Marjorie Taylor Greene Back In Court As Her Candidacy Is Challenged Again

Back in April, Marjorie Taylor Greene faced a challenge in court to her candidacy. Complainants argued that the insurrection clause in the United States Constitution made her ineligible to hold office. The judge ruled in Greene’s favor, but the case is now back in Superior Court in Fulton County, Georgia.

The group Free Speech For People, along with individual voters in Greene’s district, headed to court early Monday morning to again make their argument that Greene, who has been outspoken in her support of defendants charged in the January 6th, 2021, attack on the U.S. Capitol, and who was a part of meetings ahead of that day, allegedly planning with Donald Trump and other allies to determine ways to subvert a legal election.

Last time around, Greene’s responses didn’t seem to bode well for her — they were predominantly a series of “I don’t recall.”

From Friday:

Q: "Prior to the inauguration in 2021, did you advocate for martial law with the president of the United States?"

Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene: "I don't recall." pic.twitter.com/zNTkKtiMVN

— CSPAN (@cspan) April 25, 2022

However, ultimately the judge determined that the evidence fell short and Greene was still eligible as a candidate. She went on to win her Republican primary in May, and in November is slated to compete with Marcus Flowers (D) for her Congressional seat.

As for Monday’s challenge, the first blow of the day was the refusal by Judge Christopher Brasher to allow live streaming of the hearing.

See Also

Nicolle Wallace: COVID Epidemic is Like a 9/11 Every Two Days

UPDATE: Judge Brasher has just denied the live stream at the start of this hearing. His basis is that the courtroom is open and that meets GA law requirements. No prior notice provided on this. @FSFP https://t.co/AYL9RsX8xN

— John Bonifaz (@JohnBonifaz) July 18, 2022

This, of course, prevents either side from attempting to collect ‘sound bites’ rather than focusing on the central point of the case, but also reduces public access and awareness of the proceedings.