Marjorie Taylor Greene Pleads Ignorance, Which Seems Like The Perfect Response

  

Category:  News & Politics

By:  john-russell  •  one month ago  •  64 comments

Marjorie Taylor Greene Pleads Ignorance, Which Seems Like The Perfect Response


Like the mobsters before the House committee in The Godfather,  far right US Representative Marjorie Taylor Greene has had a total lapse of memory today as she testifies about her involvement in the insurrection of Jan 6. 

She has said "I dont remember" dozens of times in answer to questions about her tweets, and other statements and activities related to the insurrection. 

Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene testifies at hearing over whether she should be disqualified from running for re-election / Twitter

She has also claimed not knowing if she tweeted various tweets that went out under her name. 

I do wonder though, if her cowardice in defending her tweets and other actions related to Jan 6th is going to play that well with her rabid base.


Tags

jrDiscussion - desc
[]
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
1  author  JohnRussell    one month ago

She may have been better off coming out guns blazing. What she is doing just makes her look guilty as hell. 

 
 
 
Ozzwald
Professor Quiet
1.1  Ozzwald  replied to  JohnRussell @1    one month ago
She may have been better off coming out guns blazing. What she is doing just makes her look guilty as hell.

It was only a political insurrection, attempting to overthrow a legal election, during which multiple deaths occurred.  Nothing memorable there...<sarc>

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
1.1.1  author  JohnRussell  replied to  Ozzwald @1.1    one month ago

She is up to about a hundred "I dont remember" and "I dont recall"s  at this point.

 
 
 
TOM PA
Freshman Silent
2  TOM PA    one month ago

Subpoena her texts, have her read them into the record and explain each.  That simple!  

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
2.1  author  JohnRussell  replied to  TOM PA @2    one month ago

Her lawyer has objected to the questioning at least a dozen times. They are just stonewalling.  I thought she might come out and defend her tweets but that is not happening. 

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
Professor Principal
3  Trout Giggles    one month ago

You can call her like the mobsters in the Godfather but she doesn't have a smidgen of the intelligence that Michael Corleone did. Yes, I know. He's a fictional character

 
 
 
afrayedknot
Freshman Quiet
3.1  afrayedknot  replied to  Trout Giggles @3    one month ago

“…she doesn't have a smidgen of the intelligence…”

And yet, in the hyper partisan environment in which we live, intelligence is the least of traits one considers…it is allegiance.

Frightening in the implications.  

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
Professor Principal
3.1.1  Trout Giggles  replied to  afrayedknot @3.1    one month ago

It is. I was born in 1962 so I remember the statesmen and presidents of the 70's. Richard Nixon was very smart, tho corrupt. I think Gerald Ford was handed a shit show but he did his best. Jimmy Carter had too many scruples to be an effective president but that man was intelligent.

Intelligence seems to be taboo these days

 
 
 
afrayedknot
Freshman Quiet
3.1.2  afrayedknot  replied to  Trout Giggles @3.1.1    one month ago

“Intelligence seems to be taboo these days.”

Sadly true.

Adlai Stevenson as a past example. Pete Buttigieg as a modern one. Both incredibly eloquent, deep thinkers, understanding and respecting of the role of government and yet somehow, both unelectable. 

Suppose that speaks more to the electorate. 

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
Professor Principal
3.1.3  Trout Giggles  replied to  afrayedknot @3.1.2    one month ago

I would like to see Mr Buttigieg run for higher office

 
 
 
Snuffy
Senior Guide
3.1.4  Snuffy  replied to  Trout Giggles @3.1.3    one month ago

Why?   And what higher office?  I mean he has the smarts,  Harvard educated and a Rhodes scholar, but his political experience seems a bit thin to me.  Maybe the US House or Senate first, I always felt his entry in the 2020 Presidential race was premature.  

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
Professor Principal
3.1.5  Trout Giggles  replied to  Snuffy @3.1.4    one month ago

Yes, he should start with either governor of his state or the US Congress. I agree he needs more experience

 
 
 
Snuffy
Senior Guide
3.1.6  Snuffy  replied to  Trout Giggles @3.1.5    one month ago

So now that we've laid out his political future        (haha)

Who do you think can be the Democrat candidate for President in 24?  I honestly don't believe that Biden wants to run again.  He has to say he is, that's politics.  The minute he says he's not running he becomes a lame duck and his ability to do anything to further his agenda dies.  I don't like Harris and definitely do not want her to run.  Bernie Sanders, Elizabeth Warren, Amy Klobuchar; I really don't like any of their policies and feel they are too far left for my taste.  I could vote for Tulsi Gabbard but I suspect that she's burnt too many bridges with the Democrats to make the cut.  So I'm just not sure who will make the final ballot.  

I hate to say it but even this far out it seems like we will once again be voting for the lesser of two evils..   sigh

 
 
 
Ender
Professor Principal
3.1.7  Ender  replied to  Snuffy @3.1.6    one month ago

The Dems don't really have a good candidate. I think that is why Biden.

 
 
 
Snuffy
Senior Guide
3.1.8  Snuffy  replied to  Ender @3.1.7    one month ago

I agree that I just don't see a good candidate in the Democrat side.  And based on his mistakes of the past year I have a hard time seeing Biden get anywhere close to the votes he got last time.  Especially if a recession hits the country.  The best thing I can see in his favor is that the presidential election is more than 2 years away so some of this economic problem may clear up and people may start to look favorably at him again, but if a recession does hit he'll sink faster than Jimmy Carter.  

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
Professor Principal
3.1.9  Trout Giggles  replied to  Snuffy @3.1.6    one month ago

I wish I knew. I can't think of one candidate who is center left which is what I want. I don't want a far lefty trying to run. So far I'm not seeing anyone except Buttigieg but as we both decided he's not ready yet

 
 
 
afrayedknot
Freshman Quiet
3.1.10  afrayedknot  replied to  Ender @3.1.7    one month ago

“I think that is why Biden.”

Agreed.

The status quo vs. the status NO! Progressive vs. regressive. Platitudes galore with no substance. 

No winners here, just more of the same. 

 
 
 
Dismayed Patriot
Professor Participates
3.1.11  Dismayed Patriot  replied to  Ender @3.1.7    one month ago
The Dems don't really have a good candidate. I think that is why Biden.

The Democrats are trying to be all things to all people which is why it's difficult to find the right candidate that can get a wide swath of both the center, center left and far left. Biden was just the most appealing to the broadest portion of Democratic voters and also benefited by some center and center right voters who had decided Trump was too toxic to vote for.

 
 
 
SteevieGee
Senior Silent
3.1.12  SteevieGee  replied to  Ender @3.1.7    one month ago

I'd bet "sleepy Joe" remembers everything he did that day.

 
 
 
XXJefferson51
Senior Guide
3.1.13  XXJefferson51  replied to  Trout Giggles @3.1.9    one month ago

Krysten Sinema or Joe Manchin are center left senators…

 
 
 
Paula Bartholomew
Professor Guide
4  Paula Bartholomew    one month ago

I've been watching the live streams.  Her body language screams LIAR!

 
 
 
Ender
Professor Principal
5  Ender    one month ago

I have to say, I really don't like her but I don't care for a lawsuit banning people from running.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
5.1  author  JohnRussell  replied to  Ender @5    one month ago

What honest person goes to court and says "I dont recall" dozens of times? 

She knows she is in the wrong. 

 
 
 
Ender
Professor Principal
5.1.1  Ender  replied to  JohnRussell @5.1    one month ago

I still don't care for banning people from running.

If one person can be stopped, so can others.

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
Professor Principal
5.1.2  Trout Giggles  replied to  JohnRussell @5.1    one month ago

If it can be proven that she lied to congress, that's a serious charge. She could go to jail. I don't think you can govern from prison

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
5.1.3  author  JohnRussell  replied to  Trout Giggles @5.1.2    one month ago

While she is sworn, this is not a congressional procedure. This is an administrative court in Georgia, but yes, she could commit perjury. That is undoubtedly why she has amnesia today. 

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
Professor Principal
5.1.4  Trout Giggles  replied to  JohnRussell @5.1.3    one month ago

Why is this being held in Georgia?

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Expert
5.1.5  Sean Treacy  replied to  JohnRussell @5.1    one month ago
What honest person goes to court and says "I dont recall" dozens of times?

I'm glad we agree on Hillary Clinton, if nothing else. 

 
 
 
evilgenius
PhD Guide
5.1.6  evilgenius  replied to  Trout Giggles @5.1.4    one month ago
Why is this being held in Georgia?

Because that's the jurisdiction it was filed in by the litigants in her district.

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
Professor Principal
5.1.7  Trout Giggles  replied to  evilgenius @5.1.6    one month ago

Did you just see that flash of light above my head?

Thanks for the information

 
 
 
Paula Bartholomew
Professor Guide
5.1.8  Paula Bartholomew  replied to  Ender @5.1.1    one month ago

There are some that need to be stopped by any means possible unless you think traitors belong in a position of power.

 
 
 
Ender
Professor Principal
5.1.9  Ender  replied to  Trout Giggles @5.1.7    one month ago

You sound like me.  Haha

 
 
 
Jeremy Retired in NC
PhD Guide
5.1.10  Jeremy Retired in NC  replied to  JohnRussell @5.1    one month ago

Democrats ran one of those "honest" people as a Presidential candidate.  She lost.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
5.1.11  author  JohnRussell  replied to  Sean Treacy @5.1.5    one month ago

It's going to be interesting to see how many times she has pleaded ignorance or lack of memory in this hearing. It is well over a hundred times. Maybe 200. 

She must be too intellectually addled to serve in congress. 

 
 
 
Jack_TX
Senior Quiet
5.1.12  Jack_TX  replied to  Paula Bartholomew @5.1.8    one month ago
There are some that need to be stopped by any means possible unless you think traitors belong in a position of power.

Sounds exactly like what MGT would say.

 
 
 
Ender
Professor Principal
5.1.13  Ender  replied to  Jack_TX @5.1.12    one month ago

Yeah, I don't like this. A slippery slope Imo.

 
 
 
MrFrost
Professor Principal
5.1.14  MrFrost  replied to  Sean Treacy @5.1.5    one month ago

I'm glad we agree on Hillary Clinton, if nothing else. 

I am glad we agree on Ronald Regan, if nothing else. 

 
 
 
Greg Jones
Professor Guide
5.1.15  Greg Jones  replied to  Sean Treacy @5.1.5    one month ago

"I'm glad we agree on Hillary Clinton, if nothing else."

 
 
 
Ed-NavDoc
Professor Quiet
5.1.17  Ed-NavDoc  replied to  JohnRussell @5.1    one month ago

Then Vice President George H W Bush did the same thing during the Iran Contra Scandal hearings, thus his now famous "I have no clear recollection of those events." statement.

 
 
 
Paula Bartholomew
Professor Guide
5.2  Paula Bartholomew  replied to  Ender @5    one month ago

Whatever it takes to keep her out of office works for me.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
5.2.1  author  JohnRussell  replied to  Paula Bartholomew @5.2    one month ago

She is trying to blame Black Lives Matter now.  Lol.   

 
 
 
Ed-NavDoc
Professor Quiet
5.2.2  Ed-NavDoc  replied to  Paula Bartholomew @5.2    one month ago

That person should never ever have been elected to public office to begin with along with her looney buds Boebert and Cawthorne.

 
 
 
XXJefferson51
Senior Guide
5.2.3  XXJefferson51  replied to  Ed-NavDoc @5.2.2    one month ago

Just consider them the squad…..

 
 
 
Ed-NavDoc
Professor Quiet
5.2.4  Ed-NavDoc  replied to  XXJefferson51 @5.2.3    one month ago

I consider them pretty much the extreme conservative right wing equivalent of the Squad. Fanaticism knows no party lines and a fanatic is still a fanatic!

 
 
 
Paula Bartholomew
Professor Guide
5.2.5  Paula Bartholomew  replied to  Ed-NavDoc @5.2.2    one month ago

Totally.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
6  author  JohnRussell    one month ago

Now, when her own lawyer brings up a tweet of hers that is favorable to her, she definitely remembers tweeting it. When the other side lawyer pointed out many of her tweets that made her look bad, she couldnt recall posting any of them. jrSmiley_10_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
Snuffy
Senior Guide
6.1  Snuffy  replied to  JohnRussell @6    one month ago

Isn't that what a lot of politicians and those who are in the public eye do?  Remember that which is favorable to them but swear they cannot remember or their accounts must have been hacked for anything that makes them look bad.

I don't like her and wish she had not be elected in the first place.  I don't know how this hearing is going to end up but from what I read if she is allowed to run for re-election she stands a very good chance of being re-elected.  

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
Professor Principal
6.1.1  Trout Giggles  replied to  Snuffy @6.1    one month ago

Whatever happened to personal responsibility? When I screw up, I own up to it, make my apologies, amends, etc then press on. Is it humiliating and embarrassing? It is, but it only hurts for a little while

 
 
 
Snuffy
Senior Guide
6.1.2  Snuffy  replied to  Trout Giggles @6.1.1    one month ago

I agree, but then again you and I are not politicians. It seems to me that a lot of politicians are missing the gene that creates that sense of personal responsibility and instead replaces it with a strong belief that they are always right and the bad things are the fault of someone else.  And these people continue to get elected to higher office...  damn

 
 
 
Jack_TX
Senior Quiet
6.1.3  Jack_TX  replied to  Snuffy @6.1    one month ago
if she is allowed to run for re-election she stands a very good chance of being re-elected.  

That's one of the most depressing things I've read today.

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
Professor Principal
6.1.4  Trout Giggles  replied to  Snuffy @6.1.2    one month ago

You've seen the same trait in the general public just as I have. Family members, friends, and co-workers. They have a million excuses but never admit they were wrong. And really quick to place the blame on someone or something else.

Where do you think these politicians get it from?

 
 
 
Snuffy
Senior Guide
6.1.5  Snuffy  replied to  Trout Giggles @6.1.4    one month ago

True...  for a country of 330 million people we sure do seem to have more than our share of victims.  

 
 
 
Ender
Professor Principal
6.1.6  Ender  replied to  Snuffy @6.1    one month ago

The way I look at it, it is up to the people to decide, not the courts.

Even if she was re-elected (Imo says more about the electorate) I don't think anyone would let her do anything.

If someone does something criminal, of course go after that and prosecute. Yet this is not about that. This is specifically using the courts to strike down a candidate some people disapprove of. If successful, I can see this being used again.

 
 
 
XXJefferson51
Senior Guide
6.1.7  XXJefferson51  replied to  Snuffy @6.1    one month ago

Because of this trial and the people who waged it, her re-election prospects are made stronger.  

 
 
 
Sister Mary Agnes Ample Bottom
Professor Guide
6.2  Sister Mary Agnes Ample Bottom  replied to  JohnRussell @6    one month ago
When the other side lawyer pointed out many of her tweets that made her look bad, she couldn't recall posting any of them.

Yeah, right up to the moment the opposition lawyer turned to his staff and said, "Enter exhibit 5, please..."  Marge chimes in with a quick "Oh, no, wait.  I do remember now..."  This woman hasn't shut up the entire time she's been in office.  Did she think that her bazillion tweets and videos wouldn't be presented as evidence?  I loved the part where she tried to justify her vile rhetoric by calling out Nancy Pelosi and her failure to 'build the wall'.  What in the boink does Nancy Pelosi have to do with the damn border wall? 

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
7  author  JohnRussell    one month ago
www.msn.com   /en-us/news/politics/rep-marjorie-taylor-greene-testifies-she-doesnt-remember-her-actions-leading-up-to-january-6/ar-AAWtl45

Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene testifies she doesn't remember her actions leading up to January 6

8-10 minutes Invalid Date


R epublican Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene of Georgia is testifying Friday during a hearing where challengers are seeking her disqualification as a candidate for reelection -- frequently saying she doesn't remember many key events or even her own actions in the weeks before January 6, 2021.

The potentially precedent-setting hearing in an Atlanta courtroom is aimed at determining whether the Georgia congresswoman is constitutionally barred from running for reelection because of her role in the January 6 insurrection. Greene is testifying as a witness during the marathon hearing -- making her the first lawmaker to testify under oath about their involvement in the attack on the US Capitol.

The challengers repeatedly highlighted how Greene had posted messages and videos on social media, in the run-up to January 6, that used strident rhetoric. According to the challengers, these posts helped fuel the attack on the Capitol and therefore, she aided the insurrection.

Greene said she didn't remember if she had ever spoken with any GOP lawmakers or White House officials about the potential for violence on January 6. She also said she didn't recall if she herself had posted a handful of tweets that appeared on her account, where she claimed the 2020 election was illegitimate.

And she said she didn't remember saying that she opposed the peaceful transfer of power to Joe Biden -- right before lawyers for the challengers played a video of her saying that.

When asked about the Proud Boys, a right-wing extremist group with dozens of members who stormed the US Capitol, Greene said she didn't know much about them. When asked if they are an extremist organization, she said: "I've heard about them. I don't know what they do. I don't know much about the Proud Boys."

The congresswoman said that she "had no knowledge of any attempt" to illegally interfere with the counting of electoral votes on January 6. Greene also testified that she had never advocated for then-President Donald Trump to invoke martial law during her meetings with him before January 6.

Greene has also pushed back from the witness stand.

Andrew Celli, lawyer for the challengers, asked her, "Did you like a post that said, 'it's quicker that a bullet to the head would be a quicker way to remove Nancy Pelosi from the role of speaker?' " A CNN review in 2021 of hundreds of posts and comments from Greene's Facebook page showed she repeatedly indicated support for executing prominent Democratic politicians in 2018 and 2019 before being elected to Congress in 2020. That review included one post from January 2019, in which, Greene liked a comment that said "a bullet to the head would be quicker" to remove Pelosi.

"I have had many people manage my social media account over the years," Greene responded to Celli's question Friday. "I have no idea who liked that."

She said that she never intended to promote any violence and that she didn't recall any conversations with lawmakers or White House officials about the possibility for the pro-Trump protests to turn violent.

"I only believe in peaceful demonstration," Greene said. "I do not support violence."

Greene also testified that she believes President Joe Biden lost the election to Trump.

"We saw a tremendous amount of voter fraud," Greene said, repeating a debunked claim that has become a rallying cry among Trump supporters.

Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene testifies she doesn't remember her actions leading up to January 6 (msn.com)
 
 
 
Greg Jones
Professor Guide
7.1  Greg Jones  replied to  JohnRussell @7    one month ago

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
Professor Principal
7.2  Trout Giggles  replied to  JohnRussell @7    one month ago

She wouldn't know voter fraud if it bit her in the ass

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
8  author  JohnRussell    one month ago
flexghost.
@flexghost1
If Republicans call Joe Biden senile, and Joe remembers January 6 vividly… What does that make Marjorie Taylor green?
 
 
 
Trout Giggles
Professor Principal
8.1  Trout Giggles  replied to  JohnRussell @8    one month ago

dumb

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
8.2  author  JohnRussell  replied to  JohnRussell @8    one month ago
Tamara Aug
@AugTamara
·
5m
Replying to
Shocker. I guess the voters better ask for a dementia screening, then. She can't remember anything. Apparently, she let's her staffers post whatever they want, too. Seems reckless.
 
 
 
Hallux
Sophomore Principal
9  Hallux    one month ago

Meh, it was nice to see Matt Gaetz wear a dress.

 
 
 
JBB
Professor Principal
10  JBB    one month ago

original

 
 
 
Buzz of the Orient
Professor Principal
11  Buzz of the Orient    one month ago

"Marjorie Taylor Greene Pleads Ignorance, Which Seems Like The Perfect Response"

I think she should be given credit for being so introspectively accurate and for admitting it. 

 
 

Who is online



Vic Eldred
Ozzwald
Ed-NavDoc
gooseisback


23 visitors