tv Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene Testifies at Administrative Hearing CSPAN April 22, 2022 9:03pm-2:49am EDT
>> georgia republican -- video app. >> georgia republican representative marjorie taylor greene testified at an administrative hearing in atlanta. when the judge issues findings, the georgia secretary of state will decide if congresswoman greene should be barred from running for reelection over the january 6 attack on the u.s. capitol. this is the first time a member of congress has testified publicly under oath about the events of january 6. [applause] >> [indiscernible] thank you. >> everybody, please stand.
i have a few announcements before we proceed. make sure all cell phones on silent or vibrate. thank you. >> please be seated. good morning, everybody. we have a full house. good morning. i am judge chuck beaudrot. let me go over it couple things and then we will get started. >> is this the mike? can everybody here? baskin everybody hear?
-- can everybody hear? do i have to use my loud voice. [laughter] michael, can you hear me? testing, 1, 2, 3. that sounds loud. judge beaudrot: we don't have this many people in the courtroom normally. this is our big courtroom, but it is quite full, so please be quiet. you have phones and computers and the like, just be very careful with them.
please turn off any alarms or anything. this is not federal court. first, he wouldn't have them in federal court. [indiscernible] moving around, just don't be disruptive. no comments. this is not a forum. no comments. i plan to go until 10:45 for the first break, then we planned to go from 11:00 to 12:30 with a 30-minute lunch break. we will resume at 1:00 and have a structured brca2: 30 and reconvene at 245. if something needs to be done -- reconvene at 2:45. if something needs to be done, we will consider that. yesterday, this case has been
proceeding at a rapid rate and we had a conference on evidentiary area matters and i have reached a number of preliminary conclusions about documents and propriety and i will be reading it into the record. i wanted to check with council to see if they have any particular questions that they want to discuss particularly. >> i have a preliminary matter. i would like to invoke the separation of witnesses. >> [indiscernible] >> thank you. thank you.
on the respondent list. the following are admitted. r one, r2, are three, are four, are six and are 14. those are all in. if the council once objections or to raise them for the record. if you have any objections you want to raise at this time? >> i do not have my list handy but are these the preliminary rulings you gave yesterday? >> i believe this is what i went through yesterday. there are couple of items i do not have a chance to review until today. >> [indiscernible] >> ok, i will try to speak to it more directly. go ahead. >> i thought yesterday you admit ted p15. i did not hear that on the list.
>> hold on. i couldn't find it. that was my problem. if you want to submit it, but i can review it i would be happy to look at it. >> we will do that. >> i went looking for it and i cannot find it. >> p55 i thought was admitted as well. >> let's see. p 55 -- >> p 15. >> we had submitted three additional exhibits, p82, 83, 84 yesterday afternoon. >> i'm sorry, yes.
those are -- >> 82, 83, and 84? >> what was 82? >> 82 is a video, the house impeachment video. >> yes. you have the house impeachment video. -- yes. the house impeachment video. >> 83 -- and 84 was the video the congresswoman. >> yes. >> just one more. i think on the respondent's exhibits, i thought you had admitted our seven, which is the statute --r7.
i believe you said you had admitted r6. that was an article. >> you are correct. thank you for the correction. >> nothing, your honor. >> thank you so much. >> i appreciate you on that. the lawyers in this case are doing an excellent job and they are under great pressure so i appreciate everybody staying on task. with that said -- there is a black hole sometimes that eats pens. we are ready to begin. as we discussed, we are going to proceed i would like to begin , with opening statements. before we begin, anything you want to discuss before we start with opening statements? >> no, your honor. we are prepared.
>> we are ready, your honor. >> we will start with opening statements. i would like to hear both of them at the same time. the burden in this case is on the preponderance of the evidence. we will proceed with their case. who will present? >> thank you, your honor. may please the court, a filing on behalf of the voters in georgia's 14th congressional district. file the challenge sub--- filed the challenge. your honor, this is a solemn occasion. this is not politics, this is not theater, this is a serious case that the voters we represent have brought in order to offer proof their united states representative seeking reelection, marjorie taylor greene, having taken the oath to support that constitution than
broke that oath and engaged in insurrection. in order to understand that case, to set the stage for some history. there been past insurrections. we will hear about some of them. the most important is the civil war, or as it was called at the time, the insurrection. the professor, who is one of the nation's foremost constitutional historians of that era, specializing in reconstruction and the 14th amendment will talk about that history.
what is interesting about the differences between these past insurrections is that the civil war involved states raising armies. they armed them with uniforms, insignia, state-of-the-art military equipment, they marched in columns and occupied huge tracts of land. that is not the only type of insurrection this country has seen. the professor will also talk about the previous insurrections on the minds of 19th century americans. those include shay's rebellion and the whiskey rebellion. these insurrections were a different character. they were not as organized as the civil war. the foot soldiers of those insurrections did not march in armies, they did not conquer vast swaths of territory. they certainly didn't wear uniforms. that is the kind of insurrection that occurred on january 6. the evidence will show a violent assault on the united states capital that law enforcement and ordinary armies were unable to control. that this violent assault had multiple purposes. those included capturing and executing the speaker of the house of the united states representatives, the vice president of the united states,
other members of congress. those purposes also included, and for a time achieved preventing the certification of , the electoral vote for the president incoming, joseph r biden, and the disruption of the peaceful transfer of power. this attack on the sacred temple of our democracy, the united states capitol was unprecedented. to be sure, it was less organized then some of those past insurrections. this thought a case where the leaders were on horseback leading the charge. this is not the type of insurrection where the leaders were standing in richmond, virginia giving long-winded speeches to justify the mayhem. rather, the leaders of this insurrection were among us. on facebook, on twitter, on corners of social media that would make your stomach churn.
the evidence will show that marjorie taylor greene was one of them. in order to understand that, january 6 has to be set in context. it did not arise out of nowhere. even before january 6, as december 2020 turned into january of 2021, there were multiple shifting tactics used by different groups, some violent extremist groups, some nonviolent groups, all loosely coordinated, all with a shared central aim of preventing the certification of joseph biden as president. the tactics shifted, the different leaders jockeyed for position, somewhere in violent extremist groups, some were elected officials. summer influencers of various types. you will hear about them. you will hear about these different figures, some of whom isolated themselves from some of
the action with players of -- layer of deniability. some more plausible than others. there will be direct evidence and inferential evidence. that evidence includes coded language. let me explain what i mean by that. the evidence today does not include surveillance tapes purporting to show marjorie taylor greene was directing the plotting of the attack. that will not happen. the witness list does not include a turncoat witnessed who will risk their own exposure by testifying that she was ordered by marjorie taylor greene to take certain actions in secret. that is not the type of evidence we will present today. the way insurrections are organized nowadays is less in uniforms with military hierarchies and chains of commands, less with detailed military plans, and more with
social media and mass media. that is the era we are living in. in many cases communications have multiple players. anyone who knows a teenager or is a teenager or knows anyone in their 20's knows that hashtags and memes and ways of communicating among internet subcultures can mean that words that have a benign meeting to various sectors of the american public can have a different significance to the people swimming in that subculture. the most important witness after the professor testifies, the most powerful witness against marjorie taylor greene's candidacy, the most powerful witness in establishing she crossed the line into engagement in insurrection is marjorie taylor greene herself. you will hear her words, what
she says and what she does not say, and you will also hear what she said in the past. some of that will be encoded or veiled language, but you will also hear in some cases the mask falls and she shows us exactly what she intended. she was not on the capitol steps urging the attackers to breach police lines on january 6. that was not the role she played. different figures had different roles. what became clear as december turned into january, as lawful means of preventing the certification of joe biden were exhausted and nonviolent means were exhausted, that marjorie taylor greene played an important role. her role, even after she took
the oath on january 3 to uphold the constitution and defended against all enemies foreign and domestic, was several fold. to bring people to d.c., not by providing trains and buses that would transport them directly, but rather through other means, to contribute in the planning, and to signal that january 6 would be, as she set herself on january 5, our 1776 moment. a phrase of great significance. it turned out to be an 1861 moment. instead of violence against a foreign empire, as we saw in 1776, she urged and encouraged and helped facilitate violent resistance to our own government.
in doing so she engaged in , exactly the type of conduct that triggers disqualification under section three of the 14th amendment, which is to say she engaged in insurrection. thank you. >> thank you. >> thank you, your honor. may it please the court, i represent marjorie taylor greene, a member of congress of the united states in this hearing. this is a court of law. this is not a political candidate debate. this is not a place for political hyperbole. it is not a place for political severe.
-- for political smear. in what we just heard there was not a word about the law. section three of the 14th amendment, what does it mean, what does the word insurrection mean, what does the word engage mean? there was not a word. not a word about the first amendment that prevents normal political speech and hyperbole from being used against someone. not a word. they think they're in the wrong place. i plan to talk about the law. what does this mean? this very serious charge that has very broad ramifications to the rights of representative greene the voters in her
, district, and our democracy. first, the right to vote is at stake right here and right now. they want to deny the right to vote to the thousands of people in the 14th district of georgia by having greene removed from the ballot. those voters have a right to vote for the candidate of their choosing, they have a right to have their vote counted. the primary is may 24. absentee ballots have already been printed. they will be mailed on may 2, and early voting starts on may 7. their hope is there will be a decision by the secretary of state right before the primary where she is immediately struck from the ballot. those people that go to the polling place cannot vote for the candidate of their choice.
by utilizing this procedure the , substantial constitutional and federal law violations that this candidacy challenge presents cannot be decided by this court. unlike civil court or criminal court, which will always prioritize deciding issues of that magnitude before being subject to a trial, before being tantalized by disqualification, and before the irreparable harm that will occur. that is the nature of the procedure. when can representative greene raise her constitutional defenses, like the evidence you're presenting violates the first amendment to the constitution?
when are we going to be able to litigate that question in state court? after she is disqualified, after she is stripped from the ballot, maybe after the primary, and she loses because nobody can vote for her. how do we recover from that? how do we go back from that? this is irrevocable harm to the voters and the candidate. our democracy is at stake. it should be the voters, not government employees, public officials, judges and lawyers, who decide our elections. voters have a right to vote for the candidate of their choice unless there is very compelling
legal, not rhetorical , justification for that. third -- which is not present here. third, fundamentally, first amendment rights are at stake. not only the right to vote, or the right to run for office. also the challenges we will try to use the first amendment protected political speech of representative greene as evidence of "engaging in insurrection or rebellion." that is unconstitutional and should not be allowed. finally, the charge not only triggers disqualification, but is a serious federal criminal offense that she is being charged with. this is a very serious matter and the decision should be based on admissible evidence under the rules.
we recognize you have greater latitude than this. the seriousness of the charges we think warrant that adherence. faithful application of the law. we expect you will do that. procedure. georgia law, here i am talking about the law. georgia law permits a candidate challenge under two circumstances. one, a candidate is not qualified to be a candidate. number two is a candidate is not qualified to take office. these are different conceptually and different in their application. a claim under section three of
the 14th amendment has to do with your ability to take office. it does not address candidacy in any way. it is the ability of a representative to take office because she has sworn the oath of office, engaged in insurrection or rebellion, congress has not given her amnesty, and finally when she presents herself to take the oath of office she could be challenged, which we think is the exclusive constitutional right of congress, not state officials, to decide. whether or not she is eligible at that time to take office. we are not dealing with a candidacy disqualification, we are dealing with an alleged take
office qualification. unfortunately, many of these issues cannot be decided by this court, even though you might make recommendations that the secretary of state already made. we have fully briefed this in our motion to dismiss. the constitutional claims, the federal law claims, the protections of the first amendment, and what these words in section three mean. let's look at that. we have r3 admitted as evidence which includes section three of the 14th amendment. section three provides no person shall be a senator or representative in congress,
etc., who, having previously taken an oath as a member of congress to support the constitution, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid and comfort to the enemies thereof. there is a sequence. you have to have originally taken the oath, you have to have been engaged and then you are , disqualified and congress can determine your disqualified for having taken a subsequent oath and to assume your position as a member of congress. furthermore, congress may by a vote of two thirds of each house remove such disability. that is the various amnesty acts
that have been adopted or could be adopted. this provision makes it clear this is about eligibility on january 3, 2023. not today, not tomorrow. eligibility when she presents herself as a reelected member of congress. she could be excluded under the exclusive power of congress to judge the qualifications of its members. that is where these people should be. in congress, explaining why once she is reelected is disqualified from taking her seat. the second thing that this sequence makes clear is that in her case she took the office first, these are in our stipulated facts, on january 3.
that is the first time. she would have had to engage in insurrection or rebellion after january 3. in other words, under the constitution, prior to january 3, she could have done it. under the law. it sounds preposterous she would consider it. she reveres the united states constitution. the way the statute or constitutional provision is set up, she would have to have engaged after. evidence of anything she did prior to january 3 is completely irrelevant to section three,
unless it is a direct admission of her intention to engage in insurrection or rebellion after january 3. everything else she says not only should be excluded because it does not fit the charge, but as i will soon demonstrate, it is protected by the first amendment. here, words matter and at every turn the challenge demonstrates what the law means in the complaint. in calling something something does not make it something. calling an orange an apple does not make the orange an apple. an orange has characteristics
that are preestablished to determine whether the words apple applies. here, the key phrases in section three are themselves defined by the law. they start off by saying that representative greene should be disqualified under section three. because she is someone who "aided and engaged in an insurrection." aided and engaged. where is that in section three? it says engaged in insurrection or rebellion or gave comfort to
the enemies thereof. there is no aided and engaged in this. in this statute. each of those phrases, engaged in insurrection or rebellion, that phrase, and is the accompanying phrase, gives comfort to the enemy, each of those has special meaning. engage is an act. it is a direct and overt act of insurrection. it is about domestic war. that is what engage in
insurrection or rebellion is about. the or, giving aid or comfort to the enemy thereof, is about foreign wars. each of these phrases has been used several times to gain particular meaning. you cannot take aid out of the second part about foreign wars and add to the first part which is about domestic war. that defies the rules of construction. it flaunts the technical meaning of those phrases, of those words. what is engage and what does it
mean? engage connotes conduct, direct overt act of insurrection to overthrow the united states government. it is about things like, which the people who drafted this well understood, many of them who were part of the victorious, thank the lord, union army, and they knew what an insurrection or rebellion was. it was taking up arms, voluntarily joining the confederate army. it was about working in the department for the confederate government. it was about providing supplies and equipment and materials for the people who were conducting the war. these were direct overt acts of insurrection.
instead of looking to that, what we have already heard described as their evidence, they want to hold against her first amendment protected speech and here is a few examples. on page 19, "the people will remember the patriots who stood for election integrity." >> that is supposed to be about an insurrection or engaging in an insurrection. she is alleged to have said, "congress is the last line of defense from a stolen election," on page 21. isn't that quintessential political speech? isn't that the role of congress in certifying the electors?
how could that be an overt act? it cannot be. now, the question of voter fraud in the 2020 election is a quintessential example of political speech, legitimate political disagreement about what happened. the supreme court and the republican party said that announcing views on disputed legal and political issues is
at the core of the first amendment. this is disputed, no question. but to say that is an active insurrection, a direct overt act of insurrection against the united states? when representative greene was an elected member of congress who on january 6 had a constitutional duty and responsibility to be on the floor, where she was, to determine whether or not electoral votes from the states were to be certified. the first amendment demands a very narrow text. i have already said and argued that engaged denotes conduct. but we can look to a much broader term that allows speech to be considered and that is the brandenburg case.
that is the word incitement. incitement and engage are different words with different meaning. you know that for sure because in our federal statutes that say insight -- incite and engage in certain conduct. they are used as different words. incitement is speech. but the supreme court because of the first amendment concerns so that normal everyday political speech will not be punished as they want to do, said that speech must be directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action in that it is
likely to incite or produce such action. that is on page 30 of our motion to dismiss. that is very restrictive. but we know how restrictive it really is when we play out the statements that are made for people that are claiming that is incitement and the supreme court says no, that is protected by the first amendment. for instance, a ku klux klan leader "advocated for the necessity and propriety of crime, sabotage, violence, or other unlawful acts of terrorism under the use of accomplishing reform." the supreme court said that is protected first amendment speech.
that is not incitement. there was also a statement by an naacp official where she said "if we catch any of you going in any of them racist stores, we are going to break your damn neck." that was not incitement under the brandenburg trial. we have also seen where a vietnam war protester said so "we are taking the street" and that was not incitement. there is absolutely nothing that representative greene ever said that passes the brandenburg test
of incitement and she cannot even be held into account for incitement because this is engaged which requires conduct. they knew what the words meant and they chose the words that they were going to use. this was going to be a very narrow disqualification. they claim that representative greene promoted or organized the january 6 rally away from the capitol so near the white house, where some of the people at that rally into the capital, and some of those attacked the capitol. it was despicable for these
people to do this, to attack the capitol of the united states. over 700 have been charged of crimes. they should be convicted of those crimes. not a single one has been charged with engaging in insurrection or rebellion which , is a federal criminal offense. not one of those who attacked the capitol, assaulted police officers, and were there unlawfully. the first amendment right to assemble means that the right to assemble does not lose all constitutional exceptions because some members may have participated in conduct or advocated doctrine that is not protected. this was a quintessentially protected first amendment right of assembly and some people left and went to the capital.
some people attacked the capitol. you cannot tell people who organized a peaceful and constitutional rally, they cannot hold that against them because that is what they did. second, the challengers misstate the law regarding what is an insurrection or rebellion. they say, it is to quote overthrow the government or obstruct the functions. that is on page 32. nowhere in any case does it say the insurrection, includes obstruct, the function.
certainly, if that would occur, all of the functions were transferred to someone else. they want to expand it so that for instance, when a heckler in the gallery stands up and heckles the house, that person is guilty of insurrection or rebellion because a core function has been obstructed. this word is way more serious and narrow than what they say. let me give you examples of the statutes. a domestic war, that is on page 20 of our motion to dismiss.
a domestic war. second, and that was the attorney general in 1867. combinations too powerful to be suppressed by ordinary course of judicial proceedings or by the marshall. that was temporarily so apparently. i don't know. but even if it were, it was short-lived. third, a rising so formidable -- as for the time being to define the authority of the united states and such force that force her -- a considerable military force is needed to quality.
shays rebellion collapsed when the u.s. military showed up. and the military was not required. even for the temporary attack. an armed insurrection too strong to be controlled by civil authorities. finally, the court in allegheny city juxtaposed what insurrection is and is not it says in insurrection is an organized and armed uprising against authority or operation of government. it is not wild crimes growing out of mob violence or simply unlawful acts and disturbance of the peace which do not threaten
the stability of the government or the existence of political society. very different, dramatically different. we have stipulated that a group of people that did not include representative greene unlawfully entered the united states capitol on january 6. and they did. i would say more than that about what happened. as i just have before your court on behalf of representative greene. >> excuse me, justice. i apologize. mr. hamilton, that is my guy
needs to help us with the sound. >> he can help us with the temperature. [laughter] >> we are far too old to deal with these issues. >> we have willingly stipulated, the people entered the capitol unlawfully and i would say more than that. significantly they are willing to agree that those people did not include representative greene. she did not engage in the attack. if there was conduct that meets the term engaged, if there was conduct that would ever meet the term of engaged, it would be breaking into the capitol and a direct overt act.
however, i think describing that as insurrection or rebellion is political hyperbole and not under the constitution. and that is what you have to engage with. what you will see is pertinent evidence about what she did from us from january 3 until the end of the day on january 6. you will see that on january 3, she met with president trump about making objections to certain states's electoral votes based upon evidence that she believed and others believed constituted sufficient voter
fraud to overturn the election in those particular states. you will see that on january 6, out of all the tweets and all the videos, we are presenting this. this is during a moment when the attack on the capitol was occurring. she is in the capitol in a dark hallway and she says first in a tweet, "be safe, be smart, stay peaceful, and the laws. -- obey the laws. this is not a time for violence. this is time to support president trump and support election integrity," which they believe they were doing on the floor of the united states
congress. and then the video, "i urge you to remain calm, have a peaceful protest, make sure everyone is safe and protected and let's do this in a peaceful manner. support this important process that we are going through in congress where we are allowed to object." this is very important. i urge you to stay calm. be the great american people that i know you are. god bless everyone. be careful, be safe, be smart, and obey the laws. a few days later after the attack occurred she said, "members of congress did not
plan, cause, and announce the january 6 attack." then fbi director wray testifies before congress, "i was appalled, like you, and the -- at the violence and destruction we saw that day. i was appalled that you, our country's elected leaders, were victimized right here in the halls of congress." representative greene was a victim of this attack. her life was in danger, she thought. she was scared and confused. her children were frantic about what was going on and scared for her safety.
that is not what a person who planned the attack would react. and you will see her reaction and hear her testimony. the attack on the u.s. capitol, despicable as it was, was not an insurrection of rebellion and she certainly did not engage in it as understood under the law. that is what the evidence will prove and why she should remain, among multiple of the reasons. remain on the ballot. thank you. >> thank you. we will start with matt -- say your name again? >> your honor, i want to start
by reading into the record, it will take a moment. >> if you want to read them, >> the parties to the above proceeding through their undersigned counsel stipulate that the following facts are true, that the respondent is over the age of 25, that the respondent is a united states citizen for more than seven years, the respondent is an inhabitant of georgia. petitioners are all registered voters in georgia's 14th congressional district. on january 3, 2021 the respondent took the oath of office to be a member of the house of you visited is for the first time. a joint session of congress was called to order at around 1:00 p.m. on january 6, 2021 for the purposes of opening, counting, and resolving any objections to the electoral college vote of the 2020 u.s. presidential election and certifying the results of the electoral college vote.
a group of people that did not include the respondent unlawfully entered the united states capitol on january 6, 2021. on january 6, 2021, the joint session of congress was suspended while people work unlawfully inside the u.s. capitol. congress certified the result of the electoral college vote on or about 3:40 a.m. on january 7, 2021 and respondent filed for candidacy for the upcoming midterm elections for georgia's 14th congressional district on march 7, 2022 filed an amended notice of candidacy on march 10, 2022. we will call the professor. judge beaudrot: do solemnly swear that you are giving the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
>> i do. judge beaudrot: please proceed. >> can you repeat your whole name? what is your educational background? >> i received my college degree at stanford and my law degree from yale. >> can you summarize your professional experience since then? >> i was at a law firm for one year and then i was an associate at a law firm for two years and i have been a teacher for the past 21 years. >> your honor, i believe exhibit p-61 has already been admitted. judge beaudrot: that is correct. >> professor, what are your areas of research? >> my main area of research is american constitutional history. >> you don't have a phd in history though, do you? >> i do not. >> what is your experience working with the materials? >> i do work at archives around the united states on books that i write. for example, i have worked at
the library of congress, mount vernon, the chicago history museum, the national archives, as well as other facilities that hold documents. >> how much of your work has been original, historical research using original historical materials? >> more than half. i use secondary sources, read other books and articles to do my research. >> [indiscernible] >> did you need to finish that questioning? >> would you like me to repeat my answer? >> yes. >> i do more than half of my answer on primary sources and the remainder consists of reading other books or articles written about the subjects i'm studying. >> what methods do you use when you are conducting this original, historical research? >> i use the same methods that a historian would use. for example, i try to identify documents and make sure they are authentic.
i try to understand the document based on what was going on at the time, and also to make sure that i am quoting them in context rather than out of context, for example. >> have you ever heard the phrase "law office history"? >> i have. >> ed what does that mean? >> it means reaching a conclusion to try to find historic materials to justify the conclusion you already reached. >> and how does your research seemed different than a law office history? >> i do not have any particular conclusion. i do the research with the materials and then i gradually reach a conclusion based on what i read and what i see. >> i am not going to ask you to repeat your entire bibliography. but specifically with respect to your historical research on the 19th century, how many books have you published? >> five. >> and what subjects were they about? >> the first one was about andrew jackson and the period in which he was president.
the second was the period at the end of the 19th century when william jennings bryan was running for president multiple times. the third was a biography of congressman john bingham, who was one of the principal framers of the 14th amendment. the fourth is a book on the bill of rights that covers the entire history of the bill of rights including the 19th century , portion. and the one that i have just written is about george washington's nephew, who was a justice on the supreme court in the early 19th century. >> in addition to these books, have you published academic articles and academic articles about 19th century history? >> yes, i have published about 10 articles that relate to 19th-century constitutional history in various journals. >> the past three years, have you been asked to give any academic speeches or lectures outside of the university on 19th-century constitutional history?
>> well, virtually, because of the pandemic. but yes, i gave a talk at mount vernon in 2021 about the george washington book. i have done some other things related to that. >> have you received any professional recognition for this work? >> i was a fellow for 2019-2021, and worked in the archives on the george washington project, looking at his letters and correspondence related to my research. >> turning to the 14th amendment and section three, have you conducted any research on that? >> yes. >> can you describe, in broad terms, that research? >> yes. in fall 2020, i wrote a paper on section three of the 14th amendment. the paper was completed in december and made available to researchers and anyone on the
social science research network. that happened around december 10, 2020. >> what perspectives do you use to address questions about the 14th amendment? >> i go to what was said in congress about the amendment proposal, because that is the most important initial source. i also looked at secondary sources outside congress. example, what did newspapers have to say about the pending proposal? what was said in the states to the extent we can find out about the ratification of the 14th amendment? so, primarily looking to the discussion or conversation americans had about the 14th amendment when it was proposed and under discussion for ratification. >> how are these approaches similar or different from the types of ordinary legal analysis judges and lawyers ordinarily engage in? >> i focus much more in my work
on the surrounding politics or social aspects of what is going on in these particular times with these constitutional issues, rather than focusing more on the text or cases. you have to do some of both, but i am more of a historian than a lawyer in that respect. >> [indiscernible] -- an expert witness in 19th century american constitutional history. >> i object, your honor. he was not tendered as an expert in the specification of witnesses. number two, an expert report is required from an expert so that we can prepare for his testimony. number three, he has not produced [indiscernible] documents in order to reach whatever conclusion the expert
report reveals. under civil rules in georgia, that is all required. none of that occurred here, and it is fundamentally unfair for us to show up at a hearing with no preparation other than his resume, which we got a couple days ago, and cross-examine him without adequate opportunity to prepare. >> as i have said before, i was unclear of what the role is for [indiscernible] is he going to testify essentially to the content of this article that he wrote? >> this subject matter of the questioning would address
matters not entirely embraced within the contents of the article. >> your honor, i apologize. i have one other comment. [indiscernible] ou -- are his views described, his expertise? [indiscernible] a quintessential legal question. the statute is vague. that is what he is going to testify about. that is a legal question, what the legislative history is and what it is not. for a person to testify about facts, and what happened on january 6, before, and not on
legal matters. it is quintessentially what lawyers do and what judges designed. i object on that premise. judge beaudrot: i am struggling because i don't know what the testimonies going to be. it is a circular question. but the issue of the history of the 14th amendment [indiscernible] spend their time with a history of the 14th amendment, i will not permit it and not entertain testimony about the statutes or anything that would be properly the subject of a briefing. so, i will let you start, and i will also suggest -- to me, this
sounds all like the stuff that would be coming inappropriately in a briefing. and if you have articles and authorities and original documents that you wish to cite, i am happy to, but i don't know that it makes sense for us to be dealing with a series of objections on things which are historical in nature. so, i will let you start, but i may stop you. and i will entertain objections as appropriate. go-ahead. >> thank you. can you briefly summarize the historical context for section three of the 14th amendment. >> after the civil war, elections were held across the south for congress and the senate. and some of the people who one had been leaders -- people who
won had been part of the confederacy. they arrived in washington to take their seats. northern opinion was outraged because these were some of the people that led the secession. so, these members were excluded from congress and then, consideration was given to some formal proposal that would exclude them for some period of time afterwards. >> who were the framers? >> section three of the 14th amendment was drafted by senator jacob howard of michigan. and it was narrower than the original proposal put forward in the house of representatives. the house proposal for section three would have prohibited all former confederates from voting in federal elections until 1870. the senators considered that too broad and unfair. so the substitute proposed by senator howard focused on office holding rather than voting and
did not apply to anyone who had been engaged in insurrection. instead, it applied only to officials, either current or former, civil or military, because it was thought that it was the leaders of the insurrection who should be held accountable rather than ordinary followers. >> in developing section three of the 14th amendment, did the framers look to any historical examples of insurrections other than the civil war? >> there were other examples, but nothing cited specifically in the debates in congress about that provision. >> what if any historical insurrections were well-known to reasonably educated, mid-19th century americans? >> onewest shays rebellion got -- one was shays rebellion, the other was the whiskey rebellion, also referred to as the whiskey insurrection. >> let's start with shays
insurrection, or shays rebellion. when did that occur? >> it occurred in massachusetts at the end of 1786 and early 1787. it was a tax protest by farmers who were upset by high land taxes that had led to many foreclosures of farms. what was happening was, groups of farmers would arm themselves to go to local courts to basically stop the courts from operating so that the recorder sales would not happen. the state militia was called in to deal with the suspension of the normal operation of the courts by the armed people. that led to a clash at an armory, when some of the insurrectionists decided to try to take some weapons. four people were killed. and after that, the rebellion or insurrection ended. >> you said their goal was to stop the courts from operating. >> that is correct.
>> to prevent foreclosure sales on farms. from a historical perspective, what were key features of shays rebellion that you remember from the mid-19th century known to reasonably educated americans? >> it was an effort by honest people to suspend the civil authority of government for a time it was considered a significant event because it did have influence on the framers when they gathered in philadelphia for the constitutional convention. because they saw it as an example of why we needed to replace the articles of confederation with a new constitution. >> wasn't considered in insurrection, rebellion, or both? >> in federalist number 10, the subtitle was, the union is a safeguard against domestic factions and insurrection. he was referring to shays insurrection as well as other peoples that happened in states
prior to that. in the 19th century, a well-known book by justice joseph story referred to the insurrection in massachusetts. he was from massachusetts and probably is why he emphasized that in his book. >> let's talk about the whiskey rebellion or whiskey insurrection, what was that? >> the whiskey insurrection was another tax protest by farmers, this time on a federal tax on whiskey and other spirits. farmers in pennsylvania were upset about this. they decided to start getting armed and right to prevent tax collection. sometimes, in one case, they tarred and feathered the tax collector. also, they would attack places were tax collectors were known to be. they also shut down courts because again, to some degree, the courts were necessary to further collection of the taxes because sometimes, there were
foreclosures that were required to pay the taxes that were owed. >> how many casualties were there? >> four or five people were killed in some skirmishes. eventually, george washington called in a large force of more than 10,000 troops to go into that portion of pennsylvania and for the most part, the insurrection ended because of the sight of this large force led by george washington. but for a five people were killed. >> how widespread was the whiskey rebellion? >> well, it was loosely organized. there were mostly local groups doing local things. there really wasn't a single leader at all, that we know of. >> and by the 1860's, how well-known was the whiskey rebellion to ordinary coming educated 19th-century americans? >> i object.
we are beyond legislative history. he has conceded that in the debates, they were talking about the civil war, not what these work colloquially called, insurrections. nothing legal definition. judge beaudrot: sustained. next question. >> if i recall rightly, you said four people died in shays rebellion, and four or five died in the whiskey rebellion? >> going on with this is to talk about something that is irrelevant to legislative history regarding title iii. judge beaudrot: overruled. >> you said four or five people died in each of those insurrections? >> correct. to the extent that 19th-century
americans thought of these as insurrections, in addition to the civil war, how would 19th-century americans have understood what level of bloodshed was needed before the word insurrection would be used? >> some violence was required. there was no thought that you could have a peaceful protest that would be considered in insurrection. but there was no particular thought about how much violence was required. >> when they distinguish between a riot versus insurrection? >> i object. judge beaudrot: sustained. next. >> what sources did 19th-century americans use to understand the meanings of words? >> i object. no foundation in the question.
from 1830 and afterwards? >> it was the leading dictionary a and the united states during this period, the 1830's. >> ok. was the dictionary updated on a semi regular or regular basis? >> yes. much like modern dictionaries, they would do a revision every few years. >> [indiscernible] and you are familiar with this dictionary? >> yes, i am. >> and how does it in form, if at all, your understanding of how used in the mid-19 entering -- in the mid-19th century? >> i object. >> let's turn to the next page. and if we could zoom in on the left column.
and on the top, can you read that? >> can you zoom it in even more? >> i will do my best. yes, i think i can. >> can you read a couple entries down. i am not going to ask you to read aloud, but do you see the definitions there? >> yes. >> argue familiar with whether this dictionary has a definition for insurrection? >> yes, it does. >> without reading that definition, in your experience as a historian, is that typical of a 19th-century understanding of the word insurrection? >> the document speaks for itself, counsel. >> how do you use these
dictionaries in your work? >> budging terms into context. if i am reading a letter and trying to understand what somebody meant, sometimes, the definition people used back then isn't the same as the definition that we use now. so, you have to check. >> let's get into the [indiscernible] this has also been submitted into evidence. what are we looking at here? >> this is a statute, a florida statute enacted in 1866. >> what is the statute about? >> insurrection. >> do you know why they adopted the statute? >> that was a response to what
had occurred during the civil war. your honor, i haven't ask the question yet. >> i will object. [laughter] i am sorry. this is very serious stuff. but this is what i would expect to be reading in briefs, not what i expected to hear testimony on. >> this is historical data that can be reviewed and commented on and proffered. i am indulging you by listening for the importance of this hearing, but if i hear an objection, i will rule. >> thank you, your honor.
>> all the individual media equipment, they requested special permission to take video. please try to refrain from clapping and shouting. thank you so much. judge beaudrot: that will not happen again. if that happens again, you will be escorted out of the courtroom. this is not a performance. this is deadly serious. we are back on the record now. >> thank you, your honor. >> [indiscernible] >> how were the southern states
governed after the surrender? >> there were temporary civil governments put in place by president johnson. but in 1867, congress passed the military reconstruction act to impose essentially martial law on almost the entire former confederacy. >> who was covering virginia? >> a union army general. >> why was the 14th amendment section three implemented? >> it was implemented in the military reconstruction acts, because those acts said there had to be new elections throughout the south to elect conventions that could ratify the 14th amendment and right to state constitutions. the acts provided that people who were covered by what was described as section three of the pending amendment were not going to be able to vote in the elections for those conventions. and then, they had to be some means of determining whether
people could or could not vote under that standard. >> could you please put up exhibit p-48? and on the upper left, i know this is small print, but can you see what that is? >> yes. this is an opinion of attorney general stansberry determining the first and second military reconstruction acts. >> when was that? >> may 1866. >> when was the amendment ratified? >> 1866. >> where was this printed? >> this was printed in "the new york times" and would have been reprinted in newspapers around the country. >> how often was section three
apply? >> it was implemented many times mostly with state and local officials of the confederacy but often, to exclude people from office. >> what led to it not being implemented as much? >> in 1872, congress exercised its power under section three to grant amnesty to many former confederates. in part, that was because there had been bills that had men giving amnesty to individuals, but that was simply if you knew a member of congress, and if you did, they would pass a bill for you. >> i move to strike his first statement. it was a legal opinion on the amnesty act of 1872, that gave amnesty only to former officers.
it is a legal question. judge beaudrot: i am going to let it stand. but i understand the point. believe me, i understand. >> what did the debates around amnesty, and public or in congress, center on? >> [indiscernible] lack of foundation. >> how familiar are you with the debates that led to the 1872 amendment? >> i have brought all of them. they focused on whether people deserved amnesty. and second, if so, who should be excluded from that. and whether it would be good for sectional reconciliation or not. those with big questions. -- those were the big questions. >> and how much was it centered around former confederates? >> it was basically around
confederates because those were the people petitioning congress for amnesty. >> during the civil war, how did washington, d.c. fare? >> it was a fortified city. there was a confederate attacked by jubal early on washington dc. >> how many presidential elections occurred during the civil war? >> in 1864. >> how orderly was that? >> it was very orderly. >> how was the counting of the electoral votes? >> there was no problem. >> did a violent massive of people seize control of the capital and disrupt the peaceful transfer of power?
>> [indiscernible] >> thank you, your honor. i withdraw the question. >> [indiscernible] -- welcome a fellow hoosier. and i was a history major. [indiscernible] judge beaudrot: thank you. >> the petitioners call marjorie taylor greene to the stand. judge beaudrot: raise your right hand, please do solemnly swear that the testimony you are about to give is true to the best of your knowledge? rep. greene: i do.
>> good morning, representative greene. i am andy celli. i represent the plaintiffs. you became a member of congress on january 3, 2021, is that correct? rep. greene: yes. mr. celli: you became a member of congress by virtue of taking the oath of office, right? mr. bopp: i -- rep. greene: i became a member of congress by being elected by the people of the 14th district. mr. celli: but you were permitted to take your seat in the house of representatives because you took an oath of office, is that correct? rep. greene: i was sworn in january 3. mr. celli: at the oath required you that you would swear to defend the constitution of the united states and required you to swear an oath that you would support the constitution of the united states against all enemies, foreign and domestic? rep. greene: yes.
mr. celli: part of the elf says that you were going to -- part of the oath says you were going to defend the constitution without mental reservation or purpose of evasion, do you recall? rep. greene: i think so. mr. celli: let's have a look at it. i want to make sure you get a chance to see it. judge beaudrot: is this the excerpt from the congressional record? >> this is a federal statute, on federal officers including members of congress. i -- can you make it a bit
bigger, i want to make sure the representative can see it? two thirds of the way down, it as i take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion you never call that was part of the oath, right? rep. greene: yes. it means swearing the oath and i have no reservations. mr. celli: one part of the constitution is the 12th amendment, right? rep. greene: yes. mr. celli: you are familiar with the 12th amendment? rep. greene: yes. mr. celli: that provides the constitutional process for counting electoral votes in a presidential election, right? mr. bopp: i object. under the speech and debate clause, she cannot be questioned
about what she does on the floor of congress pursuant to her legislative capabilities. mr. celli: if somebody tries to unlawfully interfere with the process of counting the electoral votes, unlawfully, that person would be an enemy of the constitution, would you agree? rep. greene: is it defined that way? is it defined that way? mr. celli: i am asking about your understanding. if somebody broke the law to interfere with the process of counting electoral college
votes, that person would be an enemy of the constitution, correct? rep. greene: [inaudible] [indiscernible] is that what you are referring to? mr. celli: doing anything unlawful to interfere with the counting of electoral votes? rep. greene: you mean like when democrats went to congress and had a sit in on the house floor? judge beaudrot:? could you rephrase? mr. celli: i am entitled to ask my questions the way i want to ask them and asking eventually respond. may i proceed? judge beaudrot: yes. mr. celli: so, if someone broke the law in an effort to interfere with the counting of electoral votes come that person would be an enemy of the constitution, right? mr. bopp: -- rep. greene: over 700 people were charged for what happened on january 6. mr. celli: right, those people
were interfering in the lawful process of counting votes for the electoral college, right? rep. greene: i would assume so. they stop the electoral count. yes. mr. celli: if you are aware somebody was trying to unlawfully stop the counting of electoral votes, you would be obliged by your oath to stop it, correct? mr. bopp: i object. the claim is not that she violated her oath there in the claim is under section three of the 14th amendment. [indiscernible] is just irrelevant.
-- it is irrelevant to whether or not she engaged in a direct and overt act of insurrection? mr. celli: your honor, we had a one-hour presentation on the law from mr. bopp. we did not object. judge beaudrot: i will let you answer the question. i forgot what it is. can you repeat it? mr. celli: can we ask it to be read back? clerk: question -- if you were aware that somebody was going to unlawfully interfere if the constitutional process of counting electoral votes, you would be obliged to have them arrested or stopped, right?
judge beaudrot: you may answer. rep. greene: i had no knowledge of any attempt. so that is a question i can't answer. i can't answer that question. mr. celli: i take your representation that you had no knowledge, for the time being. what i am asking is a hypothetical question, just understand. rep. greene: i don't want to answer a hypothetical question. mr. celli: well, i am permitted to ask you one. i am going to ask you again, if you had knowledge somebody was going to unlawfully interfere in the counting of the votes under the election, under your oath you would be obliged to do , something to stop that? mr. bopp: i object. she is not charged for violating her oath. there is no foundation laid that she had any knowledge about anything like that. mr. celli: we will get to that. judge beaudrot: sustained.
mr. celli: let me try it a different way. remember the part of the oath where you talked about taking on the obligations of the oath freely and without mental reservation or purpose of evasion, do you recall that from a few minutes ago? rep. greene: yes. mr. celli: ok. if you knew that people were planning to interfere with the constitutional process of counting the electoral votes, you knew that before you took the oath and you took the oath anyway, and decided not to do anything about those plans, that would be a mental reservation, don't you agree? mr. bopp: objection. she is not being charged with violating the oath. the question is, did she engage in insurrection or rebellion? mr. celli: her state of mind is relevant, your honor.
we think it is very important to have her understanding. it is relevant to whether she engaged in insurrection during the time from january 3-january 6. we are going to be talking about her state of mind all day. judge beaudrot: you may come back to the question after you have laid a foundation for why it ties into her activities. mr. celli: fair enough, your honor. ms. greene, you are familiar with social media, a form of communication? rep. greene: yes. mr. celli: you know what facebook is, and twitter, right? rep. greene: yes. mr. celli: you use those as an important form of communication in your work? rep. greene: yes. mr. celli: you post messages on facebook, right? rep. greene: yes. i post statements and messages. mr. celli: and videos, right? rep. greene: yes. mr. celli: and you often respond or react to people's comments when they are posted on facebook or twitter, right?
rep. greene: yes. mr. celli: and you do that as a way to get your political views out into the world? rep. greene: it is my freedom of speech to do so. mr. celli: i agree. and you have been very successful at using social media to get your views out to the world, right? rep. greene: i would say that is an opinion. mr. celli: i am asking your opinion. you have got hundreds of thousands of people who follow you on twitter and facebook, right? rep. greene: no, not really. because my personal twitter account doesn't exist anymore. mr. celli: before it was suspended by twitter, you had hundreds of thousands of people following you on facebook and twitter, right? rep. greene: yes. mr. celli: and by the way, the way facebook and twitter work, to my understanding, people don't have to necessarily follow you to read what you say, right? rep. greene: i guess so. mr. celli: so, it could be millions of people who have read the things that you have sent on facebook and twitter over the
years. rep. greene: i don't know that. mr. celli: but it could be? you would agree with that? rep. greene: no. i don't know that. i don't know how many people read or see what i post on social media. mr. celli: but what you post on social media is what you want people to know about your political beliefs, correct? rep. greene: sure. mr. celli: you are not putting stuff up there as a joke, are you? rep. greene: sometimes, yes. mr. celli: we will come back to that. and you use facebook and twitter to communicate with your constituents in the 14th congressional district in georgia, right? rep. greene: yes. mr. celli: immediately after the 2020 election, and through january 6 and even beyond that, you issued a number of tweets and made statements on twitter and facebook about the election, right? rep. greene: yes.
mr. celli: you tweeted a lot of material about your views about what happened in the 2020 election? rep. greene: yes. mr. celli: and the thrust of those tweets are that you felt election was stolen from the sitting president? mr. bopp: i object. judge beaudrot: you can ask the question, what is your opinion? mr. celli: i want to ask whether she communicated that opinion. let's do it that way, your honor, i take your point. judge beaudrot: where are you going with this? mr. celli: i am going to show the witness or tweets and want to make sure i understand the context. that is all. judge beaudrot: she said she posted on twitter. mr. celli: and my question is whether she posted material -- strike that. you had the opinion between november 2020 when the election happened and january 6, 2021, that the election was stolen from president trump, am i right?
mr. bopp: i object. judge beaudrot: if you want to ask about specific documents, go ahead. mr. celli: let's go to p-x-2-a, please. >> i am sorry, which one is this? mr. celli: 2-a. can you see that, miss greene? rep. greene: mm hmm. mr. celli: what we have here is a document. can you tell us, is this a statement that you posted on twitter on december 3, 2020? judge beaudrot: go ahead.
rep. greene: yes. mr. celli: and this is a statement where you talked about, you were looking for a senator to join yourself and representative of mo brooks to reject roger lind vote for joe biden and keep donald trump in the white house. mr. bopp: i object. this violates her right of free speech. there is nothing in the statement that meets the brandenburg test, even if speech could be considered. but we can't, when we are dealing with malicious conduct, and it does not even meet the incitement test, which is directed or inciting eminent
lawless action. mr. celli: your honor, we had an hour of argument in the morning. judge beaudrot: hold on. go ahead. mr. bopp: that is likely to incite revolts. and to call her to account for her first amendment free speech is unconstitutional. judge beaudrot: i'm going to allow the question. go ahead. mr. celli: did you send out this tweet, miss greene? rep. greene: yes. mr. celli: and you wanted the people who read the tweet to know that it was your view that the votes for mr. biden for president were fraudulent, right? rep. greene: that really wasn't the purpose of that tweet. mr. celli: i am asking whether,
when you sent this, you were communicating to the people who read your twitter account that you believe that there were fraudulent votes for mr. biden, and that your goal was to keep president trump in the white house. rep. greene: i was communicating that we were looking for a senator to join our objection, which is very much part of the responsibilities and duties that i deal with as a member of congress. mr. celli: i agree, but the purpose was that you believe the votes for mr. biden were fraudulent, right? rep. greene: we had been spending a vast amount of time researching and talking to people and had seen tremendous evidence of voter fraud. i don't know if you are aware because you are not from georgia, we have our secretary of state -- mr. celli: [indiscernible]
judge beaudrot: let's back up. mr. celli: i am sorry, your honor. we missed something very important. can the representative be sworn? and can i ask the court to acknowledge that this is an adverse witness, she is an adverse witness? judge beaudrot: yes. i acknowledge that. mr. celli: i ask the court to remind the witness that in this posture, she has to answer my questions. she can't give speeches. judge beaudrot: you are entitled to a question to the question -- you are entitled to an answer to the question that is asked. whether the question is objectionable, or irrelevant to the charges being made, is this
a fishing expedition? [indiscernible] [indiscernible conversations] >> this is not theater. this is not an argument before the supreme court. this is an evidentiary hearing, so let's get going. go ahead, mr. celli. mr. celli: we are looking for the plaintiff's exhibit. p-26. miss greene, is this a tweet you
sent from your account on december 19, 2020? rep. greene: yes. mr. celli: and in this tweet, i want to go back your honor. i would ask that the previous exhibit, -- judge beaudrot: what was the number? mr. celli: 2-a. judge beaudrot: yes, i will admit it. say that again. mr. celli: i asked the witness if this was her tweet. she said it was her tweet. i ask it be admitted to evidence. mr. bopp: i object. it violates her first amendment rights. judge beaudrot: [indiscernible] mr. bopp: i apologize, your
honor. it is my responsibility to make pertinent objections. judge beaudrot: i understand. go ahead, mr. celli. mr. celli: in your tweet on december 19, 2020, one of the things you are communicating to the people who would read this tweet is that you want them to come to washington on january 6 for a demonstration, is that right? rep. greene: for a march 4 trump. mr. celli: right -- rep. greene: for a march for trump. that is what it said in my tweet. mr. celli: and you posted that because you come in fact, want people to show up on january 6,
2021 in d.c. in order to help you stop the theft of the 2020 election? rep. greene: no. mr. celli: ok. i am not sure we got a clear answer. you did believe at this time the 2020 election have been stolen by democrats from mr. trump, right? rep. greene: i was asking people to come for a peaceful march, which is what everyone is entitled to do under their first amendment. but i was not asking them to engage in violence or any type of action. mr. celli: my question is about your opinion. when this tweet came out, in this period, it was your opinion not the election had been stolen from mr. trump, or was about to be stolen? rep. greene: i knew there was a tremendous amount of fraudulent things that happened in the election. and under my opinion, i want to do anything i can to protect
election integrity and protect the people of my district in georgia, people's votes. they should count. mr. celli: is it fair to say, representative greene, that from election night 2020 until january 6, 2021, your opinion and wish was for congress to not certify joe biden as winner of the 2020 election? rep. greene: no. that is not accurate. mr. celli: you believed that joe biden had lost the election, right? rep. greene: yes. we saw a tremendous amount of voter fraud. we have investigations going on right now in georgia. there is investigation going on in multiple states. my husband showed up to vote and when he went to vote in person, he was told he had already voted by absentee ballot when in fact,
he had never requested an absentee ballot. there is many instances. mr. celli: your honor, i understand there is an i.t. issue which requires a pause. judge beaudrot: should we take time? do we need to minutes? -- two minutes? mr. celli: thank you. i appreciate your patience. [indiscernible conversations]
judge beaudrot: representative greene >> representative greene, i think we are ready. come back up. everybody ready? we good? ms. greene, appreciate your patience with the disruption. appreciate everybody's cooperation while they dealt with the technology. all right. thank you. >> your honor, i would ask that mr. bob not consult with his client during the break period while i am examining her. it is generally not permitted in my experience. >> go ahead. mr. celli: can you see exhibit 2c as well?
>> ok, thank you. mr. celli: ms. greene, this is a tweet we talked about earlier, just a quick question on it. you issued this on december 19, 2020, right? rep. greene: i can't see real well, but i think that is the day. mr. celli: maybe we can make it a little larger. rep. greene: that is what it says. mr. celli: and what you were doing in this tweet was, your tweeting out a story from the epoch times about president trump saying, the protests that were planned for january 6 were going to be "wild" right? >> i object. where is the article? mr. celli: right there under the picture of president trump. >> does it quote that? mr. celli: yes.
it says supporters should join wild protest on january 6. >> i withdraw my objection. i can't see that. mr. celli: could you make it larger? you can answer the question, representative greene. rep. greene: what was your question? mr. celli: you were tweeting out a story from the epoch times about president trump making a statement that the protest on january 6 would be wild, right? rep. greene: i tweeted an article that had the details of the dates and times. mr. celli: right. and also included president trump's statement that the demonstrations would be wild, right? rep. greene: i don't think that's what my tweet was about. mr. celli: but you see that the article says trump: supporters: should join wild protest in d.c. on january 6? rep. greene: i don't remember
tweeting that specifically for what you are saying. those are your words. mr. celli: no, i'm actually reading from what is on -- rep. greene: you are speculating on why i tweeted that, but i don't remember tweeting it for that specific reason. mr. celli: ms. greene, i'm just asking questions. rep. greene: i'm just answering. [laughter] mr. celli: in your tweet you mentioned that your words, that you are urging people to come to washington for a peaceful demonstration, right? rep. greene: peaceful demonstration, absolutely. mr. celli: that word peaceful is nowhere in this tweet, right? rep. greene: i can't read it. there is only half of it there. mr. celli: let's give the representative a paper copy of that. rep. greene: i can see it now. it was scrolled up just a second ago. mr. celli: peaceful is not in there, is it? rep. greene: well, you know.
mr. celli: is the word peaceful there, ms. greene? rep. greene: it does not say peaceful, but you are asking me and i said for peaceful demonstrations, just like people have the right to do in their first amendment. mr. celli: there is not a secret code in there that is supposed to be peaceful, right? rep. greene: i never meant anything for violence. i never support violence of any kind and i have set it over and over again. mr. celli: you didn't say on this occasion, did you? rep. greene: i never mean anything for violence. all of my words never, ever mean anything for violence. mr. celli: we will examine the question. go to exhibit 2f, please. >> f as in frank? mr. celli: yes, please. i'm looking at -- yeah, the top half of the exhibit. this is a tweet you sent out on january 2, 2021, correct? rep. greene: i'm not sure.
mr. celli: you don't recall this? rep. greene: i don't recall tweeting that, no. mr. celli: ok. set that to one side. let me ask this question. did anybody tweet things on your twitter account -- strike that. did anybody in january of 2021 tweet things on your account without your permission. rep. greene: on what day? mr. celli: anytime from november 22 to january 6. rep. greene: i not remember. that is difficult to answer. mr. celli: you would be surprised if somebody got into your twitter account and tweeted something without your permission, didn't you? rep. greene: no one tweeted anything without my permission, i just don't remember who tweeted what. mr. celli: fair enough. would you agree, ms. greene, that this tweet from january 2, 2021 is something that we can
fairly attribute to you, being that it was tweeted on your twitter account? rep. greene: i am sorry, i don't know. mr. celli: take that down. ms. greene, you have had your disagreements with speaker pelosi, is that right? rep. greene: i'm not sure what you mean. mr. celli: you have political disagreements with her? you don't agree with some of the things she has done in her career, correct? rep. greene: politically speaking, that would be correct. mr. celli: you don't agree with a lot of things she has done, right? rep. greene: politically speaking, that would be correct. mr. celli: you believe that speaker pelosi is a traitor to the country? rep. greene: i'm not answering that question. it's speculation. mr. celli: you have said that, haven't you? that she is a traitor? rep. greene: no, i haven't said that. mr. celli: could i see exhibit five, please?
rep. greene: no, wait. hold on now. i believe that by not upholding -- securing the border, that violates for oath of office. mr. celli: fair enough. i'm not interested in her oath of office. i'm interested in that you said she is a traitor to our country, correct? >> i object, your honor. i don't see the relevance of that. mr. celli: your honor, can we give mr. bob a standing objection on first amendment grounds? >> no. mr. celli: this is an effort to interrupt my examination of the witness. i am attempting to establish the witness's desire to engage in insurrection during the period january 3 to january 6. it is true that some of the things she said are relevant in that they were before january 3, but there is no first amendment objection to evidence, your honor. she said what she said.
>> there are first amendment objections. mr. celli: we don't agree. >> you can make your objection. you can have a standing objection for the first amendment. mr. celli: please don't interrupt my flow, your honor. >> i don't object to everything. i have specific things that i think i object to, and i should be extended the courtesy to do that. >> you may object. mr. celli: i'm placing before you exhibit five, which is an article that appeared in cnn, january 26, 2021. >> could i have a hard copy of this? mr. celli: it should be in the book. >> can she have a hard copy, i mean? she can't read it off the screen. mr. celli: we have got one for her. >> let's start using hard copies. you can't read stuff like this on the screen. mr. celli: may i approach the
this is a paragraph that starts out "she is a traitor to our country." >> i object, your honor. what relevance could it be that she had political disagreements with hyperbole that is commonly used? mr. celli: your honor, this is my argument. >> overruled. mr. celli: thank you. i want to ask a narrow question, representative greene. did you say, referring to speaker pelosi, "she is a traitor to our country, she is guilty of treason, she took an oat to protect the american citizens. she gives aid and comfort to our enemies who in -- who illegally invade our land. that is what treason is, and our representatives and senators can no longer serve in our government and it is a crime punishable by death is what treason is. nancy pelosi is guilty of treason." did you say those words?
rep. greene: this is what i was telling you. she does not uphold our laws. mr. celli: it's a simple yes or no question. did you say those words? >> without being instructed by him to say yes or no. mr. celli: i don't agree, your honor. this is cross-examination. i deserve an answer to your question. >> representative greene did you say those words quoted? rep. greene: according to the cnn article i did. >> do you recall? rep. greene: i don't recall saying all of them but i do recall saying this about the -- i totally disagree with the border issues and -- >> that's an answer. next question. mr. celli: representative greene, you have advocated the use of physical violence against people you disagree with,
politically, right? >> i object. without context, without anything. >> overruled. go ahead. what is the question? mr. celli: have you advocated physical violence against people you disagree with? >> that is the question? is that true? rep. greene: i don't think so. i don't know how to answer that. >> next question. mr. celli: have a look at what we have marked in exhibit five. >> c5. mr. celli: c5. >> that is the same one? mr. celli: yes. >> you have a copy of this? rep. greene: yes. mr. celli: let me ask the foundational question. do you understand that on social media posts like facebook and twitter, one of the things -- i guess on facebook one of the
things you can do is like someone's post, right? rep. greene: you can like people's posts. mr. celli: right. and when you like someone's post that is a way of signifying you agree with or admire or think it is correct, the post is correct, right? rep. greene: i don't know. i don't agree with your phrase of questioning. mr. celli: i'm asking you. is it true when you like someone's post, you are signifying your approval for what the post says? rep. greene: no, i don't agree with how you are praising the question. mr. celli: so, it is true that you liked a post that suggested that "a bullet to the head of nancy pelosi would be a quicker way to remove her as speaker of the house then impeachment," right? rep. greene: you are using a cnn article which -- cnn has lied about me multiple times, and you
are using a cnn article as your evidence. mr. celli: i'm asking you to answer my question. did you like a post that says "that a bullet to the head would be a quicker way to remove nancy pelosi?" rep. greene: i have had many people manage my social media over the years. i have no idea who liked that. mr. celli: are you testifying under oath that it wasn't you? rep. greene: i am testifying, i have no idea who liked that comment. mr. celli: fair enough. it could have been you. right? rep. greene: i do not know. >> next question. mr. celli: ok. by the way, you know that one of the places inside the united states capitol building that was
invaded by people who were doing violence was missed pelosi's office, right? rep. greene: i was inside the chamber on january 6 so i do not know all the places that those people went. i only know where i was. mr. celli: are you telling us that in the more than a year since these events occurred, you have not become aware that one of the offices that was invaded by people who were illegally in the capital was nancy pelosi's office? 0 i have seen it on the news. i do not know for sure. i haven't investigated all of that. mr. celli: you mentioned earlier in response to some of my questions that there was a demonstration that was being planned for january 6, 2021
called the march for trump, right? mr. celli: we talked about it -- rep. greene: we talked about it on one of my twitter posts. mr. celli: it was organized in part by an organization called "women for america." right? rep. greene: i don't remember who organized it. mr. celli: plaintiff exhibit 2d. 2d, your honor. d as in dog. >> we are going to do this on paper, so -- i have placed in front of you what is plaintiff's
exhibit 2d. one of the things that you can do on twitter is you can retweet or send out again somebody else's tweet, right? rep. greene: yes. mr. celli: ok. on plaintiff's 2d, which i have placed in front of you, you are retreating a tweet sent by kylie jane premer. rep. greene: i don't know if i retweeted it. mr. celli: if you look carefully , it says marjorie taylor greene retweeted. rep. greene: you don't recall -- i don't recall. mr. celli: if this got retweeted from your account, that would have been done with your permission, right? rep. greene: i don't recall retreating it. mr. celli: that's not my question. you don't and i that kylie jane
premer's message was retweeted from your account -- you don't deny that message was retweeted from your account. you don't deny that, do you? rep. greene: i don't have this twitter account anymore. so i don't remember retreating that. mr. celli: but you remember this thing that was called the march for trunk -- trump on january 6. and women for america where the organizers, right? rep. greene: i don't remember but that's what it says. mr. celli: one of the other hashtags for the demonstrations planned on january 6, 2021, in washington dc used the #st
i post before you petition exhibitor 33. i have a couple questions about it. does this refresh your recollection that there was a website known as wildprotest.com encouraging people to come to washington to protest? rep. greene: i don't member the website but i'm seeing it here. mr. celli: wild was the term president trump used to describe what he thought was going to happen on january 6. rep. greene: wild is also a term that high school's use when they talk about spring break. mr. celli: fair enough.
but whatever the title of the demonstration or the name, you would agree that after the election and before january 6, that people were being asked to come to d.c. for a large demonstration to object to the certification of joe biden. rep. greene: i was aware that people were coming to support our objection in congress and on january 6, the only thing i was preparing for was objecting. mr. celli: when did you first become aware there would be large demonstrations in d.c. rep. greene: i don't recall. mr. celli: did you consider participating in any of those demonstrations? rep. greene: it was on my calendar but i never went. we were too busy. we were looking at all the evidence and preparing for our debate and preparing to object. rep. greene: who put it on your calendar -- mr. celli: who put it on your calendar? rep. greene: i don't know.
mr. celli: someone on your staff, right? rep. greene: i don't remember. mr. celli: it wasn't a complete stranger, it was someone on your staff, right? rep. greene: probably, but i don't member. mr. celli: an appearance for you on that demonstration was placed on your calendar. how did it come to pass that it was put on your calendar that you were going to appear? i understand you were too busy. rep. greene: i don't know. i was so busy preparing to object. mr. celli: you were going to go to one of these demonstrations as a speaker, right? rep. greene: i don't think so. i was always preparing to object. mr. celli: have a look at what we have marked as 33. as you go three pages into the bottom of that page and over to
the next page, invited speakers and featured guests. rep. greene: i guess i was on there because i was invited. but i don't know who made the website. i can't answer anything about it. mr. celli: you can answer that that is your name and face, right? rep. greene: that is my name and face, but i don't run that website. i have no idea who does. mr. celli: my question to you, representative greene, someone under your authority authorized you to be placed as a speaker or guest at the wild protest demonstration. rep. greene: i get many invitations to many events and all kinds of speaking engagements. and most of the time, those go on my calendar, but they have no relevance as to whether i attend or not. mr. celli: would it be fair to
say that through your office, you authorized your name and likeness to be associated with wildprotest.com. rep. greene: you cannot assume that. mr. celli: let's talk about that. going back to 33. you know allie alexander, don't you? rep. greene: i don't really know him. mr. celli: you have met him, right? rep. greene: i have seen him before but i do not know him. mr. celli: how many times have you been in his presence? rep. greene: i can't even guess. hardly any. mr. celli: 10? 20? rep. greene: no. mr. celli: have you shaken his hand? rep. greene: yes. i shake hands with pretty much everyone i meet. mr. celli: lots of people, right? and he's a friend of yours, right? rep. greene: no.
mr. celli: we will come back to that. did you discuss with mr. alexander the idea of you coming to appear at a demonstration on january 6? rep. greene: i do not recall that. mr. celli: you are not denying, you just don't recall. rep. greene: i do not recall that, no. mr. celli: did you discuss with anybody attending the wild protest demonstration that was planned for january 6? rep. greene: i don't recall ever talking about attending. mr. celli: other than people on your congressional staff, list for me all the people you spoke to about the demonstrations on january 6. rep. greene: i'm sorry, i have
no idea. mr. celli: you don't remember any of them? rep. greene: i do not remember. mr. celli: not any of them? rep. greene: no. mr. celli: he spoke to some people about the demonstrations prior to being sworn in as a representative from the 14th district, right? rep. greene: i don't remember. mr. celli: and you spoke to some of those people after you took the oath on january 3? rep. greene: i don't remember. mr. celli: did you speak to anybody in government about the fact that there would be demonstrations in washington on january 6? rep. greene: i don't remember. we were mostly reading about people saying what they witnessed about voter fraud. mr. celli: your testimony is that you did not talk to anybody in government about the fact that there are going to be large
protests in washington on january 6. rep. greene: i don't remember. mr. celli: you spoke to representative biggs about that fact, didn't you? rep. greene: i do not remember. mr. celli: representative gosar? rep. greene: sorry, i don't member. mr. celli: did you talk to people at the white house about the fact they would be large demonstrations on january 6 in washington? rep. greene: i don't member. mr. celli: prior to january 6, did anyone ever mention to you the possibility that there might be violence in washington on january 6, 2021? rep. greene: i don't member. mr. celli: it's possible folks told you that things could get violent in washington on january 6, right? rep. greene: i was a brand-new member of congress.
i don't remember those conversations. i would hope nancy pelosi and those in charge of the capital were taking capital security very seriously. mr. celli: my question is just about whether anybody at all ever mentioned to you the possibility of violence. rep. greene: i don't remember. mr. celli: you are not denying it, you just don't recall. rep. greene: i don't recall. mr. celli: and you don't recall people said we are having these big demonstrations in washington and some of the people who come to those demonstrations might become violent. that never happened? rep. greene: the only violence i have ever seen is the antifa blm riots. i've never seen violence at a trump rally. i don't recall any talk of violence. mr. celli: and you know the people coming to demonstrations were trump people, right? rep. greene: i think there were many people coming to support president trump and our objection on january 6.
mr. celli: some of them were coming because you asked them to come, right? rep. greene: i don't recall personally asking people to come, but evidently i tweeted about january 6. mr. celli: strike that. did you have any conversations with anybody in government -- representatives, senators, the white house staff, the president of the united states at the time, any government official or government employee, about the fact that there was a risk of people coming to washington for january 6 demonstrations and might become violent. rep. greene: this -- >> this is the fourth time she has been asked the same question. >> answer the question for the last time. rep. greene: i don't recall. mr. celli: did you ever hear
from any source prior to january 6 that some folks were planning to come to washington on january 6? and the idea was that they were going to flood the capital with people. rep. greene: no. i don't member hearing that. mr. celli: you never discuss that with anybody. rep. greene: i do not remember that. mr. celli: but you supported the idea of people coming to washington on january 6 and flooding the capital, right? rep. greene: no. i support people's first amendment. use their freedom of speech. mr. celli: previously, you publicly said that one way for people to express their displeasure with their government would be to flood the capitol building with people, right? mr. celli: the capital -- rep. greene: the capitol building belongs to the people. it's where you come to speak
here representatives, your senators, you come to express your views. you talked about how you want your tax dollars spent. you come to talk about how you want senators and representatives to vote. mr. celli: my question is a bit more narrow than that. you publicly expressed support for the idea that people should come to washington to express their displeasure with their government by flooding the capital. >> i object. mr. celli: can we have px23 please? ms. greene, i have placed in
front of you petitioners exhibit 23 which is a cnn article entitled "in 2019, marjorie taylor greene told protesters to flood the capital and use violence." >> i object. this is 2019. how many years back? high school? do we have to be treated with statements like flood the capital. mr. celli: your honor, this is a speaking objection and is not appropriate. >> if you figure out how you lay the foundation of this, you may proceed. mr. celli: i want to direct your attention to the second page of this exhibit. >> could you please go through the proper thing so she knows what she is looking at? mr. celli: i thought i did. >> i didn't hear it.
mr. celli: ok. this is an article that appeared , we believe, on cnn in the wake of january 6. have you seen this document before? rep. greene: no. i haven't seen it. mr. celli: i'm going to ask some questions, statements attributed to you in this article and you tell me if you made them or not. second page of the document has a quotation that reads, "all of us together, when we rise up, we can end all of this. we can end it. we can do it peacefully, we can. i hope we don't have to do it the other way. i hope not. but we should feel like we will if we have to. because we are the american people."
do you recall making that statement in connection with the protests around "fund the wall?" mr. celli: are you denying that you made that statement? are you denying that you made that statement? rep. greene: i don't recall. mr. celli: you are not denying it, you just don't recall. rep. greene: it's a cnn article. quick that she does not recall is the answer. move on. -- >> that she does not recall is the answer. move on.
mr. celli: i'm sorry, judge. i'm looking at my copy of the exhibit. a little further along those going to ask you if you made this comment. if we have a sea of people, we will shut down the streets. if we shut down everything, flood the capitol building. these are public things. we own them. we pay all the people that work in the buildings. did you say that with a connection to the fund the wall demonstration? >> because this is about the fund the wall demonstration, she was not a sworn member of congress.
mr. celli: did you say that? rep. greene: i don't recall. you are using cnn and they have chopped up my words so many times and lied about me so many times. you sound like you have as many conspiracy theories as qanon at this point. mr. celli: you believe in qanon? rep. greene: i did not say i believe in qanon. >> that is not relevant. mr. celli: she brought it up. >> which one? mr. celli: 84. is that your face, miss greene? rep. greene: it appears to be. mr. celli: this is a video that is about one minute 50 seconds and i simply ask if that is you making these statements.
>> before this is ron, i object unless this is the entire clip. mr. celli: we haven't touched it, your honor. >> i'm not saying you touched it. if you are prepared to play this, i think your responsibility is to make sure that this is not taken out of context. i think you should be required to explain that this is the entire statement that was made, not a selective piece out of context. mr. celli: may i be heard on this, your honor? we have been denied the opportunity to conduct discovery in this case as your honor knows. the speed with which this proceeding had to go forward. we have been denied the opportunity to issue subpoenas and get records to do precisely what mr. bob would like me to do
and in fact he objected to all of those things. so the idea now that he is objecting to us laying a portion of his own clients words, she can defend herself quite ably. she will tell us if it is out of context or qanon. >> what is this? mr. celli: this is a video we believe of the congresswoman making a statement. >> where did it come from? mr. celli: it came from the cnn article, links to it from facebook. >> this was pulled off of the internet? mr. celli: it was connected through cnn, i believe. from a tweet. >> this is the complete what was there? have you made any alterations? mr. celli: no sir. >> do you know if there are alterations? mr. celli: no sir.
>> you may ask the witness about it. mr. celli: can we play the video, please? rep. greene: in washington, d.c., on february 20 three, protest and march with me at 8:00 a.m. please. i'm begging you. if we have a sea of people, we can shut down the streets. if we shut down everything, flood the capitol building, flood all the government buildings, go inside. they are public buildings. we own them. do you understand that? we on the buildings and we pay all the people that work in the buildings. february 23, it might be cold. we will go inside and we will be warm. we will demand our federal government serve we, the people.
because we are sick and tired of their ways. we are sick and tired of their corruption. here is the issue, america. they think we are stupid and they treat us like we are stupid. and we allow it. we allow it. no more. we are not going to allow it anymore. we want solutions to problems. we want to take care of america. america is first. americans come first with americans taxpayer dollars. we are done. we are done. and we have a massive list of grievances, ok? we have a huge list of grievances. and that is why on february 23, washington dc, 8 a.m., we will march in protest. and i'm telling you to get your but there. i'm begging all of you to be there.
there are a lot of really great people organizing this. you don't even know. rep. greene: -- mr. celli: that is you, right? rep. greene: that's me. mr. celli: and you were urging people to come to washington to flood the capital, right? rep. greene: what year was that? mr. celli: you tell me. rep. greene: i believe it was for february 20 3, 2019. there was no violence that day. we peacefully protested. mr. celli: fair enough. but you were urging people for that demonstration to flood the capital. rep. greene: to peacefully protest and enter the capital and ask our lawmakers to serve the american people. mr. celli: so now you remember giving that statement, right? rep. greene: now that we've watched the video, i remember
that. mr. celli: now that your memory has been jogged a little bit, do you remember talking about that demonstration being done on a peaceful basis? rep. greene: that demonstration was peaceful. mr. celli: and you remember that you said we can do it peacefully, right? rep. greene: of course. i only believe in peaceful demonstrations. rep. greene: you said we can do it -- mr. celli: you said we can do it peacefully, we can. we don't have to do it the other way. i hope not. but we will if we have to because we are the american people. that was another statement you made in the same presentation. rep. greene: that was in your cnn article. i don't trust cnn. mr. celli: are you denying that you made that statement? rep. greene: i'm not. i don't recall saying specifically that. the demonstration was peaceful. >> what year was this again?
rep. greene: 2019. mr. celli: i will move on, your honor. >> you are pushing the envelope. mr. celli: i would appreciate if mr. bob would keep that to himself for the moment. >> i am serious. we need to get back to task. mr. celli: did you or any member of your government or campaign staff communicate with anthony aguerro about the events of january 6 prior to january 6? rep. greene: i don't recall. mr. celli: did you or any member of your staff communicate with somebody named dustin stockton prior to january 6. rep. greene: i don't think i know who that is. mr. celli: how about jennifer lawrence. not the actress, but a jennifer lawrence involved in conservative politics.
did you or any member of your congressional campaign staff communicate with miss lawrence prior to january 6 about the demonstrations for that day? rep. greene: i don't recall. i don't think i know who that is. mr. celli: did you or any member of your campaign provide any support for any demonstrations that occurred on january 6, 2021? rep. greene: i have no idea. i don't think so. i don't recall. mr. celli: didn't he member of your staff provide any information, advice, printed material, promise of a public statement, to withhold a public
statement, anything along those lines? in connection with the demonstrations planned for january 6? rep. greene: i don't remember. i don't think so. mr. celli: if somebody were to come in here and say, yeah, she gave us support for our demonstrations you would say, i don't member that. that didn't happen. rep. greene: i'm not sure what you are saying. i think you are speculating a hypothetical. mr. celli: prior to january 6, 20 21, you heard people were planning to enter the capital on january 6 and engage in violence, right? >> i object. i think that is the fifth time. mr. celli: never heard that from anybody? rep. greene: no. mr. celli: and prior to january 6, 2021, you were aware that people would make noise outside the capital as a means to
disrupt the proceedings inside the capital. rep. greene: i have no idea what you are talking about. mr. celli: ok. and prior to january 6, 2021, people planning to enter the capitol building illegally to disrupt the process? mr. celli: absolutely not -- rep. greene: absolutely not. i don't know anything about it. mr. celli: i think that's probably time for break. >> how much do you have left? mr. celli: probably an hour. >> let's take a break. mr. celli: i respectfully ask to make it 45 minutes. >> i'm challenged on the clock. 1:30 p.m.? is that ok with you?
judge beaudrot: please be seated. thank you. mr. charlie -- mr. celli. mr. celli: i want to ask a couple of narrow questions, then we will move to another topic. the twitter handle @mtgreene, that is your twitter handle, right? rep. greene: before my account was permanently banned. mr. celli: got it. during the period from january 3 to january 6, did you or anybody
in your office, your congressional office, provide tours either formally or informally to people of the u.s. capitol? rep. greene: no. the only people with me was my husband and my children. mr. celli: that would be on the third, is that right? rep. greene: i don't recall the exact date. i believe they went back to georgia on the fourth. mr. celli: i'm trying to capture the period. january 3, you were sworn in. to january 6. during that period did anybody in your office provide tours to anybody at the u.s. capitol? rep. greene: no. mr. celli: and during that period did anybody on your campaign staff or did you authorize a provision of funds, money to people who were planning a demonstration on january 6? rep. greene: i don't think so. i don't recall that at all.
mr. celli: do you want to know the answer to the question to -- who would you ask? rep. greene: i would have to talk to people on my campaign, but i don't think we did any. how would we have done that? we didn't do anything like that. mr. celli: during that same period of january 3 to january 6, did you or anybody on your campaign or congressional staff provide any information of any sort to anyone in connection with january 6 demonstrations? rep. greene: i don't think so. i have no idea. i don't think so. mr. celli: and did you have numbers of the public visit your congressional office between january 3 and january 6? rep. greene: no. mr. celli: and during that period, did anyone from your congressional office or your campaign provide maps for the
location of offices within the capital? rep. greene: no, no. we got our keys to my office on january 3. i couldn't even find where the bathroom was most of the time. mr. celli: you know why i'm asking these questions, right? rep. greene: i have no idea why you are asking these questions. mr. celli: representative greene, you are familiar with the significance of the year, 1776 in u.s. history, right? rep. greene: yes. mr. celli: 1776 is the year the declaration of independence was signed. and that was a statement by representatives of the 13 colonies that there were no longer subject to the authority of the british crown, right? rep. greene: they were declared -- it was the declaration of independence from the british crown. mr. celli: right. you may recall this from your studies, the declaration of
independence refers to king george, right? rep. greene: is -- i'm sure it may say that somewhere in the history books. i don't have the history books in front of me and i don't know which one you are referring to , but -- mr. celli: i'm referring to the declaration of independence. that is the one that says king george is a tyrant, unfit to be a ruler of a free people. rep. greene: are you quoting the declaration? mr. celli: yes. that's right, right? rep. greene: if you are quoting it. mr. celli: would you agree that when a government acts tyrannical he then it is unfit to be the ruler of a free people? rep. greene: we are typically against tyrannical governments, yes. mr. celli: and the people who wrote the declaration of independence, they were working with other people in the colonies to express their
independence from britain, right? rep. greene: i wasn't alive back then, but there is the history. i am not a history expert. mr. celli: you have heard of the american revolution haven't you? rep. greene: of course i have. mr. celli: the american revolution a violent rebellion against british rule in the colonies? rep. greene: yes. mr. celli: and they were trying to overthrow the government in britain, right? rep. greene: america was trying to start our own government. mr. celli: right, and to do that they had to get rid of the british colonial officials here in america and throw them out? rep. greene: they -- yes. mr. celli: and they viewed the british officials here and the crown in britain as a to radical government, right? -- tyrannical government, right? rep. greene: yes. mr. celli: that was an insurrection, wouldn't you agree? the american revolution was an insurrection against the government? rep. greene: i don't know where it says that. mr. celli: i'm asking you
whether or not you agree that the american revolution was an insurrection against the british government? rep. greene: the american revolution as part of our history, where we separated from the crown and started our own government here. mr. celli: right. and the separation was brought about by violence, right? rep. greene: there was a revolutionary war, yes. mr. celli: and the violence -- the colonists were justified in using violence to get rid of the tyrannical government of britain, their officials in america, right? rep. greene: is that your opinion? mr. celli: i'm asking you. rep. greene: it was a revolutionary war, it was violent. mr. celli: you have talked publicly about the declaration of independence, calling for the overthrow of tyrannical governments, right? that is something you have discussed. rep. greene: are you referencing something i have said somewhere? mr. celli: do you recall talking
about that topic? rep. greene: i have talked about the declaration of independence, but i don't know what your -- what occasion you are referring to. mr. celli: well, one of the occasions where you talked about the declaration of independence was in connection with january 6, right? rep. greene: i don't know. mr. celli: ok. let's go to 15, please. >> which one is this? mr. celli: p15.
ms. greene, i'm going to play a short clip and ask if that is you speaking on the video, ok? >> what is the date on this? i can't read it from here. do we know? >> november 26, 2021. mr. celli: if you can play this. rep. greene: a riot at the capital and if you think about what our declaration of independence says, it says to overthrow tyrants. mr. celli: that is your statement, right? rep. greene: i don't believe it was finished, but that was me. i don't recall -- i don't know what the rest of what i was saying, because it was cut off. mr. celli: but in that statement we look at you were comparing
the overthrow of the british crown in america in 1776 to january 6? rep. greene: i don't know what my statement was because it was cut off. mr. celli: ok. you talked about the need for people to have guns in order to secure their rights against the tyrannical government, right? rep. greene: that is -- yes, we have a second movement for a -- amendment for a good reason. mr. celli: and the good reason is, in case they need to overthrew their government they can use their guns to do that? rep. greene: we have a -- well, you are twisting things around. could you rephrase your question, please? mr. celli: i'm reacting to your answer. you said we have a second moment, that is a good thing. and i said, your reason is so that people can overthrew their government by violent means with guns? rep. greene: that is not the exact purpose. we defend ourselves. if you are being attacked, you know, a gun is a tool to defend
yourself. mr. celli: right. but one of the things he could be used for -- strike that. let's go to the -- to six. i'm going to play a video here and ask a couple of questions about it. first, let me ask you, do you recall giving an interview as reflected on px6, in october 2020, just about a week before the election on something called the relic hunter firearms shop? rep. greene: i vaguely remember. mr. celli: that is you on the left, and the gentleman on the right is the owner of the shop, am i right about that? rep. greene: no. mr. celli: who is that? rep. greene: mr. door. mr. celli: who is mr. door?
rep. greene: he is a gun rights activist, and just someone i know. mr. celli: got it. and it is backwards because of the video, but his teacher says -- what does it say? i am 1776% sure that no one is taking my guns. do you agree that that is what it says? rep. greene: yes. mr. celli: ok, so -- play the video. >> i object to playing this. i have watched this. right in the middle there is a section cut off, and right in the middle. mr. celli: well, let's see. >> it has been edited, and who is the source of this? mr. celli: the source of it is marjorie taylor greene, it is earned with the price of blood. >> who is the source of the video?
mr. celli: it was on youtube. youtube. >> youtube. [laughter] >> ok. well, i know you will need to see it. we will see it. obviously that is difficult to cross-examine a video, but it is certainly possible. mr. celli: i'm going to ask a lot of questions about it. >> as best she can. go ahead. rep. greene: but here is the deal -- >> we are picking up in the middle of it, is that correct? mr. celli: it is one minute nine seconds, your honor. >> what i'm asking is -- never mind. it looked like we were halfway into the video. you're playing the whole thing? mr. celli: can we go back to the very beginning? >> let's start it over, please.
-- we cannot be too complacent or too worried anymore. there is no more excuses. this is it. november 3 freedom is on the ballot. you have a choice of voting for freedom by voting for donald j. trump for president for four more years, voting republican straight down your ballot, or you are going to vote for socialism and completely end america as we know it. this is no joke. they do not want you to be able to defend yourself, because if you can defend yourself, guess what? you can stop a tyrannical government, however if they take away your guns, then not only can you never stop a tyrannical government, you can never even defend yourself as someone is breaking in your home. that is the reality. this is where we are today, in 2020. ♪ judge beaudrot: ok. let me -- it started off with a cut sentence when she said "but," ok? so whatever she said before is
wiped out, then he saw three times when it was cut. mr. celli: yes. >> and, mother jones, i'm sorry, i'm not going to rely upon them to put together an accurate depiction. mr. celli: we can proceed with questioning, and the witness can respond. this is a statement she made, and she can respond. judge beaudrot: overruled. mr. celli: representative greene, this is a statement you made in an interview with mr. door in october 2020, right? rep. greene: that is a very partial, cut off, and pasted statement. that is me speaking, but my sentences are cut off, my phone message is not there. mr. celli: and in that statement, what you say is, if you can defend yourself, you can stop by tyrannical government. however, if they take away your guns, you can never stop the tyrannical government, right? rep. greene: correct. mr. celli: and you believe that? rep. greene: absolutely. mr. celli: ok. in fact, what was done in 1776
was to stop a tyrannical government with guns. fair? rep. greene: sure, yeah. mr. celli: and that was to use violence against a tyrannical government, is that clear? rep. greene: no, they were trying to get rid of a triumph -- eight heretical government. there was a big process, and big buildup for the revolutionary war. the whole purpose was not to use guns for violence. that is the narrative you are trying to push here. mr. celli: what did you mean when you said that once you lose your freedom it has to be earned with the price of blood? rep. greene: well, i have always said i am against violence, and i have always said i never want to see a war in this country, never.
i have said that over and over again in many speeches. the reason why i say that is because i don't want to see war on american soil. i have three children who are young adults, and i never want to see my children fighting a war or earning back our freedoms. that is what i'm talking about. mr. celli: earned with the price of blood is a reference to violence, isn't it? rep. greene: the price of blood is the unfortunate and tragic cost of war, and that is what happened in the revolutionary war. and that is what i'm talking about. mr. celli: and you know that the term 1776 is actually a term that is sometimes used in politics today? rep. greene: i don't know if you have noticed our state seal here in georgia, i know you are not from georgia, but as you can see we enjoy our history and we are
proud of our freedoms. 1776 is on our state seal. mr. celli: great. and it is also a term used in political discourse in america today? rep. greene: i don't use it as a term of violence. mr. celli: but you use it as a term, right? rep. greene: i have used it as a term, but i have not used as a term of violence. mr. celli: we are not up to that yet. you have to start by answering my questions, ok? rep. greene: sure. mr. celli: you acknowledge that 1776 1776 is a term used in political discourse today, right? rep. greene: yes. mr. celli: and, in fact one of the examples of 1776 being used in discourse is the t-shirt that mr. door was wearing, right? rep. greene: we saw 1776 backwards on his t-shirt in that video, yes. mr. celli: and you understood that t-shirt to mean that people need to possess firearms in order to oppose a tyrannical government? rep. greene: i don't recall even -- i don't remember seeing his
t-shirt that day when i saw him. the only time i'm paying attention to it is now, because you are drawing. mr. celli: you understand what that t-shirt is conveying is a political message, is that people need to possess firearms in order to oppose a toronto government? -- a tyrannical government. rep. greene: i don't necessarily understand what you are trying to say. mr. celli: i'm asking whether or not you have that understanding or not. rep. greene: i think you are more trying to push a narrative and push words in my mouth and i don't agree with what you are saying necessarily. mr. celli: as you sit here today, representative greene, you know that that term, 1776, has been used in connection with the events of january 6, 2001? rep. greene: i am -- i guess so. i don't know. mr. celli: you yourself have used the term 1776 to describe the events of january 6, 2021.
rep. greene: i don't recall, but if you say. mr. celli: let's go to px27, please. >> this video, your honor, has been admitted into evidence. [video] rep. greene: it wasn't planned, but president trump knows how much i have supported him. he knows how much i support our district, george's 14th district. i was happy to go up there and encourage our voters to get out and vote. we cannot allow our two
republican senators lose their seats to two radical socialist democrats, so i was excited to get up there, and also cheer on senator kelly loeffler for announcing last night she will be objecting to this fraudulent, stolen election tomorrow, january 6. i am very excited that both of us women presenting georgia will be fighting for president and fighting for the integrity of our elections tomorrow. >> what is your plan tomorrow? how do you plan to handle what could possibly go down in this session of congress tomorrow? what are you prepared for? rep. greene: i will echo the words of many of my colleagues as we were just meeting in our gop conference meeting. this is our 1776 moment. mr. celli: that is your statement on january 5, 2021, correct? rep. greene: i don't know the day. again, i don't recall, but now that i have seen it, what was the date of the video? mr. celli: january 5, 2021. you don't have to take my word
for it. you can play back and you will see that you are talking about, tomorrow is the sixth. rep. greene: ok, yes. mr. celli: this is two days after -- [indiscernible] correct? rep. greene: yes. mr. celli: used the term 1776 in response to a question from the broadcaster, right? rep. greene: speaking about objecting. mr. celli: well, he ask you, what is your plan? what are you prepared to have go down tomorrow on january 6? and your response was, tomorrow is our 1776 moment, right? rep. greene: i'm talking about the courage to object. mr. celli: and he said you were echoing the words of your republican colleagues.
was the term 1776 used by your republican colleagues? rep. greene: i don't recall. that was the video, but i don't recall. mr. celli: in fact, representative boebert used the term 1776 to describe the events of january 6, hasn't she? rep. greene: i don't recall. i have no idea. mr. celli: let's go to px9e, please. judge beaudrot: 90? mr. celli: 9e, please. do you recall seeing a tweet from representative boebert from colorado at 8:30 in the morning on january 6, 2001, "today is 1776?" rep. greene: i don't remember seeing this. i see it now. mr. celli: do you have any doubts representative boebert used the term 1776 to describe the events of january 6? rep. greene: i don't know. mr. celli: let's go back to px27, please.
that was an interview you gave to newsmax, right? rep. greene: that is what it set on the screen, newsmax. mr. celli: you are not denying that? rep. greene: i don't even remember the interview until we have seen it. mr. celli: and in that interview was posted that day on your facebook page. rep. greene: i don't remember. mr. celli: we have that. we will come back to that. now, when you said "this is our 1776 moment," you knew that some of the people who felt that donald trump was the rightful winner of the 2020 election used that term to refer to the possibility of violence on january 6, 2021? rep. greene: no, i never heard
anyone talking about violence for january 6. absolutely not. mr. celli: you never heard about anyone using the term 1776 to refer to -- rep. greene: i would never -- mr. celli: please wait for me to ask the question, representative. please do not copy off. you have never heard the term 1776 as a code word for violence to occur on january 6, 2021? rep. greene: no, absolutely not. mr. celli: are you familiar with a group called the proud boys? rep. greene: i have heard of them. mr. celli: and you know that the proud boys developed, had a written plan for conduct on january 6, 2021, correct? rep. greene: no, i did not know that. mr. celli: the proud boys are an extremist, violent group, you would agree with that? rep. greene: i don't know much
about the proud boys. mr. celli: you have never heard that they are a violent, extremist group? rep. greene: i have heard about them, i don't know what they do. i don't know much about the proud boys. mr. celli: you haven't heard that the written plans attributed to the proud boys for january 6 was called "1776 returns?" rep. greene: no, i have no idea about anything about that. mr. celli: let's pull up px9. this is an article that appeared in the new york times entitled "document shows plan to storm government buildings.
the proud boys having a written plan to storm government buildings? rep. greene: no. i do not recall that. >> you never heard that was called 1776? rep. greene: no, i have never heard of it. are you aware it was a plan of people opposed to infiltrate and occupy these buildings? rep. greene: no. never. >> are you aware that 1776 was a term the people were using to
>> that is not true. avoid this information, division. we are here to continue pressing forward. congresswoman marjorie greene, my favorite. she is coming in. she will be whatever. >> you can ce describes you, right? rep. greene: that is what he said. >> you have any explanation as to why he would feel that way? rep. greene: maybe he likes the work i do. i only met him a couple of times. >> you described him as a friend. rep. greene: those are his words. >> is he lying? rep. greene: i would not call
him a friend. i do not know him. i only met him a couple of times. >> if he says he is a friends of yours, he is lying. rep. greene: sometimes people say things on videos for the followers or may be, i don't know, that is what he said. i do not know him, i only met him a couple of times. >> he was very active on twitter postelection, is that not right? rep. greene: i do not know, i do not follow his account. >> let's go to -- the time when you were elected, one of the things you were reviewing was organizing people in congress to file objections, right? rep. greene: yes, working very hard.
making that suite. that is what this piece of paper says. >> you have any doubt that a tweet from your account was issued on december 30 2020 the said, we are on a help. mitch mcconnell and nancy pelosi are working together -- rep. greene: i do not recall that tweet. >> is it from your account? >> i do not know. >> do you remember tweeting about a deal between mitch mcconnell and nancy pelosi so as to block the objections of the electoral college? >> i cannot remember. that was 16 months or so. >> that would be pretty important.
rep. greene: it would have been. we were still able to object, or lease we tried. >> at this point in december 2020, your focus was on objecting the electoral college count. rep. greene: yes, finding evidence of voter fraud and to object. >> if there had been rumors of the rule change, that would be something that would be important for you to tweet out and talk about? rep. greene: possibly. i do not remember this tweet. you know that alexander has responded to the tweet that you sent out, right? rep. greene: i do not know. i have no idea who retweets and response. that is not something i spent much time at all looking at. >> you spend some time though
right? who response your tweets? rep. greene: occasionally i have time. i do not know what he has responded, tweeted or retweeted. >> the reason that you look at responses to your tweets is that you want to see how what you said is being taken on board, is that fair rep. greene: i do not look at comments because they are filled with bots and hateful people and i do not like to read things like that. i do not read many comments, hardly ever. >> you read his response to your tweet on december 30. if they do this, everyone can guess what me and 500,000 people would do to that building, 1776 is always an option. you read that, did you not? rep. greene: if this is his
twitter, i see on the screen, i have no idea. those are his words. i have no idea. >> as you sit here today, you understand that mr. alexander was referring to was not objections on the floor of congress? rep. greene: i do not know what he is referring to. >> you knew back then what he was responding to your tweet was to say, if they make a rules change and congresswoman greene cannot object, we are going to go into the capital into violence. rep. greene: i have no idea. i do not know anything about this. that -- >> that term was the way alexander was referring to his experience. rep. greene: i have no idea. i do not know anything about this. i have never seen it before.
>> between january 3 and january 6, you viewed the electoral college certification as a blow to freedom, is a fair? rep. greene: i viewed it as we needed to object because there was so much evidence in so many people have signed their names, thousands of people saying they witnessed voter fraud and that meant something to me because i care about the people and votes and i care about our election. >> my question is whether you viewed it as a blow to freedom if the certification were completed. rep. greene: i do not agree with your wording. >> once freedom is gone, it does not come back by itself. rep. greene: i do not agree with your wording. >> the only way to get freedom
back is the price of blood, those are your words. rep. greene: you are twisting my words and creating a narrative that you want to make. that is not my narrative. that is not what i meant. >> that is what you said and that is what you meant, right? rep. greene: i'm sorry. >> when you did the interview and he said the only way to get freedom is back is when it is earned with blood, that is what you meant? rep. greene: you showed a video that is chopped up, that does not show even my full sentences so no, i do not agree with what you're saying. >> do have any explanation representative greene for wyatt
is on january 5, the day before january 6, you describe january 6 as our 1776 moment? rep. greene: i do not remember. this is the first time i have seen this interview in a long time. i do not remember. >> prior to january 6, you spoke publicly on your facebook page of the transfer of power that would occur on january 6. do you recall? rep. greene: i do not recall. >> he said on your video that the peaceful transfer of power should not be allowed. rep. greene: i do not recall. i do not recall. >> let's go to the video.
facebook page. this is something that was captured by something -- somebody else and posted on another page. >> where does it say it is from her page? >> it does. >> has been admitted. >> where is the date? >> we will ask her. >> this is an important time in our history. we cannot allow this to be gone. you cannot allow it to just transfer power peacefully like joe biden wants and allow him to be our president. he did not win this election. it is being stolen and the
evidence is there. >> that is you, right? rep. greene: yes. that is me. >> when you say, we cannot just let it go, we did. that phrase is to have joe biden declared the winner of the presidential election. rep. greene: you are showing the video where it does not give us any reference before or afterwards. it is not really my complete of what i was saying. >> your answer is you do not have a timeframe? rep. greene: i do not. you're watching a partial video and a partial statement of clearly an interview i was doing. i do not know what day it was on and it is deafly off someone else's twitter or facebook. i cannot see it from here.
>> that is you saying you cannot allow the peaceful transfer of power and allow us to become president because he did not win this election, that is you? rep. greene: that is a partial statement. >> did we see the whole thing? >> we can play the rest of it. >> let's see the whole thing. i want to be sure she has an opportunity to see the difference. >> let's go back to the beginning and play it through. >> i agree. let's do that. [video] rep. greene: this is an important time in our history. we cannot allow this to be gone, just to let it go. you cannot allow it to just
transfer power, peacefully like joe biden wants and allow him to become our president because he did not win this election. it is being stolen and the evidence is there. the mainstream media talked about pollution, conspiracy, theories and lies. it demanded an investigation nonstop into russian collusion. this is an important time in our history. >> is that where it ends? >> let's show the witness pf 12. >> this video that we just saw, that is video that you made
about objecting to the electoral college in favor of joe biden, right? rep. greene: do not know. i do not see a date. it is not from my specific facebook page. >> where is this from? >> same video. it was taken off facebook page. let's ask. >> where did you get it? it is off the facebook of a republican? a secondary source that was copied? >> yes. >> you want to play it? >> one second. this one is also from there.
[video] rep. greene: america reelected donald trump, you cannot allow it to transfer power peacefully like joe biden wants and allow him to become president because he did not win this election. it is being stolen in the evidence is there. there is a large group of us organizing an effort to object to the electoral college votes for joe biden in key states where there is real evidence that this election has been stolen. i am very convicted in what we will be doing on january 6 and it is historic. i feel it is very important. on january 6, if you are able, there will be possibly a million or more people coming to washington to be there for this historic event. it is critical for everyone to show up and showed the nation who we are. we aren't the people that are
not going to go quietly into the night. >> now that you have seen that clip, do you agree that this is a video that you created in anticipation of objecting the electrode -- electoral college boat? rep. greene: this video looks to be chopped up and sliced, that video? that is not my full video. >> listen to my question. the words that are shown that you are speaking on the screen, those are things you were talking about in anticipation of objecting to the electoral college on the floor of congress? rep. greene: the only thing i was working on was objecting -- that is a cut and spliced video. >> when you said we are organizing an effort to object electoral college votes on the video, the "we" were members of
congress? rep. greene: they are the only ones who can object, that is part of our ability. that is what we are allowed to do, lawfully. >> making objections, that is in fact my numbers of comp -- members of congress, that is part of the lawful transfer of power, right? rep. greene: it is part of the process. democrats sit with the past members, they objected. there was a lot of planning. put a lot of planning and work into it. as you can see, we talked about it. >> when you were talking about, we cannot allow that to happen, cannot just let it go, transfer power peacefully like joe biden wants, allow him to become president because he did not win , you were not talking about
objections on the floor of congress, or you? rep. greene: i believe what i was referencing was we cannot allow the electoral count to happen without objecting. i felt it was our responsibility to object on behalf of the large amount of voter fraud in people who felt like there was problems in the elections. >> your testifying under oath that that is what you meant when you said you cannot allow it to transfer power peacefully like joe biden wants, that was the reference? rep. greene: without objecting. >> of course, you do not say anything in that part of the video about objections on the floor of congress? would you like to see it again? rep. greene: i believe the video i sent objecting. >> you said you cannot allow the peaceful transfer of power like joe biden wants because he did
not win the election. you did not say anything in that sentence about objections on the floor of congress? rep. greene: we just saw two videos that are cut and clipped. my sentences are not even completed. the first video started with me saying and, meaning it was starting into partially something that i was already saying. from the video and my recollection of watching it just then, it was purely talking about just objecting. >> one of the things you say is that you call on people to come to washington on january 6, correct? rep. greene: do not deny -- i do not remember every word that we just watched. >> let's look at it again. i think that is pf 12. [video]
rep. greene: america reelected donald trump for four more years. you cannot allow it to dust -- just transfer power peacefully like joe biden wants and allow him to become president because he did not win this election. it is being stolen and the evidence is there. there is a large group of us organizing an effort to object to the votes for joe biden in key states where there is real evidence that this election has been stolen. i am very convicted and what we will be doing on january 6 and it is historic and is very important on january 6, if you're able, there will be possibly a million or more people coming to washington to be there for this historic event. it is critical for everyone to show up and show -- >> stop. in that segment you're asking people to come to washington on january 6?
rep. greene: in this video which i sought jump three times which means it has been cut and splice, i did talk about people coming there to support our objection peacefully, support our objection and support president trump. >> how did you know there might be a million or more people coming? did you just make that up? rep. greene: i believe those were the numbers being talked about the time. >> by? rep. greene: the media, different sources. i have no idea, i think i saw it on the news. >> he said it is critical for everyone to show up, right? rep. greene: yes, peacefully supporting our objections. that is the only thing i was interested in doing. >> the last thing you say is, we are people not going to go quietly into the night, do you recall that part? rep. greene: yes.
>> that phrase, we are not the people to go quietly into the night, that is not something you came up with on your own? rep. greene: i have no idea what you mean. >> that something that you borrowed from a movie script? rep. greene: i have no idea what you're talking about. >> you borrowed that line from "independence day," right? rep. greene: no. [laughter] >> let's watch. [background noises] >> one second. you have seen the movie?
rep. greene: i've seen it before. [laughter] it is probably a great movie. i have not watch movies in a long time. from what i remember it is great. >> this is the one about aliens coming to the world and there is a big battle on july 4 period rep. greene: you are giving us quite the entertainment today. thank you. >> there was a scene in that movie or the then-president addresses the fighter pilots about to go into battle against the aliens. do you remember that scene? rep. greene: no. but i'm sure you will show us. [laughter] >> [indistinct chatter] [video] >> we are fighting for our right to live. to exist. should we wind the day, the
fourth of july will no longer be known as an american holiday, but as the date when the world declared in one voice, we will not go quietly into the night, we will not vanish without a fight. we will live on, we will survive. today we celebrate our independence day. ♪ [laughter] >> great scene. rep. greene: yes, there was a great scene. [laughter] >> the phrase that the actor uses is "we will not go quietly into the night." you heard that? rep. greene: i heard it just now. >> that is the exact phrase used in the video we saw. we aren't the people who will go quietly into the night. rep. greene: i don't view
courtrooms and politics as hollywood like you do. i do not recall inspiration from this hollywood movie. >> you are not communicating and referencing that film about january six being a new kind of independence day. rep. greene: i was talking about is objecting in standing up for our votes. >> independence day is july 4, right? rep. greene: yes. >> it is july 4 of 1776? rep. greene: that is right. >> are we on schedule? >> well -- >> i have a short piece left. rep. greene: i do not need a break. >> let's keep going.
>> if we are talking 30 minutes or two hours? >> could you advocate president trump as martial law is or way to remain in power? rep. greene: i do not recall. >> so you are not denying, aegis do not remember? rep. greene: i do not remember. >> storming the capital -- rep. greene: i was very unhappy about it. >> [indiscernible] anthony? rep. greene: you brought him up earlier. >> he is someone you know and spent time with? >> not much time. >> he is a friend of yours? rep. greene: someone i know. >> you consider him a friend?
>> some -- iran someone -- rep. greene: so when hardly talk to but someone i know. >> he refers to you as one of his closest friends, you heard that? rep. greene: i have not. >> you refer to him as amazing, right? rep. greene: he does a lot of great work showing the illegal invasion happening constantly at our southern border. i think that is amazing. >> you are aware of entering the capital on january 6? rep. greene: i heard that sometime after. >> he saw a picture of him in the middle of the crowd on the rotunda? rep. greene: no, i have not seen the picture. >> let's have a look, please.
[background noises] >> is that man in the red circle on the left, is not him? rep. greene: i do not know. i cannot tell. if i told you it was reported that was him and he acknowledged that publicly, with the help you discern? rep. greene: i do not buy a whole lot of what you say. if that is what you're trying to say now -- rep. greene: >> -- if it is
>> [indiscernible] i think we established that? we will move on. have you spoken to him since then? rep. greene: i do not recall, no. >> communicated in any way, text, email? did you communicate to him prior to january 6 about plans for a demonstration? rep. greene: no, i did not. did he have press credentials? there were a lot of press in there and that is the job he does with media that he works with. i have no idea -- i have no clue about it. >> were you aware he would be
there as a member of the press present? rep. greene: i was nowhere. >> did he communicate with any member of your staff, text, email, telephone about the fact that he would be coming to washington? rep. greene: not to my knowledge, no. >> [indiscernible] discuss the idea that january 6 was part of the demonstration would be flooded by people? rep. greene: no. one thing i was working on objecting and had no expectation on anything happening on generally six. >> -- on january 6? >> but you knew there would be something happening? rep. greene: i knew there was a peaceful march planned. >> on january 6, were you in
contact with anyone who was involved in what you described as a peaceful march that occurred that day? rep. greene: no. >> was anyone from your staff in touch by cell phone, text, email with anyone who was involved in these demonstrations? rep. greene: not to my knowledge. >> at any time on january 6, would you disclose to anyone outside the capital, your location in the capital during those events? rep. greene: i texted my family and told him i was safe. >> anyone other than family? rep. greene: no. >> went on generate sixth did
you first learned that people were entering the capital unlawfully that they? -- that day? rep. greene: when we were in-house chamber, we were starting the electoral count. we went on lockdown. that is when i first heard. i was shocked. >> you know what time of day that was? rep. greene: i do not know the exact time. >> when you went on lockdown, tell us what that meant? rep. greene: they had to lock all the doors in the house chamber. they told us it was on lockdown and that we could choose to leave or stay inside and it would be safer to stay inside. i stayed inside. >> when you stay -- say you state inside, where did you stay? rep. greene: inside the house chamber. >> during that time when you were in lockdown on the house
floor, you texted your family? rep. greene: not at that time. >> when did that happen? >> -- rep. greene: sometime later after we were evacuated. >> where were you evacuated? rep. greene: at an undisclosed location. >> when you were in the other location, that was a secure location? rep. greene: yes. >> did you have any communication with phone, text, some other way with anybody who was outside the room, the secure location other than family? rep. greene: not that i recall. no. >> when you were notified that people had entered the capital illegally, did you understand at that point that there had been violence at the capital? rep. greene: i only knew what i was told.
i heard a gunshot, we all heard it. we were so confused, we thought antifa was breaking in because those were the rights that had gone on and on day in and day out. horrible rights all over the country. that was the only thing that made sense to most of us. >> what do you mean by blm? rep. greene: writers. >> it -- rioters. >> what do you mean is that an acronym? rep. greene: black lives matter. >> -- subject to arrest and those events? rep. greene: i do not know. i know they were arrested all over the country much through 2020 and over 95% of them had their charges dropped unlike
generally sick -- unlike january 6 rioters, some are still in jail. >> we do not need a break, do we? >> five minutes. do we want a five minute break? stepping out may be easier. thank you. >> thank you for your patience. the previous discussion -- let me recall, you remember that? rep. greene: the one we already watched? >> i asked you if you recall if you posted that clip on your facebook page? rep. greene: i do not recall
what was posted on my facebook page. i do not remember all my posts. >> let's find what this is. >> i will show you this. this is a live version of your facebook page. it is there today. what we have is the clip from the previous testimony. i will play that for you to see if you will acknowledge that that clip is now available on your facebook page. [video] it was not planned but president trump knows how much i support him and support our district. i was happy to go out there and
encourage our voters to get out and vote. we cannot reply on art to republican senators losing their seats to to two radical socialist democrats. cheer on senator loeffler for announcing last night that she will object to this stolen elect -- stolen objection tomorrow. -- stolen election tomorrow. georgians will be fighting for president trump and the elections tomorrow. >> what is your plan tomorrow, how do you plan to handle what could go down as this joint selection of congress, what are you prepared for? rep. greene: i will echo the words of many of my colleagues as we were meeting this morning, this is our 1776 moment. >> that is up on your facebook
page. rep. greene: if that is there, then yes it is on there. >> that was a post from january 5? rep. greene: i did not post it but if that is when it was posted and that is when it was posted. >> things posted on your facebook page are posted with your authorization? rep. greene: i do not view things that are posted before they are posted. >> that was not my question. my question was if they are posted, that is something you authorize? rep. greene: i think if i am authorizing i would view it in advance. >> no one put that up on your facebook page without authorization from you in some sense? rep. greene: i do not recall authorizing. as a member of congress, we have staff and people who post interviews and so forth on our social media for us. >> if we could make it larger,
don't recall sa ng there should be martial law in the united states, prior to the election of president biden? >> i represent the president of the niceties, and that is privileged. prior to the navigation of joe biden, was ms. green ever advocating for martial law >> executive privilege, is that eight-member?
that is not a proper objection. >> what was the question? >> it was weather prior to the eggnog ration -- inauguration, miss greene, if you advocated for martial law from chief of staff? >> answer the question. rep. greene: i do not recall. >> did you ever advocate for martial law prior? from any member that was part of the trump administration? rep. greene: i do not recall. >> do you remember any advocating to stop the peaceful transfer of power? rep. greene: i do not remember. >> do you recall the people who were arrested during the january
>> i placed in front you what we marked as a story that appeared in the "washington post," january 5, did you read that story? rep. greene: i don't think i have read this one. >> he recall hearing that prior to january 6, the "washing post ," was reporting that there were concerns of violence in washington? rep. greene: i had not heard that. i heard no threats of violence from that day. >> we can also look at the next one.
[background noises] >> a place before you january 5, 2021 article entitled "violent threats ahead of the process. nbc news, do you recall reading that nbc was recording violent threats expected. rep. greene: we were busy preparing to object on the sixth. i don't recall that news report. mr. celli: have you read this
news report before? rep. greene: not until you placed it in my hand. mr. celli: you probably didn't have much time to read it. rep. greene: no. mr. celli: let me consult for one minute. rep. green: i don't recall. cracks one was talking about a sea of, flooding the capital, in connection with on the law. rep. green: i don't know. i don't know what you are referring to. cracks facebook never reported you taking it off your facebook page. >> i don't recall. cracks do you want to recall --
[indiscernible] >> yes. >> about what time did that occur? rep. green: i believe it was about 2:30 in the afternoon. >> where were you. >> i was inside the house chambers that we had done on lockdown. after i learned there were violence outside the capitol and someone had been shot. we were only told there were people inside the capital and i got concerned. at that time, i was confused. i was shocked. i had never been in anything violent before it, any kind of situation like that. i was scared. i went inside the cloakroom into one of the places you can go to
make a phone call. telling people to be peaceful, not to be violent. getting out a message and tweeted that video from the republican cloakroom. >> did you know at that time who was attacking the capitol? rep. greene: no, people were saying different things. we mostly thought it was antifa dressed up as trump supporters. that is the first thing we were told. we had no idea. i was in the cloakroom, could not see the news. i just knew we were on lockdown. by that point they said we could not leave. you have to stay in here. >> i will show you what is marked as r1. i think we just had the video on electronically. [indiscernible]
>> is this your tweet? is this your pay? rep. greene: yes. >> did you say in this tweet, [indiscernible] did you say be peaceful, obey the law, this is not a time for violence, this is a time to support pres. trump and election integrity, god bless. rep. greene: yes. >> would you show the video please? r1? >> [indiscernible] >> waita psych. -- wait a sec.
>> i think this is it. could we take a recess so we can send it up? >> we will take five minutes. people aren't going to leave and come back in five minutes. it is going to take a minute to set it up. sorry. [indiscernible] [indiscernible conversations] rep. greene: -- president trump that are here in washington dc today to support your president. >> start over again. rep. greene: i have a message to you all. just letting you know for all the great people in this wonderful america who support president trump that arguing
-- the are here in washington, d.c. today, today is a time to support your president. and just know that we are fighting for you here in the capitol and in congress, fighting for your vote and fighting for president trump. so i urge you to remain calm. i urge you to have a peaceful protest. make sure that everyone is safe and protected and demonstrating in a peaceful manner. this is not a time for violence. this is a time to support president trump, support our election integrity and support this important process that we are going through in congress, where we are allowed to object. this is very important. so, i urge you to stay calm. be the great american people that i know you are and just know that we are in here fighting for you. be careful. be safe and be smart and obey the law.
thank you very much. mr. bopp: was that you? rep. greene: yes. mr. bopp: as i look at your face and i hear your voice, i think you are scared. mr. celli: objection. this is not for mr. bopp to testify about his feelings. mr. bopp: what were your feelings? rep. greene: i was scared, very scared. i was concerned. i was shocked. absolutely shocked. every time i said we are going to fight, it was all about objecting. to me, that was the most important process of the day. and i had no idea what was going on, and i just didn't want anyone to get hurt. i didn't want to see anything terrible happen. and it was very upsetting. i was very, very upset, when i made that video.
mr. bopp: [indiscernible] and they showed you multiple tweets and multiple videos. did they show you that video? rep. greene: no. they didn't show that one or all of the other social media post that have been made on my accounts, that i have made, or videos i have made where i have always denounced violence in all the videos and speeches, i have said how upset i was about the right on and how much i didn't january 6 like it and how much i was against it. and even when i went and visited the january 6 pretrial defendants in the d.c. jail, and i went there to see their conditions because we heard horrible things about their treatment. >> mr. -- your honor, i don't know at this rep is relevant to.
i object. judge beaudrot: this is not relevant. >> let me show what has been admitted as r4. this is a transcript of the video that has been admitted into evidence. i want you to turn to page two. did you say these words, "so i urge you to remain calm, i urge you to have a peaceful protest. make sure everyone is safe and protected and let's do this in a peaceful manner.
this is not the time for violence. this is a time to support president trump, support our election integrity, and support our important process that we are going through in congress where we are allowed to object. so this is very important, so i urge you to stay calm. be the great american people that i know you are and just know that we are in here fighting for you. so, god bless. be careful. be safe and be smart and obey the law." is that you? rep. greene: yes. mr. bopp: i think there is a subsequent tweet you did referring to the violence that occurred on january 6. that is p-1-p.
i am actually not certain whether that has been admitted or not admitted. >> p-1-p. mr. bopp: p-1-p. representative greene, did you tweet this tweet? rep. greene: i don't remember, but i see it is my mtgreene twitter account. mr. bopp: so it went out on your twitter account, but you don't know if you did it or a member of your staff or another person?
rep. greene: i can't recall exactly. but i think i tweeted this one. mr. bopp: this says, and the date is january 12, correct? rep. greene: yes. mr. bopp: this tweet says i currently stand with representative mo brooks and everything in his statement. which is linked to later on. the unhinged left is out of control and their disgusting witchhunt is full of hypocrisy. democrats are on record for supporting violence all year. we did not plan, because, and denounce, and that is capital letters, denounce the january 6 attack. i defend my honor and reputation.
was that the message sent out on your twitter account? rep. greene: yes. it is the same message i have sent over and over again about january 6. mr. bopp: fbi director christopher wray testified before congress soon after the attack, it was before the senate on march 2, 2021. and this has been admitted into evidence. r5. let me show you this. [indiscernible] >> i don't believe this is been admitted. >> are you moving to admit it? >> no objection.
>> thank you. >> when you testified before congress on march 2, you are a member of congress? rep. greene: yes. >> and you said i was appalled, like you, at the violence and destruction that we saw that day, referring to january 6? rep. greene: yes. mr. bopp: i was appalled that you, is testifying before congress, looking at members of congress, our country's elected leaders, were victimized right there, in these very halls. were you a victim of the attack? rep. greene: yes, i was. i was in the house chamber when it happened. i had to be evacuated to safety. we were held for hours. in a secret location, protected by capitol police, military members, for hours, until they
put the capitol. yes, i was a victim of the riot that day. mr. bopp: no further questions. mr. celli: i believe the testimony has opened the door about the issue of text messages representative greene sent on january 6 during the insurrection. we would call for their immediate production and a moment to have a look at them so we can examine her own them. judge charles beaudrot i thought the testimony was that she didn't send any other messages? mr. celli: no, she sent messages to members of her family. mr. bopp: those were text messages, those were not tweets. we did not talk about any text messages. that was the controversy over the text messages, which we have not referred to. mr. celli: representative greene referred to it when i asked her if she was in touch with anybody that day from the floor and she said she texted her family.
mr. bopp: you can't open the door. judge beaudrot: do you have any questions other than this? mr. celli: i am going to preserve that position. judge beaudrot: i understand. we are going to take a break. it has been chaotic the last few minutes. >> representative greene, you mentioned a number of statements you made after january 6 when you talked about being upset over the fact there was violence, right? rep. greene: yes. mr. celli: can you point to one press release, tweet or comment on facebook prior to january 6 where you used the word peacefully, in terms of urging people to behave peacefully at the demonstrations that were expected to occur? rep. greene: i would have to look all through my social media, but i am sure that it is they are. -- the did is there. i have always denounced
violence. i denounced those antifa/blm riots all over the country over and over, just like i denounced the january 6 riot. over and over. even to the people in jail, i told them it was wrong. i told them in the d.c. jail, i did not like what they did but that i am there because i support their due process rights, which are being violated. mr. celli: can you point to one video prior to january 6 where you urge people to behave peacefully on january 6? one time in public or on video where you said those words? rep. greene: i don't have a computer. i don't have my social media. i didn't remember many of the social media posts you pulled up, and interviews. mr. celli: i was interested that you answered questions about fbi director wray's testimony before congress. do you believe the fbi was
behind the january 6 violence at the capitol? rep. greene: i don't know. i certainly think there is a lot to be investigated. we don't know who ray apps is the scaffolding commander. , governor whitmer's plot certainly leads to questions about what happened on january 6. there is a lot of investigations that need to happen. >> you have referred to january 6 as a insurrection, right? rep. greene: i am not sure. >> nothing further. judge beaudrot: anything else, before we take our break? anything else. >> no, sir. >> do they rest, do you rest? >> we have an issue we wanted to consult on. either we are going to put in a video or move to closing statements. but the video has been admitted it is a timing issue that i want , to talk about. judge beaudrot: so you don't need the witness? she's excused? mr. celli: that is right. judge beaudrot: you are excused. you may step down.
i believe we discussed, we will take a break. mr. celli: we would appreciate a very short break. judge beaudrot: let's take 15 and be back at a quarter till. mr. celli: are we absolutely dedicated to stopping at 4:30? judge beaudrot: i would have to consult with the real powers. [laughter] mr. celli: we are trying to figure out the last piece of our presentation, if we want to close or if we want one more thing. judge beaudrot: i will consult with judge malley and we will respond when we reconvene. >> thank you. >> 15 minutes. [indiscernible conversations] to
consult with the real powers. mr. celli: we are trying to figure out the last piece of our presentation, if we want to close or if we want one more thing. judge beaudrot: conversations] >> two last matters before we rest. we would like the entirety of p1 and p2, the tweets and the lofgren report be admitted, that she offered -- authorized tweets to be issued, we would ask that those be admitted. >> well, there's been a lot.
it made more sense if that happened at the time. just because it's authenticated doesn't mean it's admissible. >> that is why i am asking. what is your position on this? there were a number we went over. i think it was one you requested. >> it was. i have no objection. >> so we are going to take all of it. just make sure got it right, you are looking at basically everything p1? >> and p2 as well. >> that is a different kettle of fish.
what are we talking about? i talk about the whole thing? >> yes. her social media posts. >> i do not object to her social media posts. >> that's all they are. >> [indiscernible] >> it looks like this is -- would like to take a look at it. it looks to me like everything and p2 looks like it is new -- x of cover page. >> we are happy to exclude that. >> picked up from page 22, 120 82 -- which is just the texts and tweets in the enclosures. >> yes, your honor. >> i'm going to admit it unless they reserve.
>> it's authenticated, we have made our individual objections. >> and they are preserved. we are going to preserve the objections. >> before we rest, your honor, we have p 73, which is a video, it is 14 minutes long, your honor. this is the washington post. it shows the events of january 6. >> did i not already admit this? i can watch it. i've already watched a couple times. >> ok. it's only 17 minutes. >> there's a lot of material in the record which is not the subject of this hearing, i don't
know that we can play the video. they will public sources. >> as you wish, your honor. >> anything else? >> no, i rest. >> anything else? >> we rest. >> i will hear closing, [indiscernible] >> thank you. i again want to talk about the law, then i will talk about the other. [indiscernible] we believe are applicable here. the procedure of north carolina state law which permits the
secretary of state to remove someone as a candidate for office if one, they do not qualify as a candidate for office or number two, if they are not eligible to take office. in this case, on january 3, 2023. they have stated the disqualification under section three, that representative greene engaged in insurrection after taking the oath of office on january 3, even though they are not clear, on january 5. section three also provides that quote congress may by a vote of two thirds of each house remove
such disability, in other words remove the disability of not being able to take office by taking the oath. they can do that at any time. you can see the wording of the last sentence. it could've been done last week, it could be done next month, it could be done on january 3, 2023, when representative greene presents herself and before she is sworn in, a statute under section three and she will then be qualified to take office. how in the world we know now
that she will not be qualified on january 3, 2023. when congress ain't time -- at any time, either her in particular or a class of people, there were thousands of individual amnesties granted. and to general amnesties granted by congress. they can do that at a time. it is impossible for this court to know at this time that she is not eligible to take office because of that contingency. it can be exercised by congress ain't time -- at any time up until january 3. she cannot be viewed as disqualified today, it cannot be determined she is ineligible for
office on january 3, 2023. that should end it. >> second, this is already happened. amnesty has already been granted. the other argument is the 1872 amnesty act relieve the disability under section three two all persons whomsoever. representative greene is an all person whomsoever. it relieved the political disability that section three entitles, it is the past participle meaning that granted by section three is an adjective
regarding what political disability we were talking about. is that modifier of political disability, they could beat you are a felon, you lost your civil rights and we are giving you amnesty from the political disability that you cannot take office as a convicted felon. the only way to know what political disability as we are talking to is the past participle imposed by section three. we also know that section three was both retrospective, it affected anyone in the past that had engaged in insurrection or rebellion after taking the oath, and disqualified them from office. it also had a prospect of set
up, why would we need it. what would be the basis to apply this to representative greene? we know it has both perspective and retrospective. in the amnesty act of 1872, georgia removed the political disability under section three was removed. in the district court in north carolina agreed with the analysis. the district court here in atlanta did not. that gives me the tiebreaker. we also know the 1872 amnesty
act was adopted, that they did intend to be both retrospective and prospective because of the wording of the 1898 amnesty act. the 1898 amnesty act answered the phrase disabilities imposed by the third section of the 14th amendment. concern the words hereto for imperfect. that is not in the 72 version. congress knew very well how to do a retrospective amnesty if they chose to do it. because in 1889, that is exactly what they did, they retrospective granted amnesty
based on the world hereto far -- hereto for, in accordance with the english language in the terms of construction, [indiscernible] in comports with the understanding of section three that the political disability for both retrospective and prospective in 1872 the wording of the amendment encompassed both the 1898 wording only referred to retrospective. we heard some interesting things about the history of our country.
he admitted that when congress considered the 14th amendment in section three, there was outward about any others insurrection or rebellions other than the civil war. that means that the history, as interesting as they are, would disobey the rule. that was a historical occurrence, there is no evidence we need to look at legislative history, no evidence that the congress considered that at all. i will soon be talking to you about what we do know about what
we thought in 1867. let's get to the meaning of the words in the section. engage in insurrection or rebellion and giving aid or comfort to the enemies thereof is number two. that number two is about foreign wars. as i will soon explain. number one is about domestic wars. which were described at the time by authorities when they talked about those phases. what is engagement? it connotes conduct.
you will soon see from the proposition that that is a direct, overt act. such is voluntarily joining the armed forces of the confederacy, giving them food, cash, shelter. the people in the war department prosecuting the wars of etc.. there is not a single piece of evidence that any of those things occurred here. with respect to representative greene. there were certainly some 700 people involved -- charged to have been involved in the attack on the capitol.
1876. if you're going to use speech, which you can use here because they didn't use the word insight , it says engage or insight in insurrection, it is different because you can see, in the act in 1862, it was a felony to insight, set on foot, assist or engage in any criminal insurrection. they have to be different or we
never assume that congress is just throwing words out there in surplus. they necessarily mean a different thing. brandenburg decided -- design -- defined and cited as required speech that directed or incited or producing imminent lawless action, that is likely to produce such action. producing imminent lawless action. that is descriptive and limiting. we have seen the first amendment on full display, the danger of
concerning words on their meaning to allow political opponents to smear their opposition. in a court of law. i understand the constraints. they have exploited that. what are the words that do not amount to insurrection? we know there are words like that. ku klux klan later called advocating the duty -- for the propriety of crime, sabotage, fire or unlawful acts of terrorism used to create industrial or political reform. the court said that his advocacy, not an incitement to
violence. a representative of the naacp, if we catch you going in any of the racist sources, we are going to break your damp neck. that his advocacy, not incitement to violence. [indiscernible] we are taking the streets again. not incitement to violence by advocacy, protected by the first amendment. we know the kind of words that would be considered. what do we have from that. we have a rally. there is no evidence there was anything -- that it was anything but a peaceful rally.
and as an accusation, -- a well sheet, on some occasions, urged other people to go to it, she not attend herself. these happened in the capitol of the united states numerous times every year. i attended one in february. guess what is one of the things they always say? what do they always say? go to the capitol, tell your representative to vote for our
issue. that, in their world, is -- [indiscernible] it is absolutely appropriate for people to go to the capitol of the united states, to talk to their congressman, watch the house and senate, [indiscernible] what about this, representative greene? did your staff take anyone on the tour of the capitol between january 3 and january 5? did you give any maps of the capitol to anyone? what are they talking about? congress people do that every
day for their constituents. is giving a tour or a map some sort of code word or could be viewed as participating in a lawless riot? 1776, what about independence day. how about talk about the declaration of independence? or talking about the revolutionary war for our independence? these are now codewords for advocating the violent overthrow of the government of the united states. what an outrage. they want to hijack and cancel 1776 of the declaration of independence, independence day
and the american revolution. what about defense of the second amendment? if you advocate for defense of the second amendment, you are in favor and engaging in the violent overthrow of the government of the united states. that is the implication, is not it? the second amendment says, a well regulated militia being necessary for -- i don't remember exactly. there is a military application, the militia. it was a major factor in winning our revolutionary war.
the indiana malicious law in the civil war -- indiana militia fought in the civil war. so advocating for the second amendment is now a code for insurrection or rebellion against the united states. how about give me our freedoms back. she said that, oh my word. yes, people in the conservative side are concerned that the biden administration is robbing our freedoms. we just got one back is the result of a federal judge two or three days ago. so yeah, that is a concern about what will happen with the election of biden.
we have lost freedoms. to be concerned about that is quintessential political speech. what about, they keep saying this, events of january 6. so what we are going to do is mushroom altogether -- match them all together. [indiscernible] under the first amendment as an assembly, protected by the constitution is if you have a peaceful rally, which they had, there no evidence otherwise, some people leave, and some of
them committed an illegal act. this rally does not lose its first amendment protection. because the action of the few that showed up in that situation are not -- cannot be attributed to the organization itself or who have the rally. no one can guarantee someone might show up? or agent provocateurs and cause acts of violence. how do you guarantee that? there's a two-step analysis.
can a rally be held -- held into account for what the fugitive who left the rally, went to the capitol, and attacked the cap pool, this is what the supreme court said in this other case, the right does not lose all constitutional protection merely because some leaders of the group may have participated in conduct or advocated doctrines that themselves are not protected. this is -- particularly instructive, as there were constitutionally protected speech, association, to
influence government action, support the constitutional right of members of congress to object to vote of the electoral college. along with the illegal actions by a few, the acts of the latter stripped the others of their first amendment rights. the government -- they should be authorized to either actually or apparently to -- either authorized or ratified -- [indiscernible] there is no evidence of that. we have different events, some -- there peaceful. to drag her into, did you
promote the rally? did you put it on your calendar? were you invited to speak? is to strip her of her right. all of these are first amendment protections. none of them constitute incitement, much less engagement in unlawful conduct. of course the united press use the word insurrection. insurrection is never defined. i quoted cases from 1898, some from 1842, 1795 militia act,
they also basically the same thing. which is, it has to be an uprising so formidable as to deprive the authority of the united states. of course, we advocate -- you can have mob violence and it is not an insurrection. unless it associates with active military forces. how do we know all this? in 1867, right up on the screen,
because it was 2:00's 3:00 in the morning, 1:00 a.m. one b, -- this takes you step-by-step through the analysis of the attorney general of the united states in 1867 that was mentioned. and shown to you. once they agree -- participated in insurrection or rebellion, they gave comfort to the enemy, in 1867, because those words were not just used in 1868, and the 14th amendment, they were used, this is what the term general is addressing, it was used in reconstruction acts, because they were going to open
up floating to the people who lived in the confederacy. they were required to take an oath, that oath, one of its sections was that they had to swear that they did not "engage in insurrection or rebellion or give aid or comfort to the enemies of the united states. those exact words. 1a starts in the middle column. i will go down the middle column for a while. it starts with considering, "i now come to consider the meaning of the disqualification arising from this part of the of -- the oath."
each of these are separately considered, according to the attorney general. now up on the left a little bit, there's more on simple construction. i thought this was important. under jurisprudence, you absolutely have to -- and has happened in the naacp etc. even at that, he views the oath as depriving you of a right. that was important, too. on page two, the requirement of
the oce and the disqualification must be used as a punishment, and as a result, it may be even more objectionable than [indiscernible] -- was also a violation of the right. now, than on page three -- then on page three, he said any doubts must be resolved in favor of the road. -- of the voter. and then said, what is the meaning of this provision? the first sentence, engage in insurrection or rebellion, covers a case of a domestic war. the second phrase, aid or comfort an enemy, applies to foreign war.
in this context, we need to be looking at engaging in insurrection or rebellion. it continues on on page four. page five. then we go to page six. we are now to inquire what is meant by engaging in insurrection or rebellion against the u.s. he said first a force of the term to carry the idea of voluntary rather than compulsory . he then analyzes the voluntary part.
[indiscernible] on page seven, he considers the question of whether persons may have engaged in rebellion without having actually levied war were taken up arms. he finds in that regard the confederacy did engage, even though they did not take up arms. we then go to why civil officers are not covered. people that just run the government. you know, maintain the peace. that do perform several functions, are not covered.
so, he continues that discussion on page nine. and of course, he agrees that it isn't only the civil war that is to be considered. but other instruction on what is meant by rebellion or insurrection. again, page 11 continues the discussion. that on page 12 -- then on page 12, at the top, he says, what is engage? it says, "i am of the opinion
that some direct overact, done with the intent to further the rebellion, is necessary under the purview of engage." direct overact with the intent to further the rebellion. that is what i'm about the phrase -- i meant about the phrase direct overact. he says mere disloyal sentiment, think of that, mere disloyal sentiment or expressions are not sufficient. because they are not acts. they are talk.
and so, that is where we find out, surely, by one of the most authoritative sources, the attorney general of the u.s., at the very time these phrases are used in several constitutional provisions and statutes, several -- about what it means. it does not mean nuance. it does not mean innuendo. it does not mean code words. it does not mean first amendment protected speech. a direct overact is conduct, and it has to be with the intent to further not some political agenda or whatever -- but the actual insurrection that is occurring. the domestic war, as he
described it, that was occurring. anything short of that, and every political disagreement, is going to be characterized by bold, well-funded lawyers and interest groups into -- you are going to have to fight for your life, you are going to be disqualified from congress, you are going to -- whatever they can do to you. maybe in the worst possible situation, charged with a federal offense. those are the same words we use in a federal crime. i mean -- that's why i said at the beginning two things, this is not about hyperbole, political smears, at least in my
opinion. it's never been about that. it has to be about the law. and what the law provides. understanding that, if this line is breached, so that the clinical hyperbole of calling people insurrectionists turns into lawsuits brought by interest groups, in order to abort our democracy, destroy the rights of voters, and preclude members [indiscernible] -- -- from running the election. our democracy cannot survive that. this was never designed for what
they had employed them to do. we are stripped of our rights. ok? we can't do discovery. we can't move to dismiss the complaints before trial. certainly there is no time to try. to do it. and we come into a hearing with all these cameras come all this livestream and where's the interest? oh, please. no, this is a political agenda. this has been a political show trial. not because of your fault. but because of their expectation of what's been done here. -- exportation of what has been done here. this procedure is [indiscernible] this is not for a major
trial of enhanced factual and legal consequences. and elements part of which are constitutional claims, federal claims. we have got to put a stop to it. and this is where it should happen. thank you. >> thank you, your honor. we talk a lot about the law. not much about the facts. i'm going to try to confine my remarks to fax. -- to facts. we are going to submit a brief next week with responses to all the legal issues. it's been a long day.
and it's been a difficult day. and it's been a solemn day. and we find ourselves back where we started. with the disqualification clause of the 14th amendment. and three very simple requirements -- that the candidate for federal office had taken the oath to the constitution, that an insurrection occurred, and that the candidate, having taken that oath, engaged in insurrection, promoted it, supported it, assisted it, helped bring it into fruition -- those are the three elements we came here today prepared to prove. and those are the three elements that we have proved. let's talk about each of the three. marjorie taylor greene took the oath of office january 3, 2021.
she became a member of the u.s. house of representatives. the value that represents not the state, but the people of the country in general. we the people. mr. bopp said this morning words matter. i agree you with that. our proof today started with the oath. the cousin taking -- because in taking it, she undertook a very solemn and very specific obligation. to uphold the constitution, to defend the constitution, against all enemies, foreign and domestic. taking that oath was an honor, but also an obligation. she was no longer a simple citizen of the great state of georgia. she was not just another person, with opinions and a twitter account. she became part of our government.
and she took on an affirmative obligation as part of our government to protect the constitution. to protect it from anyone who would seek to block or impede i t. that is what the disqualification clause is all about. that special status that is conferred upon a person, when she takes the oath of office. we will argue in our brief that that status means that she cannot just say anything she wants -- that she could have said as a private citizen. and our brief will also point out that there are lots of things that people say that are worse, that matter, and that also have legal consequences. but all of that is for another day.
today, the evidence was proven factually that not only did marjorie greene engage in the ceremony of taking the oath, we have proven that it has meaning and teeth, and has confluence. insurrection. what happened at the u.s. capitol building january 6, 2021 was in insurrection. it's as clear as day. even mr. bopp doesn't really deny it. how do we know that? because he keeps talking about the rally. it is the rally. it's the ellipse. it's the rally. we are not talking about the rally. we are talking about what happened at the capitol. there are lots of words and phrases that can be used to describe what is on that washington post video your honor dispute a couple of times. lawlessness.
disturbance. have used some of their words today in their briefs. but the word they really avoid using his insurrection. -- is insurrection. we learned that today from the professor. insurrection can be disturbances, unrests. but when it is used in a disqualification clause, an insurrection is more than these things. it is something where the purpose of it is to block, impede, disrupt a constitutional process, or to overthrow the very existence of government itself. the professor explained all of this, and how american history has faced many insurrections in the past. how all of them share the same features. violence.
aimed at the prophecies or the legitimacy of government. sometimes aimed at courts. in this case, they were aimed at the legislature. and the violence that cannot be quelled by ordinary law enforcement means. you saw and heard with your own eyes not just the violence, horrific and sickening as it is, but its goal, to stop the certification of the electoral college vote in favor of joe biden. its goal was to stop the constitutional process of the 12th amendment. the peaceful process of transferring power, between presidents. its goal was to physically prevent congress from meeting to do the essential work of our democracy. here's the worst of it -- it worked. for a time, the insurrection
worked. it succeeded, only briefly, but it worked. the joint session of congress adjourned for several hours, into the next morning, and c eased carrying out their functions, all because of the insurrection. because people violently flooded the capitol, with the goal of striking fear in the hearts of the people who work there and to use violence. fear. violence. flooding the capitol. these are words that came out of marjorie greene's mouth. many people were responsible for this attack on our democracy. most of all, of course, the individuals use on the washington post video and many other places. they defiled the people's house.
but they are not the only ones. there were others as well. the leaders. the people who justified it, who promoted it, assisted it, encouraged this in the days and weeks leading up to january 6. marjorie taylor greene is one of those people. how do we know this? we know this from the evidence. let's start by talking about what we are talking about. as a legal matter, in order to be disqualified from federal office, she has to have engaged in insurrection. sometime after january 3, 2021, when she took the oath. you said it yourself, your honor, it is a narrow window, january 3 to january 6, 2021. the evidence is very clear that in fact, marjorie taylor greene justified, assisted, supported,
and promoted the insurrection in that window. that is what the term engaging in insurrection means under the law. we will lay that out in great detail in our brief next week. it is a legal point, but it is a common sense point as well. jefferson davis didn't take up the musket and fire on union troops, at least as far as i remember in my history. but he was just as much an insurrectionist as the tens of thousands of soldiers of the confederacy that did. from january 3 to january 6, the window can only be understood by looking at the facts of what happened before that window and before the oath. we had proven marjorie taylor greene was an advocate for
violence against government officials. in fact, she advocated violence against the speaker of the house. the highest ranking member of the house. this is pelosi. the very house that was attacked on january 6, 2021. she admitted it. she kind of wiggled for a second. then she admitted it. you saw that with your eyes. treason. the death penalty. a bullet in the head. that is what she said, about nancy pelosi. and we had proven that she saw the invasion of the capitol building, the creating of fear, fear is a word that she used, in the hearts of public officials -- she saw that as a legitimate political tactic. when she told people, when she was discussing this tactic, she told him that they should
feel like they should act in a violent way. she denied it. not really. she said, i don't remember. that is cnn -- that is big news. don't buy that. you don't have to accept that. you saw the videos. and you saw the testimony. we have proven that marjorie taylor greene was clear about her support for political violence. she said it on tape. the price of blood would need to be paid, if the government took away her freedoms. she wouldn't even admit that was a call for violence. she said something about the
first amendment, the second amendment, a bunch of other amendments. the price of blood could not be more clear. this didn't happen in high school. as mr. bopp suggested. this happened in late october of 2020, when she was interviewed, talking about how her freedoms and the freedoms of americans could be taken away by a tyrannical government. it doesn't just come back on its own, these freedoms, she says, they have to be taken back, with the price of blood. these are things that marjorie taylor greene said as a private citizen, before the 2020 election. maybe she has a right to say those things, or had the right, before she took the oath.
but let's keep going. let's get moving down the timeline. to the period after the election. in that period, you saw and you heard marjorie taylor greene speaking out consistently, claiming the 2020 election was stolen by the democrats. i disagree with that. wouldn't you? but i respect that people can have that point of view. and that is a perfectly acceptable part of our political discourse, for better or for worse. but then she said this. not just that the election was stolen. not just that there were ballots that were fraudulent. not just that it is time to make objections. perfectly legitimate thing to do. we didn't have any problem with her objection the floor of the house. then she said something else.
which was spoken about this morning. she came down for just a minute -- we can't allow power to transfer peacefully, like joe biden wants, because he didn't win the election. we cannot allow power to transfer peacefully. you saw and heard it with your own eyes, judge. she said the quiet part out loud . she spoke her truth. in that video, that she made, that she posted on her own facebook page, and that she wanted her hundreds of thousands of facebook followers and the untold millions of other people to know. that her point of view was that you cannot allow, we cannot allow the transfer of power to happen peacefully.
marjorie taylor greene said this. when she was a federal official. or write about to be. -- right about to be. it's not clear. but what we can tell in the context of that tape is that she stayed in her opposition -- she stated her opposition to the peaceful transfer of power. this is not the internet, the dark corners of parler, this is a person who is a federal official, a member of government. and this was not even a rhetorical flourish on the back of a campaign drop after a long day. this is somebody who sat down in front of the camera and calmly and carefully told her viewers, we will not accept a peaceful transfer of power. we cannot allow it. and then she said, we will not
go quietly into the night. she framed this as an existential battle. a you fourth of july. -- a new fourth of july, 1776. this brings us right on into that critical window. that critical phase of time. january 3 to january 6. marjorie taylor greene's rallying cry for violence at the capitol on january 6. i think we all know that those words have a lot of meaning. they are on the seal of the great state of georgia. but that is not what marjorie taylor greene was talking about. here's how we know this, because here's what we proved. marjorie taylor greene organized objections on the floor of the house. in this was not an insurrection.
this actually was part of the constitutional process. and we have no issue with it. but then, marjorie taylor greene promoted, encouraged, and supported the idea of large demonstrations in washington on january 6. there's nothing wrong with large demonstrations either. it is about the ellipse. not the insurrection on the capital. he said, well, you know, who cares? i agree, people do these things all the time. i've done them as well. and demonstrations are an important part of our democratic tradition. she worked with organizers and made calls for people to come. and that is not a problem. out of context. out of context, it is not a problem. in context, this support was
part of a scheme -- a scheme with unlawful demonstrations, plan a, and plan b. what was going to happen, what other unlawful demonstrations happened and all the objections on the floor of the house were heard, and everyone knew, they were futile? the boats were there to certify the election of joe biden. there was a plan b. and plan b was violence at the capitol. plan b was specifically, enter the capitol illegally, nothing like a tour, just like you saw in that video, injuring and ultimately causing the deaths of law enforcement, to block certification of joe biden as
the winner of the 2020 election. that is what plan b was. and plan b had a name. it had a codename. 1776. how do we know that? the clues are everywhere. december 30th, marjorie taylor greene tweets outta rumor -- out a rumor of a rule change. she says her friend is the organizer of a major demonstration. he tweets in response to that. 1776 is always an option. and he refers to what 500,000 people will do to that building, if the objections are suppressed by a rule change. that is what that sweet exchange was about. -- tweet change was about.
i don't believe that she does not read every tweet and care s about them. she knew exactly what 1776 men's, in that context -- meant, in that context. she said she can't remember. i don't buy it. she knows exactly what he was referring to. by the way -- when that sweet and -- tweet and that reference came out, we don't a response, what is this? or, gee, if you are talking about doing violence in the capital, 500,000 people doing something to that building, i want no part of that. and we heard a lot about ms. geene saying she's always peaceful and keep put up comments about peacefulness. never one before january 6. only after.
that video, after. those press releases, after. you have to ask yourself -- why is that? obviously the insurrection succeeded for only a few hours. then the tide turns. people saw it for what it was. and she needed a cover story. marjorie taylor greene knew perfectly well what 1776 meant. it meant violence against the government, overthrowing it tyrannical government, and that that was plan b of january 6, 2021. she embraced it. and she promoted it. and probably the most important piece of evidence, from our point of view, in this case, is the petitioner's exhibit 27 -- this is a short clip of
marjorie taylor greene on newsmax. the night before january 6. she is asked a number of questions about the objections that she and others are going to lawfully file on the floor. and then the broadcaster asks her, so, what is your plan? how do you think this is going to play out? and roll out tomorrow? her answer is one sentence -- "this is our 1776 moment." it is a stunning statement. it has no meaning, unless you know the code. it has no meaning, unless you are in the club. this 1776, is plan b, is flood
the capital, use violence if you have to -- this is a message posted, stated on january 5. in the middle of that window. posted on facebook to hundreds of thousands of followers and whoever wants to see it on january 5, from a sitting member of a u.s. congress -- of the u.s. congress. people knew what she meant. they knew exactly what she meant. tomorrow is our 1776 moment. how interesting, the examination mr. bopp did of his clients, he never asked her about that, about providing support to people who were planning the demonstrations, or providing support for people who ultimately broke into and rushed the people's temple -- trashed
the people's temple. when i asked her, she said, i don't remember, i am not sure, i don't think so. so what do you have before you, your honor, at this point? you have her own words, in context, against nothing. not even a real [indiscernible] marjorie taylor greene comes to this court and this nation and she asked to be a candidate for federal office. she comes with her hands, her words, or actions, she was one of several who gathered the kindling -- who created the conditions, who made it possible for there to be an explosion of violence at the capitol on
january 6. then, she dropped a match. now she comes into this courtroom, and she says she is surprised and appalled that a fire occurred. sticks of wood and dry leaves are homeless in and of themselves. in fact, -- harmless in and of themselves. in fact, they are healthy and natural to the environment. rallies, objections on the floor, these are all things that are good for the republic. they are part of our tradition. but when the conditions are dangerous, some people capitalize on those conditions, and they had a spark, a flame, that causes all of those things to explode into a fire -- a,
fire, violence, and death. like the confederate army, who passed out the muskets and balls and the rations. but that flame can also be sparked by words. by signals. by signs, by codes. my promotion. by justification. by support. by assistance. that is what marjorie taylor greene did. that is where we are here. your honor, we urge you to find marjorie taylor greene disqualified from the ballot. under one of the greatest documents in the history of the world, the u.s. constitution. >> thank you, mr. celli. i would like to take a couple of minutes to talk about the briefing. and a couple of things.
first of all, i would greatly appreciate it if someone would get us a copy of this, something that is easier to read. i appreciate what you did, mr. bopp. but if anybody can do a better job of it, no offense. we will get into a couple of things about the briefing. briefings are due midnight on thursday. a couple of things -- i want to be sure that mr. bopp, one of your objections to the motion of dismiss to dismiss, is the fact that this procedure -- about related to the belief in the concerns, i would like to hear what you would like to think about finding, and we talked about that. it is not something i can
decide, but it is something i can consider come in particular, the question of belief, and there are issues there. i would appreciate both sides to comment on that. and we mentioned we are dealing with some very ancient -- "ancient," i mean two or three years old. they have houses older than our country. [laughter] as long as we can find them and pulled him up, they are pretty obscure, that is great. if something that is pretty obscure, that is not relevant, show us on the internet where to find it. if that is not available, please document your briefs for anything arcane like that, so we
do not have to spend time chasing stuff down, because we do not have a lot of time. obviously, i can leave it to you all, how to organize your perspective briefs. at this point, the record has gotten a little bit chaotic. we have had a lot of back and forth, from reporters, you got your original motions to dismiss. it might help, if you don't mind, putting it together again in light of this hearing, and if you folks can streamline, so i do not have to wallow around. i am sure mr. celli will do the same thing. brevity is always better, you know. because we do need this done. the georgia courts move very fast. i would hope to have that within a week of you all getting it to us.
this is extraordinarily important stuff. mr. bopp: your honor, thank you, and thank you for the direction. fortunately, my associate, mr. seaver, is doing a really fine job and taking notes. judge beaudrot: i do not know what your briefing schedule looks like, but i am sure you look at that. i am sure the work you are doing is also great work. everybody is working very quickly and everybody is taking it seriously, so we look forward to getting it and finishing the matter. before we close, is there
anything else? mr. bopp: no, your honor, you have really done a fine job. judge beaudrot: thank you, thank you, flattery will -- [laughter] [laughs] [indistinct conversations] i appreciate everybody scrambling to be here. with that, i think that concludes the hearing. >> your honor, your honor -- judge beaudrot: the record is not closed. i think the microphones are still on. i am happy to suggest -- [indiscernible] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2022] [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org]