Really an underrated band, not that I own any of their recordings or anything. But they were alright.

Trivia time:  there was never a "Marshall Tucker" in the band.  They named it after a blind piano tuner in their hometown.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
TwiceHorn

TwiceHorn 32092

Posted
Posted (edited)
15 hours ago, Pods said:

The petitioner asked for both discovery and for MTG to be deposed. There was the option to do both, but the judge refused. Discovery and depositions were the only chance to actually ascertain the truth. 

https://www.cnn.com/2022/04/08/politics/marjorie-taylor-greene-candidacy-challenge-lawsuit/index.html

Whether that is conventional, or not, what followed was a farce. The judge repeatedly allowed MTG to impugn the evidence this decision forced the petitioner into presenting and to not answer the questions. My understanding of court rooms is that a judge doesn't usually allow the witness to attack the integrity of the petitioner, CNN, Facebook, Twitter and/or Nancy Pelosi with extended diatribes that are clear non-responses to yes/no questions. 

Earlier in her testimony MTG testified that NO ONE used her Twitter account without her authorization. Later, every time she was confronted with a post/like, she claimed to have no idea who was posting/liking content. The judge told the petitioner she had answered the questions and to move on rather than allowing them to nail her with this. 

MTG brought up Q unprompted and disavowed believing in it. The judge did not allow the petitioner to pursue this and cut them off when they said they had a right to follow it up. 

The judge repeatedly refused to allow the petitioner to examine whether MTG violated her oath of office, because that's apparently not relevant. The judge did allow MTG to claim multiple times that Nancy Pelosi was a traitor, who had violated her oath of office, because that apparently is relevant. 

He refused to allow them to explore comments she made about citizens going to DC to take over Congress and flood the capitol in 2019, because they were too long in the past and made before she was a Congressperson. 2019 was too long ago to possibly be relevant.

Those are just a few. It was bad.

The reason we didn't get any answers from this hearing is because the judge didn't allow it. 

No, really.  The federal case is not "on the merits."  It does not consider whether MTG engaged in insurrection, only the ability of the Georgia Secretary of State and election bodies to take her off the ballot.  That is almost a purely legal question.  MTG's various offenses are almost wholly irrelevant to that question.

That article itself states that the federal judge, which is a she (Amy Totenberg), seems likely to let the state thing proceed, which, again, is the only question before the federal court where the recent hearing was held.

There are two proceedings discussed in that article, a federal case, that I am talking about, and the state "case" or proceeding that the federal case is "about." Two cases, two judges.  It is perfectly normal for a federal judge not to grant discovery in a preliminary injunction case like this, particularly where the questions are almost completely legal in nature.  Hell, it's even odd to have live testimony at such a hearing.

I did not express an opinion on what's going on in the Georgia case, where an ALJ has apparently decided not to permit her deposition.   I have no idea what sort of rules may govern that procedure.

 

The point of all this being:  there's no reason to think that there is a miscarriage of justice in the federal court just because MTG didn't get deposed or fully crossed on her bad acts.  That she even had to testify is a lagniappe for us.  The federal forum will not decide the issue, per se.

Edited by TwiceHorn
  • Hook 'Em 2
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
 Share
Go to topic listing


Football ... Basketball ... Baseball ... Other Sports ... Futbol ... 🤫995🤫 ... Gambling ... Movies & TV ... Music ... Hobbies ... Lulz ... Food & Travel ... Daily Texan ... Business and Markets ... Cloak Room ... Help ... For Sale ... Board Discussion ... Subscribe!... Donate!... Advertise... COOKIE MONSTER!

×
×
  • Create New...