Marjorie Greene RAGES on Twitter after Judge Says Lawsuit Disbarring her from Running for Re-Election can PROCEED

[wamose]

And we'll get to vote for them again or for people that are even shittier.

Based on results, I don't think too many people will be wanting to stay the course come November.

 

[eagle1462010]

Positive proof our judicial system is toast. Should have been laughed out of court.

 

[Godboy]

I say let her run. If a country of stupid people wants to destroy itself, isn't that the people's right?

No, we should ban the AOC/Omar types

 

[Vrenn]

No, we should ban the AOC/Omar types

While you are at it, why not promote the portable gas chamber vans for anyone not agreeing with everything that Pawxsnews says. I hear Gitmo has openings.

 

[Wild Bill Kelsoe]

It's in the OP.

There's nothing about her being convicted of a crime in the OP. Want to try again?

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Did she participate? How?

By supporting it in her official capacity. A congressperson, publicly stating support for it. Yes, even statements are enough. She is a congress person, not an anonymous message board poster.

What do you care? You also support her and the insurrection. Why not just say so and praise her behavior and say she shod be allowed to support insurrection? Why the useless dog and pony show by you? You sure are a time waster.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Again, that's an accusation. I don't feel comfortable keeping a person from running for office because of an accusation...

What an odd comment.

You and i don't get to decide. For one.

A judge does.

That's how we do things. Due process decides the truth of accusations.

So if she loses the lawsuit, it will not just be an "accusation", just as a murder charge can become a murder conviction.

It then becomes a fact, for all official purposes.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Curious, what did she do, hold open the door to the capitol building for the rioters? No wait, that happened to be capitol police.

She supported an insurrection in her official capacity.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Positive proof our judicial system is toast. Should have been laughed out of court.

Or maybe you have no idea what the hell you are talking about...?

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

No, we should ban the AOC/Omar types

What's stopping you, big guy? Can't afford a lawyer to take your bullshit to court?

 

[Canon Shooter]

What an odd comment.

You and i don't get to decide. For one.

A judge does.

That's how we do things. Due process decides the truth of accusations.

So if she loses the lawsuit, it will not just be an "accusation", just as a murder charge can become a murder conviction.

It then becomes a fact, for all official purposes.

Not at all.

The judge isn't ruling on her guilt or innocence during the January 6 attacks. The judge is ruling on whether or not a lawsuit seeking to remove her from the ballot can continue. It has nothing to do with guilt or innocence. If she were removed from the ballot, and was then acquitted, that would be a travesty...

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Not at all.

The judge isn't ruling on her guilt or innocence during the January 6 attacks. The judge is ruling on whether or not a lawsuit seeking to remove her from the ballot can continue. It has nothing to do with guilt or innocence. If she were removed from the ballot, and was then acquitted, that would be a travesty...

I am talking about the judge that will decide the truth of the allegation, which would happen before she is removed from the ballot. And even more judges would consider appeals first.

She would not be removed over an "accusation". That is wrong. She would be removed over the fact that she aided an insurrection, if that is deemed to be a fact by the court.

 

[ThisIsMe]

By supporting it in her official capacity. A congressperson, publicly stating support for it. Yes, even statements are enough. She is a congress person, not an anonymous message board poster.

What do you care? You also support her and the insurrection. Why not just say so and praise her behavior and say she shod be allowed to support insurrection? Why the useless dog and pony show by you? You sure are a time waster.

Her having an opinion and speaking to that effect is not "aiding or giving comfort" to an Insurrection. What exactly did she say? She said, in the belief that an election had bee stolen, that the declaration of independence allows for the overthrowing of tyrants.

Ok, so she gave some statements several months after the riot. What actions did she take before and during the riot that would be considered aiding and giving comfort?

Are you suggesting that a congress person has no free speech ability? Even agreeing with something does not signify participation, and does not signify aid and comfort. I understand that the left wants to change things, and make it so that if you disagree with their version of things, then you are guilty of a crime, but, it just isn't so.

She has a right to express her opinion as much as any other. I mean crap, you guys didn't condemn Maxine waters when she suggested harassment of the presidents cabinet members. Where was your "she's a congress person and should be held to a higher standard" back then?

And lastly, as I already stated, the left has this thing where, if you have an opinion on something, then you must be guilty of whatever it is you have an opinion of. You all are just doing your damndest to criminalize simply being on the right.

For the record, I don't care a thing about mtg nor do I support any action that happened on the 6th, but, if left to you on the left, you'd throw every republican in jail just for crossing on the wrong side of the street. What I do care about is the left trying to turn every action by the right into an evil thing. It's like at every turn, you guys never miss an opportunity to attack the right, and lay blanket statements on them. So, yes, I will push back on those things.

If you find she actually helped plan that riot, then you got something, but if it's about things she said months later in posts or interviews, then its not cause for the 14th ammendment.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Her having an opinion and speaking to that effect is not "aiding or giving comfort" to an Insurrection.

Of course it is, when she explicitly supports an insurrection while working in her official capacity as a congressperson.

That's why you keep making weaselly, half truth statement that omit these most important parts. Because you know it's true.

But the cultism won't let you admit it.

 

[ThisIsMe]

Of course it is, when she explicitly supports an insurrection while working in her official capacity as a congressperson.

That's why you keep making weaselly, half truth statement that omit these most important parts. Because you know it's true.

But the cultism won't let you admit it.

No, it's not. Making statements about what she believed to be a stolen election is not the same as giving aid and comfort to an insurrection or rebellion. Especially when those statements were made like 9 months later. Hard to give aid and comfort to an insurrection when all the rioters are sitting in jail.

Show me the actions she took to facilitate, plan, and execute an insurrection, then ill agree with you.

 

[Vrenn]

No, it's not. Making statements about what she believed to be a stolen election is not the same as giving aid and comfort to an insurrection or rebellion. Especially when those statements were made like 9 months later. Hard to give aid and comfort to an insurrection when all the rioters are sitting in jail.

Show me the actions she took to facilitate, plan, and execute an insurrection, then ill agree with you.

They aren't ALL sitting in jail. Outside of Rump and his cronies in the WH, how many Congress Critters were in on the funding and planning? They are working their way to that. Stay tuned.

 

[ThisIsMe]

They aren't ALL sitting in jail. Outside of Rump and his cronies in the WH, how many Congress Critters were in on the funding and planning? They are working their way to that. Stay tuned.

Sure, I will wait to see if they come up with proof of involvement of the planning of trying to correct what they felt was a stolen election.

Also, when are they going to investigate and those legislators who signed on to the national popular vote compact? That also is an attempt to.overthrow the government. An insurrection doesn't have to be violent. It could be as simple as a few states deciding that they can overthrow the will of the people, and steal an election by simply awarding their votes to the national popular.vote winner. Compacts between states are unconstitutional.

If we're going to investigate, let's make sure we investigate all instances...

 

[Vrenn]

Sure, I will wait to see if they come up with proof of involvement of the planning of trying to correct what they felt was a stolen election.

Also, when are they going to investigate and those legislators who signed on to the national popular vote compact? That also is an attempt to.overthrow the government. An insurrection doesn't have to be violent. It could be as simple as a few states deciding that they can overthrow the will of the people, and steal an election by simply awarding their votes to the national popular.vote winner. Compacts between states are unconstitutional.

If we're going to investigate, let's make sure we investigate all instances...

A state can determine how their voting goes. If enough of them make the same decision, it can easily become a federal law. It's called a Constitutional Convention. You know, like the one where the Articles of Confederation were thrown out and the new Constitution was adopted in 1787. And that provision is still active in the Constitution of the United States. I don't know how many times it's been used but if memory serves me right, one ended Prohibition.

You just can't stand it that there are ways to change the constitution without you domestic terrorists grabbing your guns.

 

[eagle1462010]

A state can determine how their voting goes. If enough of them make the same decision, it can easily become a federal law. It's called a Constitutional Convention. You know, like the one where the Articles of Confederation were thrown out and the new Constitution was adopted in 1787. And that provision is still active in the Constitution of the United States. I don't know how many times it's been used but if memory serves me right, one ended Prohibition.

You just can't stand it that there are ways to change the constitution without you domestic terrorists grabbing your guns.

And Alabama doesnt allow harvesting of votes. Show your id. Observers right near you.... No one touches ballot but you when filling out and scanned.

Like it should be. You sorry fuckers cant cheat in Alabama and you show id

 

[Aldo Raine]

Not what was asked. I don't want her to run because she is a classless, unethical, ignorant, stupid, amoral dungpile with no knowledge of and no interest in governance. Just so we are clear.

And those are her best qualities!!!!!
MAGA