Let me amend that for emphasis--that were definitely on video she had made on purpose and uploaded to any of her various social media accounts on purpose. For example, she was asked if she ever advocated for violence--hah, hah, who, Marge? Maybe someone could make a charitable guess that she engaged in hyperbole for clicks and likes, and just didn't care if anyone would take her seriously--but does that actually seem plausible?
All of us by now should have watched enough legal dramas to know things like "prosecutors don't ask you questions they don't know the answers to". But here was MTG, regularly set up by her own social media history, and um, stuff like her congressional voting record.
So, questions like, "Did you oppose certifying the election for Biden?" might not be so plausibly answered with "no" when there is absolutely a record. And she had to have known that she would be asked about whether there was a White House meeting. And yes, there is video of her talking about a meeting, and of her apparently leaving the West Wing after a "great planning session".
She was going to deny that she claimed that Speaker Nancy Pelosi was a traitor until she remembered wait, that was something she totally did. It really makes you think about how casually she threw that word around, and how little she thought about the violence of the rhetoric against Democrats like Pelosi, whose term limit by bullet her social media account endorsed (but then again, who knows who was even managing her social media at the time--so many randos, so little apparent control by Marge). And so much to blame CNN for--like quoting her verbatim. She was asked about Anthony Aguero, who she didn't talk with apparently before 1/6 that much but who she still was palling around with months afterwards?
And in a perplexing thing that might get a replay down the road, a question regarding whether she discussed martial law with the White House was almost blocked by her lawyer citing executive privilege which actually seems somehow more damning for him not being Trump's lawyer, and from executive privilege flowing from the guy who is actually president now, who is not Trump. Which really confirms for me that there was a plan to declare martial law because of the planned 1/6 riot and just scads of people knew about it. (Of course it was foiled because there was no antifa and all the dopey Trump fans were also thirsty social media wannabes.)
Let the record show that thirsty MTG put herself in front of a camera and said extreme things every chance she could possibly get, and then felt after the fact that maybe she should deny some of those things under oath (which isn't usually a huge deal in a civil hearing, but this is a very special situation, you know, like, light treason, and all). She has performed a violation of the most 2021 corollary to the Stringer Bell rule: she took video of her participation in a fucking criminal conspiracy.
She looked bad today. She looked bad today because the insurrection was bad and she was part of it. She didn't understand how bad, I think, until just now.
4 comments:
I see this among students all the time. Not the treason, the idea that they can post stuff online and then think no one will notice. They're really shocked when called out on it.
I'm not sure if it's a case of giving them enough rope, I've been a big advocate of Operation Just Let Them Speak, but it's clear she's reached the end of it.
"You can't allow it to just transfer power
peacefully like Joe Biden wants." - Major Traitor Greene
While I don't endorse conspiracy theories the video series which concludes Marge is the hooded pipe bomb dropper from Jan 5th is compelling.
Gene, I have never ruled this out myself, because she has talked about the pipe bombs as if someone should have known on 1/5 when they were laid. Why? Why would she think that? Is it because she knew then? How did she know, though, unless she was down with 1776. I think she definitely was. She has, with Gohmert and Gaetz and Gosar, gone down to pretend to be in solidarity with the 1.6 insurrectionists--why? To remind them to stay shtum about their in-House homies. That's why. These privileged insurrectionists want to be part of a treason, and keep their privilege, too. I hope some of these low-level family-men sort out their asses aren't getting saved by Perrier waterheads like Gaetz and Greene and turn up with evidence. It's a shame the marks do more time than the cons.
Post a Comment