MGT Testifying Now

[fooferdoggie]

why is it that lying is not a sin if your a republican.

 

[Edd]

why is it that lying is not a sin if your a republican.

What you do there is lie about the lying.

 

[Yoused]

why is it that lying is not a sin if your a republican.

Because they have a troubled relationship with reality, so we expect BS from them. I just encountered a RW naysayer who tried to tell me that the Governor of Washington has outlawed gas powered cars by 2035 (they were apparently unable to grasp that the governor cannot actually do that – there is a thing about him mandating a full electric fleet for state vehicles, but somehow that got transformed into a "statewide ban across the board").

 

[fooferdoggie]

I think it is that since they are lying for their cause god approves.

 

[Runs For Fun]

 

[GermanSuplex]

This woman really is like Trump. Loud and obnoxious, got a job way above her skill set, talks a good game on social media but has no basic knowledge of anything she always touts, like the constitution, bill of rights, etc. Also, both fold easily under questioning and are unwilling to tell the truth. Notice how her answers are just like Trump’s during his depositions?

 

[thekev]

I like this one, from the same sub-reddit.

 

[JayMysteri0]

Is anyone really surprised?

https://www.twitter.com/i/web/status/1518627282478407680/

 

[Cmaier]

Is anyone really surprised?

https://www.twitter.com/i/web/status/1518627282478407680/

Based on the actual language of the text, that text doesn’t contradict what she said when she testified.

 

[Roller]

Based on the actual language of the text, that text doesn’t contradict what she said when she testified.

That's correct — in the text made public today, Greene said other members were calling for marshal law to be declared. But what counts most is what she said or did to incite the insurrection before or on January 6, and there is certainly evidence of that.

Not that it will matter, but the picture is one of a massive effort to overturn the election based solely on Trump and his allies' repeated baseless lies about voter fraud. And, as events unfolded on January 6, when it became clear that throngs of violent thugs storming the capitol and injuring police wasn't such a good look, the story shifted to blaming ANTIFA and others. Again, not that it matters, but I wonder if a few more votes to convict Trump could have been squeezed out of Republican senators had all the information we have today been known at his second impeachment trial.

 

[Chew Toy McCoy]

Shitty people hate consequence, which is why it's so important they be hit with it as often as possible. Without consequence you teach an asshole their behavior is acceptable.

That pretty much encapsulates why certain personality types see Trump as their hero.....while we're still waiting for anything remotely close to consequences or accountability.

 

[GermanSuplex]

Going in court and saying “I don’t recall” over and over may spare her from a perjury charge, because that’s kind of hard to prove, but it won’t spare a negative verdict. Any judge will see straight through that BS, especially when there’s probably hours of video clips, news interviews, other interviews and comments made to media, her Twitter feed, private texts that are becoming public, staff and other government materials that can be subpoenaed, documentation of any donations she made personally or out of her campaign coffers…

Her saying “I don’t recall” would be like Trump saying the same if asked if he remembers ever saying Hillary should go to jail. He can deny he remembers ever saying it, but no sane person would buy it.

The only real argument MTG has here is for the verdict rendered to state that people have the right to choose their officials, even if they’re lying POS seditionists.

Can’t wait for the January 6 public hearings…

 

[Alli]

Going in court and saying “I don’t recall” over and over may spare her from a perjury charge, because that’s kind of hard to prove, but it won’t spare a negative verdict.

Saying you don’t recall when you clearly do recall is also perjury.

 

[SuperMatt]

Saying you don’t recall when you clearly do recall is also perjury.

Yeah, but who could remember that rule?

 

[Edd]

So, suggesting martial law to a president is one of the most serious things a person can say. A person would simply have to remember making OR not making this suggestion. It simply isn’t plausible that she’d forget that.

 

[Yoused]

Does a person whose memory is that bad belong in Congress?

 

[GermanSuplex]

So, suggesting martial law to a president is one of the most serious things a person can say. A person would simply have to remember making OR not making this suggestion. It simply isn’t plausible that she’d forget that.

Technically, she declared Marshall Law, which I believe only the chief of the Gazpacho Police can order.

 

[Cmaier]

So, suggesting martial law to a president is one of the most serious things a person can say. A person would simply have to remember making OR not making this suggestion. It simply isn’t plausible that she’d forget that.

But she didn‘t suggest it. She mentioned that other people were advocating for it and disclaimed knowing anything about the subject. If I say to you “some people say you should shave your head, but I don’t know anything about it. I do know that pizza is delicious, though” it would be hard to argue that such a comment even did advocate for You shaving your head. So if that’s the only evidence that she was lying when she says she doesn‘t remember advocating for martial law, that’s really weak.

 

[Edd]

But she didn‘t suggest it. She mentioned that other people were advocating for it and disclaimed knowing anything about the subject. If I say to you “some people say you should shave your head, but I don’t know anything about it. I do know that pizza is delicious, though” it would be hard to argue that such a comment even did advocate for You shaving your head. So if that’s the only evidence that she was lying when she says she doesn‘t remember advocating for martial law, that’s really weak.

Specifically, this exchange right here:

https://www.twitter.com/i/web/status/1518640274297208832/

She doesn’t remember if she advocated for martial law? Really?

 

[Cmaier]

Specifically, this exchange right here:

https://www.twitter.com/i/web/status/1518640274297208832/

She doesn’t remember if she advocated for martial law? Really?

Right. My point was simply that her text message to the chief of staff doesn’t advocate for martial law, so people trying to use that as proof she is lying are barking up the wrong tree.

It’s very difficult to prove that someone doesn’t remember doing something. But the first step is to prove that she actually did it. If you can’t prove that she did it, it’s hard to prove that she’s lying when she says she doesn’t remember doing it.

Moreover, given how people seem confused by her text message with Mark Meadows - incorrectly suggesting that it advocates for martial law - why is it such a stretch for her to say she doesn’t remember if she advocated for martial law? If she had phrased that text message only slightly differently - leaving out a few words (“i don’t know on such things,” for example), maybe that would have counted.

She wasn’t asked “did you ever talk to anyone at the white house about martial law.” So she may or may not remember whether what she did say was “advocating” or merely “discussing.”

Sorry, but as someone who asks a lot of questions of people under oath, this is not much of a smoking gun.