the apple store and google play. download it for free. c-span-3, your front row seat to washington, any time, anywhere. >> marjorie taylor greene testified in atlanta and once the judge issues the findings, the secretary of state will decide if representative green is constitutionally barred from running for reelection due to her role in the january 6 20 21 attack on the u.s. the capital. this is the first time a sitting member has testified under oath about 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. judge beaudrot: here is what [indiscernible] at this point. p-2, the video, [indiscernible] the video,p -6, the video,p-2 the congressional record is the end, p-11 is in, p-12 which is a video,, p-13-a is in.

p-14 the video, p-15, p-16, p-17, p-19, p-21, p-22, p-24, p-27, p-29, p-36, p-41, p-44, p-45, p-48, p-49, p-51, p-52, p-53, p-54, p-55, p-57, p-59,

p-61. on p-62, we had a discussion yesterday, there is reference to a senate report. the senate report was not tendered. if someone wants to tender it, i will admit that. we-62 itself has not come in. p63, 64, 65, 66, 68, 69, 72, 73. 74 and 75. p76, 80, 81.

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. >> let me rephrase. i would like to display an exhibit that has already been admitted to evidence. >> can you see that?

>> yes i can. at 1830 edition of webster's dictionary. >> i was the dictionary used 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. let me briefly confirm. judge beaudrot: sure. we are past my 10:45 break. let's take the break and reconvene. [brief applause] this is not a show. do not do that. we will reconvene at 11:00. [indiscernible conversations]

>> 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, head 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

to dismiss.

>> can you see plaintiff's exhibit two see as well please? >> to see? >> ms. green this is the tweet we talked about earlier. -- correct? >> i can't see real well. >> maybe we can make that larger. >> that's what it says. >> what you are doing in this tweet was tweeting out a story from the epic times about president trump saying that the protest that were planned for

january 6 were going to be quote wild. is that correct? >> i object. does it quote that? >> yes. >> i withdraw my objection. i cannot see that. >> can we make it a little bit larger? you can answer the question. what you are doing in this tweet was tweeting out a story from the epic times about president trump making a statement that the protest on january 6 would be wild. >> i tweeted an article that had the details of the day -- the date and the time. >> and also president drops statement -- and also president trump's statement? >> i do not think that is what

my tweet was about. >> -- on jan six. >> i do not remember tweeting that specifically for what you are saying. those are your words. >> i am actually reading -- >> you are speculating. >> i am just asking questions. >> i am just answering. >> in your tweet you mentioned earlier that your words -- you were urging people to come to washington for a peaceful demonstration. >> peaceful demonstration, absolutely. >> that word peaceful is not in

-- let's give the representative a paper copy of that. >> i can see it now. >> peaceful is not in there is it? >> it does not say peaceful. you are asking me and i said -- just like people have the right to do with their first amendment. >> there is not a secret code in there that is supposed to be peaceful, right? >> i do not support violence of any kind. >> you just did not say on this occasion did you? >> all of my words never mean anything for violence. >> we will examine that question. do s. --2f.

this top half of the exhibit. ms. green this is a tweet you sent out on january 2, 2020. correct? you do not recall this? >> i do not recall tweeting that. >> set that to one side. does anybody tweet things on your twitter account -- strike that. did anyone tweet on your twitter account without your permission? any time from november of 2022 january 6? >> i do not remember. >> you would be surprised if somebody got into your twitter account and tweeted something without your permission would you? >> nobody tweeted anything without my permission. i do not remember.

>> fair enough. would you agree that this tweet from january 2, 2021 is something that we can fairly attribute to you meeting that it was winter -- sent on your account? >> i'm sorry i do not know. >> you can take that down. you have had your disagreements with -- isn't that right? >> i am not sure what you mean. >> you have had political differences with her, right? >> politically speaking, that would be right. >> insect you think that speaker pelosi is a traitor to the country, right? >> i'm not answering that

question. it is speculation. >> you have said that haven't you? >> no, i have not said that. hold on now. i believe about upholding, securing the borders that that violates her oath of office. >> i'm that interested in her -- i'm interested in you said she is a traitor to our country, right? >> i object. >> your honor, can we give a standing objection? this is an effort to interrupt by examination of the witness. i am attempting to establish the witnesses desire to engage in insurrection airing the. january 3 two january 6.

it is true that some of the things she has said are irrelevant if they had been heard before. there is no objection to evidence. she said what she said. we do not agree. >> i get to make my objections. i do not want a standing objection. i do not object to everything. i have specific things that i think are -- that i object to. >> you may object. >> i am placing before you what we pre-marked as plaintiff exhibit five which is an article that appeared on january 26, 2021. it should be in the book.

she had a hard copy. let us start using hardcopies. we cannot read stuff like this. may i approach the witness? >> you have standing -- to approach the witness. >> if you could scroll down a bit.

>> i want to direct your attention to the bottom of the fourth page of the exhibit. this is a paragraph that starts out, she is a traitor to our country. >> i object. what possible relevance could it be that she had political disagreements that resulted in hyperbole that is commonly used. >> overruled. >> i want to ask a narrow question. did you say, referring to speaker pelosi that she is a traitor to our country, guilty of treason, took an old to protect american citizens, it aid and comfort to our enemies that illegally invade our nation. -- can no longer serve in our

government and it is a crime punishable by death. nancy pelosi is guilty of treason. did you say those words? >> this is what i was telling you is that she does not uphold our laws. >> it is a simple yes or no question. >> without being instructed by him to say yes or no. >> i do not agree your honor. >> did you say these words? >> according to the cnn article i did. >> do you recall saying that? >> i do not recall saying all of this but i recall saying this about -- i totally disagree with border issues. >> next question. >> representative greene, you

have advocated the use of physical violence against people you disagree with politically. right? >> i object. >> overruled. >> what is the question? >> you have advocated using physical violence against people you disagree with politically. >> is that true? >> i don't think so. i don't know how to answer that. >> look at what we have marked length of exhibit five. same one. let me ask a foundational

question. you understand on social media posts one of the things you can do is you can like someone's post. right? >> you can like people. >> when you like somebody's post that signifies you think it is correct? >> i do not know. i do not agree with your phrasing. >> i am asking you. isn't it true that when you like someone's post you are signifying your approval for what the post says? >> i do not agree with how you are phrasing that. >> it is true though that you liked a post that suggested that quote a bullet to the head of

nancy pelosi would be a quicker way to remove her as speaker of the house then impeachment. right? >> you are using a cnn article. cnn has lied about me multiple times. >> am asking you to answer my question. did you like a post that said it is quicker that a bullet to the head would be of way? >> i've had many people managed by social media accounts. i have no idea who likes that. >> are you testifying under that was it you? >> i am testifying have no idea who likes that comment? it could have been you, right? >> she has answered the question. next question. >> by the way, you know one of

the places inside the united states capitol building that was invaded by people who were doing violence was ms. pelosi's office, right? >> i was inside the chamber during, during january 6 so i do not know all of the places those people went. i only know where i was. >> are you telling us that in the more than one 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? >> i seen that on the news. i do not know for sure. i have not investigated all of that. >> you mentioned earlier in

response to some of my questions that there was a demonstration that was being planned for january 6 called the march for trump. >> we talked about it on one of my twitters. >> that demonstration was being organized in part by an organization called women for america, right? >> i do not remember who organized it. >> can you pull up plaintiffs exhibit2d?

>> i placed in front of you what is a document that has been premarked as plaintiffs exhibit two d. one of the things that you can do on twitter is you can retweet or send out again somebody else's tweet. right? >> yes. >> on plaintiff's to d you are retweeting a tweet sent by kylie jane kramer. >> i do not know if i retweeted it. >> if you look carefully it has marjorie taylor greene. you do not recall any way? it is your testimony that if this got retweeted from your account that would've been done with your permission, right?

>> i do not recall retweet get. >> that is not my question. you do not deny that kylie jane critters message was retweeted from your account? on december 20, 2000 -- december 19. you don't deny this do you? >> i do not have this twitter account anymore. i do not remember retweeted this. >> you do remember that there was this march for trump? and that women for america was one of the organizers? >> i do not remember but that is what this says. >> one of the other hashtags for

the demonstrations that were planned on january 6, 2021 was a #stop the steal, right? >> yes. >> and another #got used at the time was -- a website used to organize people coming to washington was something called wild protest.com. right? >> i don't know. >> have a look at --. p 33.

>> i put before you a document that was marked plaintiffs -- petitioners exhibit -- i will ask you a couple of questions about it. did this refresh your recollection that there was a website known as wild protest.com? encouraging people to come to washington for a protest on january 6? >> i do not remember the website but i am seeing it here on your paper. >> wild was the term that president trump used to describe what he thought would happen on january 6, right? >> wild is also a term that high schoolers use when they talk

about spring break. >> fair enough. whatever the title of the demonstration or the name or #that was used you would agree that you were aware 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 as president of the united states, right? >> i was aware that people were coming to support our objection. all it was preparing for was objecting. >> when did you first become aware that there were going to be large demonstrations on january 6? did you consider at any point participating in any of those demonstrations? >> it was put up my calendar and then i never went. we were too busy. we were looking at all of the evidence and preparing for our

debates and preparing to object. >> who put it on your calendar? >> i don't know. i have no idea. >> it wasn't a complete stranger was it? >> i have no idea. >> utilities why it is that -- can you tell us why it is that and an appearance for you at the demonstration was placed in your calendar? >> can you rephrase that question? >> how did it come to pass that it was put on your calendar? >> i do not know. i was so busy preparing to object. i do not know. >> you are going to go to one of these demonstrations as a speaker, right? >> i do not think so. i was always preparing to object. >> have a look at what we have marked as 33.

if you go about three pages in and over to the next page it says invited speakers and guests. >> i guess i was on there because i was invited. i do not know who made this website. i am sorry i cannot answer. >> you can answer that that is your name and face, right? >> that is my name and face but i do not run that website. i have no idea who does. >> my question to you is, you or someone under your authority authorized you to be placed as a speaker or guest at the wild protest demonstration. >> i get many imitations as a member of congress. i get many invitations as a member of congress.

many go on my calendar but have no relevance as to whether a 10. >> would it be fair to say that through your office you authorize your name and your likeness to be associated with the wild protest.com demonstration? >> you cannot say that or assume that. there would be whoever organize that. >> let us talk about that. going back to 33. you know allie alexander, do you? you have met him, right? >> i have seen it before but i do not know him. >> how many times have you been in his physical presence? >> i cannot even guess. hardly any. >> 10? 20? >> no. >> have you shaken his hand?

>> i've shaken hands with lots of people. >> and he is a friend of yours, right? >> no. >> 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? >> i do not recall that, no. >> you do not deny that? >> i do not recall that, no. >> did you discuss with anybody attending the wild protest demonstration that was planned for january 6? >> i do not recall ever talking about attending. >> other than people on your

congressional staff or your campaign staff list for me all of the people you spoke to about the demonstrations on january 6. >> i'm sorry i have no idea. >> you don't remember any of them? >> i do not remember. >> not any of them? >> no. >> you spoke to some people about those demonstrations prior to being sworn in as representative from the 14th district, no? >> i do not remember. >> and you spoke to some of those people after you took the old? -- after you took the old? >> did you speak to anybody in government about the fact that there would be demonstrations in washington on january 6? >> i do not remember. we were mostly reading information -- people signs about what they witnessed with voter fraud and preparing to

object. that was pretty much all i remember doing. >> pretty much for your testimony is that you didn't talk to anybody in government about the fact that there would be large protest in washington on january 6? >> i do not remember. >> you spoke to representative biggs or his staff about that fact did you? >> i do not remember. >> how about -- >> i do not remember. >> did you talk to people at the white house about there would be large demonstrations? >> i do not remember. >> prior to january 6, did anyone ever mention the possibility that there might be violence in washington on january 6? >> i do not remember. >> it is possible that folks

told you things could get violent on january 6, right? >> i was a brand-new member of congress. i do not remember those conversations. -- taking the capital security very seriously. >> my question is about whether anybody at all ever mentioned to you the possibility of violence. >> i do not remember. >> you are not denying it. you just do not recall? >> i do not recall. >> and you do not recall if people said we are having these big demonstrations in washington and some of the people who come to these demonstrations might become violent. that never happened. >> the only violets i saw were mps -- and i've been to so many trump rallies and i have never seen violence. i don't recall any talk of violence. >> and you do the people coming

for the demonstrations were trump people, right? >> i do there were many people coming to support president trump and our objection on tenuous. >> and at least some of them were coming because you asked them? >> i don't i don't recall personally asking them to come. >> did anybody -- strike that. did you have any conversations with anybody in government, representatives, senators, white house staff, the president of united states at the time, any government officials or employee about the fact that this is prior to january 6 that there was a risk that people coming to washington for demonstrations might become violent? >> i object. that is the fourth time he is us the same question.

>> it is not the same question. >> i don't recall. >> 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 is that they would flood the capital with people? >> no i don't remember hearing that. >> you never discuss that with anybody? >> no i don't remember that. >> you supported the idea of people coming to washington on january 6 and flooding the capital, right? >> no. i support people's first amendment to have a peaceful protest. >> you publicly said that one way for people to express their displeasure with the government would be to flood the capitol

building with people. right? >> the capital belongs to the people. that is where you come and speak to your senators, representatives. you come to express your views, talk about how you want your tax dollars spent, how you want senators and representatives to vote. >> my question is a bit more narrower 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. >> she has answered the question. move on. >> can we have px 23 please?

i have placed in front of you what we have previously marked as people's exhibit 23 which is a cnn article entitled in 2019 marjorie taylor greene told protesters to flood the capital and feel free to use violence. >> i object. this is not 2019. how many years back? high school? do we have to be treated with statements like flood the capital? >> this is not appropriate. >> you can figure out how you are going to lay the foundation. >> thank you. i want to do direct your attention to the second page of this exhibit.

>> could you please go through the proper things so she knows what she knows what she is looking at? >> i thought i did. this is an article that appeared we believe in -- on cnn in the wake of january 6. i asked if you have seen this document before you. >> nope. i have not seen it. >> i'm going to ask some questions about statements that are attributed to you in this article. you can tell me whether you made them or not. the second page of the document has a quotation that reads quote all of us together when we rise up we can and all of this. we can ended.

we can do it peacefully. we can. i hope we don't have to do it the other way would help out. but we should feel like we will if we have to. because we are the american people. do you recall making that statement in 2019 in connection with a protest around fund the wall? >> no. i don't recall. >> i i object. >> denied that you made that statement? >> i'm saying that i do not recall. >> you are not denying it, you do not recall. >> she is saying she does not recall. that is the answer. move on.

>> i'm missing a page of my copy of the exhibit. a little further along in the article i was going to ask you whether you made this comment. if we have a sea of people we will shut down the streets. if we shut down everything. if we fled the capitol building, go inside. these are public buildings. we own them. we own the buildings and we pay all of the people that work at the buildings. did you say that in connection with the fund wall demonstration in february of --?

>> after she was sworn in as a member of congress -- [indiscernible] >> move on. >> did you say that? >> i don't recall that. you are using cnn. they have lied about me so many times. you sound like you have as many conspiracy theories as qanon at this point. >> you believe qanon don't you? >> no. i did not say i believing kuehne and on. -- i did not say i believe in qanon. >> 84. is that your face? >> it appears to be.

this is a video clip. it is about one minute 50 seconds. >> before it starts running, i object unless he assures us that this is the complete clip and not selected -- >> we have not touched the, your honor. >> i'm not saying you have touched it. i think your responsibility and i am asking the court to require this or i object is to make sure this is not taken out of context. if you want to present it as evidence you should be required to explain that this is the entire segment that was made not some selected piece out of context. >> may i be heard on this? your honor, we have been denied the opportunity to conduct discovery in this case as your honor knows given the speed with which this proceeding happened.

we have been denied the opportunity to issue subpoenas to get records to do precisely what he would like me to do. he objected to all of these things and said he did not want us to do them. to say he objects to us playing a portion -- she will tell us if it is out of context. >> let us back up. >> this is a video we believe of the congresswoman making a statement. >> where did it come from? >> it came from the cnn article linked to it from facebook. >> this was pulled off the internet? >> it was connected through cnn, i believe. >> next question. is this the complete what was there?

have you made any alterations? are you aware of any alterations? do we know when it was made? >> we believe it was made in february 2019. you can now ask the witness about it. [video clip] >> in washington dc in february 23 -- i had adm. please, i am begging you. if we have a sea of people, if we shut down the streets if we shut down everything if we fled the capitol building flood all of the government buildings. go inside the buildings. we owe them. we own these buildings. we own the buildings and we pay all of the people that work in the buildings.

we are going to go inside and be warm. we are going to demand our federal governments are we the people because we are sick and tired of their ways. we are sick and tired of the corruption. there is the issue. there is the issue america. they think we are stupid and they treat us like we are stupid. we allow it. we allow it. we'll know more. we are not going to allow it anymore. we want solutions to the problems. we want to take care of america. america is first. americans come first. we are done. we have a massive list of grievances. we have a huge list of grievances. that is why on february 23 in washington dc at 8 a.m. we are

going to march in protest. i am telling you to get your but there. i am begging all of you to be there. let us make this huge. there is a lot of really great people organizing this. you don't even know. >> ms. green, that is you? >> that is me. >> ended that clip you were urging people to come to washington and fled the capital? >> what year was that. i believe that was february 20 3, 2019? there was no violence that day. we peacefully protested. >> fair enough. you were urging people for that demonstration to fled the capital. >> enter the capital and ask our lawmakers to serve the american people.

>> so now you remember doing -- giving that statement do you? >> now that we've watched the video i remember that. >> now that your memory has been jogged do you remember talking about that demonstration being done on a peaceful basis? >> that demonstration was peaceful. >> and you remember that you said we can do it peacefully, right? >> of course. i only believe in please phone missed rations. i do not believe in violence. >> you said 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 have their american people. that is another statement you made in the same presentation. >> that was in your cnn article. i do not trust cnn. >> are you denying it under all? >> i do not recall, i do not

recall saying specifically that. the demonstration was peaceful. >> what year was this again? >> 2019. >> all move on, your honor. >> you are pushing the envelope. >> i thought he'd fallen off the cliff. >> he can do that on the cameras outside when the time comes. >> i am serious. we need to get back to task. >> ms. green, did you or any member of your government or campaign staff communicate with anthony aguero about the events of january 6 prior to january 6? >> i do not recall. >> did you or any member of your congressional staff communicate with somebody dave -- somebody

named dustin stockton? how about jennifer lawrence? not the actress but the activist? did anyone communicate with ms. lawrence prior to january 6 about the demonstrations that were planned that day? >> i don't recall. i don't got over that is. i don't think i know who that is. >> did you or any member of your staff provide any support for any demonstrations that occurred on january 6? >> i have no idea. i do not think so. i do not recall. >> did you or any member of your

staff provide information funds printed material the promise of a public statement to withhold the public statement anything along those lines in connection with the demonstrations that were planned for january 6? >> i don't remember. i don't think so. if somebody were to come in here and say yes you give us support for our demonstrations you'd say i do not remember that? that did not happen? >> i'm not sure what you're saying. i think you are speculating a hypothetical. >> prior to january 6 you heard that people were plenty to enter the capital on january 6 and engage in violence, right? >> i object. >> she answer the question. >> never heard that from anybody? >> no.

>> prior to january 6, 20 21 you are aware that people were going to make noise outside the capital as a means to disrupt the proceedings inside the capital. is that fair? >> no. i have no idea what you talking about. >> prior to january 6, 2021 you heard that people were planning to enter the capitol building illegally to disrupt the electoral count process? >> no. i don't know anything about that. >> i think it is 12:45. >> how much longer do you think? >> probably one hour. >> why don't we take one hour. let us get back here at 1:45. >> can i respect fully ask for

45 minutes. >> -- 45 minutes. is that ok with you? we've got 45 minutes for lunch. is that ok with you? we will reconvene in 45 minutes which will be 1:30. >> will have everybody back at 1:30. [indiscernible]

>> everybody, please be seated. representative? rep. greene: thank you. >> thank you. 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 twiddle hand -- twitter handle, right? rep. greene: before my account was permanently banned. >> 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. during that period did anybody in your office provide tours to anybody at the u.s. capitol? rep. greene: no. 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 which you asked? rep. greene: i would have to talk to people on my campaign, but i don't think we did in a. 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, 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: 1770 six 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. 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 me. 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. did rep. greene: it say that? 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 to pokey against tyrannical governments, yes. -- 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 written, right? rep. greene: i was alive 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: that was a violent revolution against british rule in the colonies? rep. greene: yes. mr. celli: and they were trying to overgrow -- overthrew 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: the british officials here and the crown in britain,

the 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 , there 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 set 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 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. we know? >> january 26, 2021. -- november 26, 2021. rep. greene: it is a right 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. he 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 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 react -- mr. celli: i'm reacting to your answer. he 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 next ring. -- thing. 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 pf6, 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, and my 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 mr. gore's t-shirt says -- what does it say ? "i am 17 -- 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 -- >> i objected to playing this. i have watched this. right in the middle there is a section cut off, and right in the middle. >> 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 under the price of blood. >> know, 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 the best -- as best she can. 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? judge beaudrot: let's start it over, please. rep. greene: but he is the deal. if this generation does not stand up and defend freedom, it is gone. and once it is gone, freedom doesn't come back by itself. the only way you get your freedoms back is it is earned with the price of blood. 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? -- 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 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 1770 six to describe the events of january 6? rep. greene: i don't know. mr. celli: let's go back to px2 7, 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. do you see the number.

did you see a story in the new york times or any other publication or media outlet on march of 2022 about the proud boys having a written plan to storm government buildings on january 26? rep. greene: i have never heard of that.

>> you have never heard that is called 1776 returns. that plan. the government planned that the proud boys had to storm government buildings. rep. greene: i've never heard of it. >> you are aware that prior to january of 1776, there was a plan for people who were opposed to the electoral college to storm the buildings in d.c.. rep. greene: no. >> you are aware that prior to january 26, 2021, the 1776 was the plan to describe a plan or idea to physically interfere and prevent the electoral college boat? -- vote? rep. greene: i don't know any thing about that. >> we talk a little bit about a

person name allie alexander. do remember that person? rep. greene: yes. >> you said you spoke to them on a number of occasions, is that fair? rep. greene: i don't remember when. it is not someone i know. >> let's pull up number 67 please. 67.

i'm going to ask you to have a look at the first 10 seconds of the video. it is just a person not even speaking. tell me if you can identify that person. ♪ rep. greene: that is allie alexander. >> thank you. let's go to minute 1120. this is a rather long video and i will take you to the medio --

middle of it. [indiscernible] >> the congressman is the only one. but that's not true. so, what i will do with this information, and with this information, we are here to continue pressing forward. get congresswoman marjorie to --

taylor green pitch is coming in. a friend of mine. she will be wherever. >> you see him describe you as -- in his statement. you heard him say that. rep. greene: i just saw that. >> do you have any expiration for why he would do that? rep. greene: i don't know. i don't know him that well. i only met him a couple of times. >> he describes himself as a friend of his. correct? rep. greene: those were his words. >> is he lying when he describes himself as a friend of yours? rep. greene: i wouldn't call him a friend. i do not know him. i have only met him a couple of times. >> if he says he is a friend of yours, he would be lying. rep. greene: sometimes people say things on videos for their followers or for maybe i don't know.

if that's what he said, i don't know. i've only met him a couple of times. >> he was very clear in this postelection, 2020. rep. greene: i don't follow his accounts. >> let's go to -- i think we have established the election. when you are elected. january 6. one of the things you do is organize people in congress to file objectives -- objections to the council. rep. greene: we work hard on objecting. >> the next exhibit, please. if you can scroll until we see

the bottom half. go down to that. i will get you a paper towels. >> i want to focus your attention on the box in the middle of the page. it says marjorie taylor gre 12 -- 30. that is eight twitter comment you made on february 30th. rep. greene: i don't recall making that tweet but that is what this piece of paper says. >> do you have doubt that a tweet from your account was issued on december 30, 2020 that said work on the hilt -- word on

the hill is that mitch mcconnell and nancy pelosi will be working on a rules change to block our electoral college position? is that true? rep. greene: i don't recall the tweet. do you have any doubt that this is a tweet from your account? rep. greene: i don't know. >> do you recall in late december 2020, carrying a rumor on -- hearing a rumor on capitol hill about mitch mcconnell and nancy pelosi to create a rules change so as to block the objections to the electoral college? rep. greene: i can't remember pretty it was 60 months ago. >> and that would be important. if they wanted to change the rule so you couldn't object. rep. greene: it would've been, but we could still object. or try, anyways. >> in december 2020, your focus

was on objecting to the electoral college count. in congress. correct? rep. greene: finding evidence of voter fraud and trying to object. >> if there had been rumors of a rule change, that would be something that would be important for you to tweet out and talk about publicly. rep. greene: if possibly would have been. i don't remember this tweet. i don't remember it. >> you know that he has responded to tweets you have sent out over the years, correct? rep. greene: i don't know. i don't know who retreats -- retweets and response. that is not something i spend much time looking at. rep. greene: you spent some time looking at it. rep. greene: occasionally i have some time and i look at two response, but i do not know what he has responded, what he is weeded or retweeted. -- tweeted retweeted -- or

retweeted. >> what he had set about being taken on board right away. rep. greene: i don't look at comments on twitter because they are filled with bots and hateful people, and i don't read many comments. hardly ever. >> you read mr. alexander's response to your december 30 tweet because it is shown in this exhibit. just read out loud, what he writes is, if they do this, everyone can guess what me and 5000 unders -- others will do to that building. 1776 is always an option. >> you read that, didn't you? rep. greene: those are his words. i have no idea. >> as you see here today, you understand that mr. alexander

was referring not to a legal objection on the floor of congress, correct? rep. greene: i don't know what he is referring to. >> you knew back then that mr. alexander was responding to your tweets, saying if they make a rules change, and congresswoman taylor green cannot object, we are going into the capital and do violence. rep. greene: i have no idea. i don't know anything about this. >> that term, 17 76, was the way he was conveying to his listeners or readers. rep. greene: i have no idea. i don't know anything about this. i have never seen it before. >> between january 3 and january 6, 2021, miss green, you viewed the electoral college certification of joe biden as a blow to freedom. is that fair? rep. greene: i viewed it as we

needed to object because their words -- why so much evidence in so many people. thousands of people had signed their names on affidavits saying they voted -- witnessed voter fraud. i care about the people. i care about their votes, and i care about our election integrity. >> my question is if you viewed it as a view to political freedom if the electoral college certification of joe biden were fair? rep. greene: i don't agree with your wording. >> once freedom is gone, it doesn't come back by itself. rep. greene: i don't agree with your wording. >> the owning way you can get freedom back is if it is earned with blood. those are your words. rep. greene: you are twisting my words and creating a narrative that you are trying to make. that is not my narrative. that is not what i said. that is not what i said. >> in 2020, that is what you

said and what you meant. in october of 2020 when you did an interview with mr. door. the only way to get freedom back is through blood. that is what you meant, right? rep. greene: you showed a video that is chopped up and doesn't show my full sentence, so i don't agree with what you are saying. >> do you have any explanation, representative greene, for why it is that on january 5, the day before january 6, you described january 6 as our 1776 moment? rep. greene: i don't remember.

seeing this interview is the first time i've seen this in a long time. i don't remember. >> prior to that, you spoke publicly on your facebook page about the transfer of power that would occur on january 6. do you recall that. rep. greene: i don't recall. >> you said in the video on your facebook page that the peaceful transfer of power ought not be allowed to occur. rep. greene: i don't recall. >> you said the peaceful transfer of power should not be allowed to occur because he did not win the 2020 election, correct? rep. greene: i don't recall. >> let's go to the videotape. let's start with -- let's talk about this. there are two versions of this. i'm going to show them, you can tell me if they have been chopped up in any way. they have been chopped up, that's true, but you can tell me if i misinterpreted that.

the first one on 1776. that one. >> just a second. what is the date and the source. mr. celli: it is from her facebook page, now available. it was captured on another facebook page and posted. >> where it says it is from on a facebook page.

mr. celli: yes. it has been admitted, your honor. >> what is the date? mr. celli: we are going to ask your client that. rep. greene: this is an important time in our history. we cannot allow this to be let go. you cannot allow it to just transfer power. peacefully. like joe biden once, and allow him to become our president. he did not win this election. it is being stolen, and the evidence is there. mr. celli: that is you, right? rep. greene: yes. megan: when you say that we can't allow it to be let go, the key and that phrase is to have

joe biden declared the winner of the presidential election. rep. greene: you are showing us a video or doesn't give us reference before hand or afterward. so it is not really my complete understanding of what i was saying. mr. celli: your answer is that you did not say that. rep. greene: we are watching a personal video and a personal statement of clearly an interview i was doing, but i don't know what date it was on and it definitely was on someone else's twitter or facebook. i can't see it from here. mr. celli: that is you saying you cannot allow a transfer of power peacefully like joe biden once, and allow this to become our president. you did -- she did not win this election. that is you saying that. rep. greene: that is a partial statement on that video.

mr. celli: can we pull up --. >> do we see the whole thing? play the whole thing. i want to be sure that we have an opportunity to see what the differences. mr. celli: i make an upper -- suggestion? let's go back to the beginning and play all of this. >> i agree. rep. greene: this is an important time in our history. we cannot allow this just to be let go. we can't allow it to just transfer power. peacefully, like joe biden once, and allow him to become our president. he does not win this election. it is being stolen and the evidence is there. the mainstream media, for four years, talked about russian collusion, conspiracy theory, and lies.

they did an investigation. it was nonstop into russian collusion. nonstop. yet, they refuse it, and this is an important time in our history. mr. celli: let's show the witness ask 12 -- px12. mr. celli: that video that you made and entered into objecting into the electoral college, the count and. rep. greene: i don't see a date. it is not from my specific facebook page. it appears to be on someone else's. mr. celli: let's play the other video.

>> where is this from? mr. celli: this is the same thing. it was taken off of the video on facebook from a client. >> where did you get it? mr. celli: it is off of facebook from the republican party. it is a secondary source that has copied it. but that is where we got it from. >> it is a different version. mr. celli: go ahead and play. >> holdup one second. this one is also into evidence, your honor. for what it's worth. rep. greene: they reelected donald j. trump for former years. you can't allow it to transfer power peacefully, like joe biden wanted and allow them to become our president. he did not win this election.

it is being stolen, and the evidence is there. there is a large group, and we are organizing an effort to object to the auto college vote for joe biden, and to dave -- keep safe that the election has been stte:. i am very convicted in what we are doing on january 6. it is to store, and i feel it is very important. i generate six, if you are able, there are going to 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 the nation who we are. we are a people that are not going to go quietly into the night. we are not a people that are going to be arrested and socials and without stopping it. -- socialism without stopping it. mr. celli: do you agree that this is a video you created, and

you are objecting to the electoral college motive january 6? rep. greene: this is a video on that accountability group that looks to be chopped up and that is not my full video. >> the words that are shown, that you're speaking, those are things that you were talking about in anticipation of an dissipation -- of objecting to congress. rep. greene: the only thing i was working on was objecting, but that is a cut and spliced video. mr. celli: when you say that you are organizing effort on this video, the wii is congress, right? rep. greene: the members in congress are the ones who can object. that is part of our ability. that is what we are allowed to do, lawfully. mr. celli: exactly. making objections is in fact, by

members of congress, part of the lawful transfer of power, right? rep. greene: objecting is part of the process. democrats have objected to the past three republicans who were elected. i'm sure there was a lot of planning that went into that, discussions, and there was a lot of complaining and a lot of work in it, and as you can see, we talked about it. >> when you are talking about not being all ash not allowing it to happen, we can't just let it go, we can't allow it to transfer power peacefully, like joe biden once, allow that to become our president, because he didn't win, you were not talking about objections on the floor of congress, were you? rep. greene: i believe what i was referencing was we cannot allow this to happen without objecting. i felt it was our responsibility to object on behalf of the large

amount of voter fraud, and the people who truly felt like they were having problems in our election. mr. celli: you are testifying under that you meant that you cannot allow it to transfer power peacefully, like joe biden once. to allow him to become a present. that was a reference to it. rep. greene: without objecting. mr. celli: you don't say anything in that part of the video about objections before congress, right? rep. greene: i believe the video -- i said, objecting. mr. celli: you said you cannot allow a transfer of power and allow him to become our president because he didn't win the election. you don't mention about objections on the floor of congress. rep. greene: we just saw two videos that are cut and clipped, and they don't, like i said, they are not complete. the first video started with me saying i was starting into

partially something i was already saying from the video, and my recollection of watching it just then. it was purely talking about objecting. rep. greene: one of the things you say is that you called upon people to come to washington on january 6. mr. celli: right? rep. greene: i don't remember every single word we just watch. let's look at a big --. mr. celli: let's look at it again. rep. greene: america reelected donald date -- donald j. trump for four more years. you cannot allow to just transfer power peacefully like joe biden wanted and allow him to become our president. he did not win this election. it is being stolen and the

evidence is there. there is a large group of us. we are organizing an effort to object to the electoral college vote for joe biden, and keeps dave -- keep safe the real evidence that the election is been stte: grip -- that the election has been stolen. this is historic, and i feel it is very important. on january 6, if you're able, there are going to possibly be a million or more people coming to washington to be there for this historic event. it is critical for everyone to show up. >> in that segment, you're asking people to come. rep. greene: in this video, which i've seen three times, which means it has been cut three times, i saw that it was talking about supporting people peacefully, and support our objection in support president trump.

mr. celli: how did you know i million or more people might come to washington on january 6? rep. greene: i believe those were the numbers being talked about at the time. mr. celli: by who? rep. greene: the media. mr. celli: did you plan demonstrations? rep. greene: i think i saw it on the news. mr. celli: you said it was critical for everyone to show up. rep. greene: yes. peacefully supporting our objection. that was the only thing i was interested in doing, and planning. objecting. mr. celli: the last thing you see the video is that we are the people who are not going to go quietly in the night. do you recall that part? rep. greene: yes. mr. celli: that phrase, that is not something you came up with on your own. is it? rep. greene: i have no idea. mr. celli: that is something you borrowed, correct? rep. greene: i don't know what you're talking about. mr. celli: you borrow that line

from the movie independence day, right? mr. celli: right? rep. greene: no. [inaudible] [inaudible] >> hold on one second. have you seen the movie independence day. rep. greene: i've seen it before. it is probably great, but i haven't watched a movie of the longtime grip from what i remember, it is a great movie. mr. celli: this is the one about a big battle with aliens coming to earth on july 4.

rep. greene: you're giving us quite an entertainment today. thank you. mr. celli: there is a scene in that movie were the president of the united states addresses the fighter pilots who are about to go into battle against aliens. you remember that? rep. greene: i do not remember that. but you're going to show us. maybe. [inaudible] [movie audio]

[laughter] mr. celli: great scene. rep. greene: it was a great scene. mr. celli: the actor says, we will not go quietly into the night. rep. greene: i heard that just now. mr. celli: that is the exact phrase you used in the video that we saw that was previous. we are not a people that will go quietly into the night. rep. greene: i don't view courtrooms and politics as hollywood, like you do. i'm not the first person to set it and i will be the last, and i don't recall getting any inspiration from this hollywood movie like you are suggesting. mr. celli: you are not

communicating and referencing that film that january 6 was going to be a new kind of independence day? rep. greene: all i was talking about with objecting and standing up for people's votes in our election. mr. celli: independence day is july 4, correct? rep. greene: july 4, 1776. >> it might be a good time for a break if you are on schedule. mr. celli: let's keep going through the break. >> it depends if we're talking 30 minutes or two hours. mr. celli: do you believe president trump should impose martial law to remain in power. rep. greene: i don't remember.

mr. celli: you're not denying it but you don't remember. rep. greene: i don't remember. mr. celli: would you agree that the storming of the capital on january 6 with something that is atypical? rep. greene: i was very unhappy about it. mr. celli: we talked earlier about anthony aguero. rep. greene: you quoted him earlier, yes. mr. celli: he is somebody who you know. rep. greene: yes. mr. celli: he is someone you spent a fair amount of time with, is that fair? rep. greene: not much time. mr. celli: is he a friend of yours. rep. greene: yes. mr. celli: he is he a friend of yours? rep. greene: he is someone i hardly ever talk to but he is a friend. i just said friend, someone i knew. mr. celli: he refers to you as one of his closest friends. you heard that, correct? rep. greene: i had not. mr. celli: you refer to him as

amazing, right? rep. greene: he's done a lot of great work with the illegal invasion. i think it is amazing, the footage that he showed. mr. celli: you know that mr. aguero entered the capital all -- on january 6, right? rep. greene: i heard that after january 6. mr. celli: you saw a picture of him in the middle of the crowd on the capitol rotunda on january 6, 2020? rep. greene: i have nothing the picture. mr. celli: let's have a look at this evidence please.

>> is that man mr. aguero? rep. greene: i can't really tell. mr. celli: if i told you that was reported as mr. up where i and he acknowledged that publicly, with that help you discern who that is? rep. greene: i don't really buy a whole lot of what you say. cnn, mother jones, and other terrible sources. showing hollywood movies. but if that's what you're trying to say no, but i don't know if that is him or not. mr. celli: he has acknowledged publicly that it is him at the capitol rotunda, without help you identify him as your friend esther aguero. rep. greene: i don't see your evidence of him acknowledging that is him. mr. celli: i think we can do something about that. let's see 13 please.

if i show you something from cnn, you probably would not accept, would you? i did we've established that today. -- i think we established that today.

did you speak to mr. guerrero on january 6? did you communicate with him them in any way, email, and did you communicate with mr. guerrero at any point prior to january 6? about plans for a demonstration in washington? i did not. rep. greene: there was a lot of press in there, that is the job he does. with border media. he works with that. but i don't have any idea about -- i have no clue about that. mr. celli: were you aware of that on january 6 in washington? with a demonstration? rep. greene: i was not aware. mr. celli: did he communicate with any of your staff via text or email or cell phone about the

fact that he would be coming to washington? rep. greene: not to my knowledge. mr. celli: did you ever discuss with mr. aguero the idea that on january 6, as part of a demonstration at the u.s. capitol, it would be flooded with people? rep. greene: no. the only thing i was working on was objecting, and i had no expectation of anything to happen on january 6. mr. celli: but you knew there would be demonstrations, right? rep. greene: i knew there was a peaceful march planned. mr. celli: on january 6, were you in contact with anyone who was involved in what you describe as a peaceful march that occurred that day? rep. greene: no. mr. celli: was anyone in your congressional staff or campaign staff in touch on cell phone tax, email, with anyone who is

involved in the days demonstration? rep. greene: not to my knowledge. mr. celli: at any time on january 6 two disclose to anyone outside of the capital your opinion in the capital during that day's events? rep. greene: i told my family i was safe. mr. celli: anyone other than family? rep. greene: no. mr. celli: when's you first learn that people were entering the capital on january 6 unlawfully? rep. greene: when we were in the house chamber, we were starting the electoral count, and we went on lockdown, and that was when i

first learned of it. rep. greene: do you know what time of day that was? rep. greene: i don't know the exact time. mr. celli: and, when he went on lockdown, as you describe it, what can you tell us what that meant, what do you remember about that? rep. greene: they had to lock all the doors in the house chamber, and they told us that it was on lockdown, and we could choose to leave or stay inside and it would be safer inside. i stayed inside. mr. celli: when you say you stayed inside, or did you stay? rep. greene: in the house chambers. mr. celli: during that time you are in lockdown, as you put it, on the house floor, you said you were in touch with your family to tell them you are safe? rep. greene: not at that time. mr. celli: when did that happen? rep. greene: sometime after we were evacuated. mr. celli: where were you evacuated? rep. greene: i cannot disclose that location. mr. celli: somewhere in the

capital? rep. greene: yes. mr. celli: when you are in the other location, a secure location, is that right? rep. greene: yes. mr. celli: did you have any communication by phone or text or some other way with anyone who is outside the room, outside of the secure location you are in? rep. greene: not that i recall, no. mr. celli: when you were notified that people had entered the capital, legally, did you also understand at that point there is been violence in the capital? rep. greene: i only knew what i was told. i heard gunshots, we all heard it. we were so confused. we thought nt 4.0 is breaking in, or blm, because those were the riots that had gone on throughout 2020, day in and day out.

just horrible riots all over the country. those were the only things that made sense to us about it. mr. celli: what do you mean by blm? rep. greene: blm writers. mr. celli: is that a black -- is that an acronym? rep. greene: black live matters were writers who attended about the president. mr. celli: do you know if anyone connected to the black lives matter movement was subject to arrest or charged in connection to the january 6 event? rep. greene: i don't know. i know they were arrested all over the country, much through 2020 and over 95% of them had their charges dropped. unlike january 6 writers -- rioters. they are in jail, all of them. retrial. mr. celli: may i have a few moments to consult? >> we don't need a break, do we?

would you like to take a break? we can step out. that might be easier. all right. [inaudiblemr. celli: innkeeper r patients. your honor, in previous discussions, we are talking about what is marked as evidence number 27, which is a newsmax clip, you may recall. you remember that, correct? rep. greene: the one we already watched? mr. celli: i asked you if you recall that you posted that clip on your facebook page. rep. greene: i don't recall what was posted on a facebook page. i don't make all of my facebook posts. mr. celli: fair enough. >> explain what this is. mr. celli: i'd like to show you a live version of the congressional campaign facebook

page today. what we have is a clip that we have separated in the previous testimony. i would like to play that for you, to see if you'll acknowledge that clip is now available on your facebook page. rep. greene: i know it wasn't actually planned, but president trump knows how much i support him. he knows how much i support our district. the georgia 14th district. i am happy to go up there and encourage our voters to get out and vote. we can't allow our two republican senators to lose their seats to two radical socialist democrats. i'm excited to get up there, and also, senator callie will be

objecting to the popular stolen election on jamie six. -- on january 6. i am excited that we will be fighting for president trump's claim for the integrity of our elections. >> what is your plan tomorrow? how do you plan to handle what could possibly go down in this joint session of congress tomorrow? what are you prepared for? rep. greene: i will echo the words of many of my colleagues. we were just meeting in a conference meeting this morning. this is our 1776 moment. mr. celli: that is up on your facebook page, is that right? rep. greene: if it is up there than it is on there. mr. celli: that was posted on january 5, 2021, correct? rep. greene: if that is when it was posted, then that is when it

was posted. mr. celli: it was posted with your authorization permission, correct? rep. greene: i do not view things that are posted before they are posted. mr. celli: my question was, if this was on your page, it is something you authorized and permitted. rep. greene: if i am authorizing it, i would view it in advance before it was posted. mr. celli: no one put that on your facebook page without authorization from you, right? rep. greene: i don't recall authorizing, but i understand that as a member of congress, we have staff and many people who post interviews and so forth on our social media for us. mr. celli: if you look at the top right, you will see there is a message, ms. green. january 5, 2021 -- that is a

comment that you posted on your own facebook page. this is our 1776 moment. correct? rep. greene: that is my campaign facebook page. mr. celli: that was posted on jamie fifth, 2021. -- january 5, 2021. rep. greene: that is what it says. mr. celli: prior to the inauguration, did you advocate for martial law with the president of the united states? rep. greene: i don't recall. mr. celli: you know president trump, correct? rep. greene: yes. mr. celli: do you support him politically? rep. greene: yes. mr. celli: would you say he is an important person in general? rep. greene: yes. he was president of the night states. mr. celli: you had meetings with him in between the election of 2020 and january 20 2021,

correct? rep. greene: yes. mr. celli: in those meetings, you discussed with him your advocacy for the idea that there should be martial law declared in the united states. rep. greene: i never discussed this. mr. celli: are you saying this didn't happen, or you don't recall it happening. rep. greene: i don't recall it happening. mr. celli: you don't recall saying 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. mr. celli: she is not a member of the executive. unless there's something i missed? that is not a proper objection n --. prior to the navigation of joe biden, was ms. green ever advocating for martial law being

imposed in a conversation with the chief of staff and then president of the united states, mr. trump russian mar --? >> i don't recall. mr. celli: did you ever advocate that any member should push for martial law? rep. greene: i don't recall. mr. celli: are you or any other congressional representatives advocating for martial law to stop the peaceful transition of power before the inauguration? rep. greene: i don't remember. mr. celli: do you regard the people who were arrested, and charged in connection with the event as patriots? rep. greene: i don't -- i don't think them being arrested and charged on january 6 affect the fact that they are patriots or not. mr. celli: so you do regard them

as patriots. rep. greene: some of them are veterans. some are patriots. [indiscernible] [indiscernible] this is a story that appeared in

the washington post on january 6, 2021. would you read that story? rep. greene: i did not read this one. mr. celli: did you recall hearing that prior to january 6, the washington post reported that there would be concerns that there were -- was violence in washington on january 6? rep. greene: i heard no threats of violence that i remember at all. mr. celli: let's also look at ex-40. [indiscernible] thank you.

mr. celli: i have placed before you a january 25, 2021 article entitled "threats reppo through far right internet forums ahead of protest," this appeared on nbc news on the fifth. do you recall reading that nbc was reporting that there were violent threats that were expected to occur january 6, and

they reported that on the fifth of january? 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. one last thing. you told us earlier in the day that you were suspended from your twitter account and permanently taken off twitter. rep. greene: permanently banned. mr. celli: you are not banned from facebook though? rep. greene: no. mr. celli: we saw your live facebook page a few minutes ago. rep. greene: you pulled that up. mr. celli: and on your facebook page, you directed certain videos be removed from the facebook age? rep. greene: i don't recall. mr. celli: one of the videos you

have removed was the one from february 2019, where it talked about a sea of people, and flooding the capital, and violence in connection with the funding of the wall, right? rep. greene: i don't know. mr. celli: you had your staff take that down, didn't you? rep. greene: i don't know what you are referring to. mr. celli: facebook never to do to take video off your facebook page, did they? rep. greene: i don't recall. mr. celli: nothing further, your honor. >> do you want to proceed, do you need a break? rep. greene: no. i am doing great. [indiscernible] >> that would be great. thank you. >> i'm going to take you back to

january 6. you have already testified that that you were on lock down in the house chambers. rep. greene: i would ask that you speak up a little bit, thank you. >> you already testified you were in lockdown and house chambers. did you have an opportunity to do a video? rep. greene: yes. >> what time did that occur on january 6? rep. greene: i believe around 2:30 in the afternoon. >> where were you? rep. greene: i was inside the house chambers and we had gone on lock down -- lockdown.

and it was after i had learned there had been violence outside the capitol, and someone had been shot. we were early told there were people inside the capitol. and i got very concerned because at that time, i was so confused. i was shocked. i had never been in anything violent, any kind of situation like that, and i was really scared. and i went inside the cloak room in the house chamber, the republican cloak room, into one of the phone booths where you can go to make a phone call or anything. i may didn't -- i went inside there and i made a video telling people to be peaceful, not to be violent, and giving out a message. i tweeted that video from the republican cloak room. >> did you know at that time that there was an attack on the capitol? rep. greene: now, i didn't know.

-- no, i didn't know. people were saying different things. we thought it was antifa dressed up as from supporters. we had no idea. i was in the cloakroom, couldn't see the news, i just knew we were on lockdown and by that point, they said you cannot leave. you have to stay in here. >> [indiscernible] is the tweet. and i think we just have the video. >> this has already been admitted. >> right. >> is this your tweet, is this your face? rep. greene: yes. >> did you say in this tweet, [indiscernible]

be safe. be smart. be peaceful. obey the laws. this is not a time for violence, this is a time to support president trump and election integrity. god bless. rep. greene: ye yes. s-- yes. >> good we show the video? r-1? [indiscernible] set it up yesterday. >> and of course, everybody is here. i think that is the universal rule.

>> we had a thumb drive delivered yesterday. >> i know, and i apologize. technology. this might be it. >> is that it? >> i guess it is safe. [indiscernible]

>> is it ready? >> yeah. >> ok. let's go. >> turn up the volume.

>> can you turn the sound up to maximum, please? 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 washington dc 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. south, 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 come 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 sad 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 announced violence in all the videos i have sent in speeches i have said, about how upset i was about the riot on january 6 and how much i didn't 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. celli: i don't know what this is relevant to. i object. judge beaudrot: this is not relevant.

mr. bopp: 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 to -- going through in congress where we are allowed to object. so this is very important, so i

urge you to stay calm. be the red 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.

represenative 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. the unhinged left is out of control and their disgusting witchhunt is full of hypocrisy. democrats are on record for supporting violence [indiscernible] we did not plan, because, and denounce, and that is capital letters, denounce the january 6 attack. i defend my honor and reputation. is that the message sent? out on your twitter account? rep. greene: yes. -- 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. let me show you this. [indiscernible] when you testified before congress on march 2, you are a member of congress? 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 insurrection.

we will 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. welcome to take a break.

it has been chaotic the last few minutes. mr. celli: you mentioned a number of statements you made after january 6 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. i have always announced violence. i announced those antifa/blm riots all over the country over and over, just like i announced -- just like i'd announced 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. gail, i did not like what they did but that i am there because i support the assets -- a 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 mine 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 about ray apps, 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. rep. greene: you have referred

to january 6 as a insurrection, right? rep. greene: i am not sure. judge beaudrot: anything else, before we take our break? anything else. >> no, sir. >> do the rest, or do we rest? >> either we are going to put in a video or move to closing statements. but the video has been admitted read 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. we will take a break. the want to take a break, i don't know what you are contemplating? 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. 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] judge beaudrot: before we start, i trust the message got through? mr. celli: it did. very much appreciated, your honor. i appreciate the council on the other side as well. two last matters before we rest.

we would apply for the entirety of p1 and p2, the tweets reflected in the pro public a report and the loft can report -- lofgren report and miss greene's testimony about her twitter account and how it operated, we ask that those be admitted. mr. bopp: goodness, sorry. it would have made a lot more sense if that had happened at the time, just because it is authenticated as to being admissible. judge beaudrot: that is why i am asking what is your position on

this, there were a number of them we went over and some that we never went over. and i think it was one that you requested. mr. bopp: i have no objection. judge beaudrot: to make sure i got it right, we are looking at basically everything you want? mr. celli: yes. and p2 as well. p2 is lofgren. mr. bopp: that is a different kettle of fish. what are we talking about, the whole thing? mr. celli: yes. these are her social media posts. that is all they are. mr. bopp: [indiscernible] the entire report? judge beaudrot: and looks like

this is, again -- you might want to take a look at it. everything that is in p2 looks like it is -- there is a cover page. mr. celli: we are happy to exclude that. judge beaudrot: that was my question. what about the cover page. mr. celli: we can exclude that. judge beaudrot: so you will be going from page 22 to page 28? mr. celli: correct. judge beaudrot: just the texts and tweets? ? in enclosures mr. celli: yes, your honor -- just the texts and tweets in enclosures? mr. celli: yes, your honor. mr. bopp: we made our individual objections yesterday. judge beaudrot: and they are preserved. you are preserving those. we will preserve the objection. mr. celli: we have one last

piece of evidence, p 73, which is a video. it is 14 minutes long, your honor. judge beaudrot: which one is this? mr. celli: this is "the washington post" video. it shows the events of january 6. judge beaudrot:? did i already watch this mr. celli: yes -- did i already watch this? mr. celli: yes. judge beaudrot: why does the audience need to watch this? there is material in the record that is not subject to today's hearing, which i am happy to review during the breaks. but i don't know that we can play the video. mr. celli: as you wish, your honor. judge beaudrot: anything else. mr. celli: the petitioner's rest. judge beaudrot: anything else? mr. bopp: we rest.

judge beaudrot: the petitioners get the last word. mr. bopp, you get to go first. mr. bopp: thank you, your honor. i again want to talk about the law, and then i will talk about the evidence and whether that evidence meets the correct legal standards. we have a procedure under north carolina state law, 22-1-5, which permits the secretary of state to renew someone as a candidate for office or if they do not qualify as a candidate for office. or number two, if they are not eligible to take office, in this

case, january 3, 2023. they assert the disqualification under section three, that representative greene engaged in insurrection or rebellion after taking office on january 3, and i assume, even though they are not clear, on january 6. section three also provides that "congress may, by a vote of two thirds of each house, remove such disability," in other words, remove the political disability of not being able to take office by taking the oath, which is the truth. and they can do that at any time. you can see the wording of the

last sentence is not time-limited. in other words, it could have happened last week, it could be done next month, it could be done on january 3, 2023, when representative greene presents her self and before she is sworn in, congress can pass a statute under section three, the last sentence, and she would then be qualified to take office. how in the world do we know right now that she will not be qualified on january 3, 2023, when congress at any time, either for her in particular or for her class of people, as congress has done -- in fact,

there were thousands of individual amnesties, and then two general amnesties granted by the congress -- could be issued at any time. it is impossible for this court to know at this time that she is not eligible to take office, because of that contingency that can be exercised by congress at any time in the future up until january 3? that means she cannot be viewed as disqualified today, because it cannot be determined that she is ineligible for office on january 3, 2023. that should end this. second, this has already happened. the amnesty has been granted.

the simple argument about this is the 1872 amnesty act, interleaved the disability under section 32 "all persons whomsoever." representative greene is a all persons whomsoever. and it relieved the political disability from section three. and the word most here is a past participle, meeting the phrase imposed by section three is an adjective regarding what political disabilities we are talking about. because absent that modifier of political disability, it could be 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. so, the only way to know what political disabilities we are talking to is a past participle. i didn't know this at the beginning, your honor -- the past are to circle imposed by section three. we also know that section three is both retrospective because it affected anyone in the past that had engaged in insurrection or rebellion after taking the oath, and disqualified them from office. but it also had a prospective effect, because if it didn't have a prospective effect, what would be the basis to apply this to representative greene? so, we know it has both prospective and retrospective and in the amnesty act of 1872, ed was removed.

that -- it was removed. that retrospective and pro-spec to political disability under section three was removed for all persons whomsoever. and the district court in north carolina agreed with that. that case is now on appeal. the district court here in atlanta did not. end of case is on appeal. so you get to be the tiebreaker. we also know that when the agent 72 amnesty act was adopted -- when the 1872 m to steal act was adopted, they did intend for it to be both retrospective and prospective because of the wording of the 1898 amnesty act. the 1898 amnesty act, after the

phrase "disabilities imposed by the third section of the 14th amendment, article amendments of constitution to the united states" inserted the words "heretofore incurred." that is not in the 1872 version. congress knew very well how to do a retrospective amnesty, if they chose to. because in 1889, that is exactly what they do, they retrospective only amnesty based on the words heretofore incurred. in accordance with the english language and terms of construction, heretofore incurred is like [indiscernible] and it comports with the understanding of section three

we heard some interesting things about the history of our country. from my fellow hoosier. he admitted that when congress considered the 14th amendment and section three, there was not a word about any other insurrection other than the civil war. and that means that the whiskey rebellion's, as interesting as they are, were facilitated -- it was a historical occurrence. there is no evidence. even if we need to look at legislative districts -- no

evidence that congress considered that at all. so, i will soon be talking to you about what we do know about what they thought in 1867. but, now, let's get to the meaning of those other words in section three, "engaging in insurrectionary rebellion" -- i will soon explain. number one was described at the time by authorities, when

they talked about those phrasess. so, what is engagement? what is engaged? it promotes conduct. he will soon hear from the authorities that that is "direct -- "a direct over act, such as voluntarily joining the armed forces, the confederacy, giving them food, giving the army food, cash, -- cash, whatever, shelter. now, there is not a single piece of evidence that any of those things had to do with

respect to representative good -- representative greene. [indiscernible] they agree with that. and there is no other act of direct over act of an insurrection nature that she's engaged in. not a single one. now, of course, you are not satisfied with that. -- they are not satisfied with that. they want to use political speech. and they want to use the nuances, the vagueness. or, way to second -- wait a second, you didn't use the word peaceful in this one sentence right here.

right there, this [indiscernible] -- rate there. 1876. now, if you are going to use speech. which you can't use here because they didn't use the words, they said engage, in sight an insurrection -- incite an insurrection. it is different because you can see for instance in the act of 1862, it was a felony to "incite , set on foot, assist, or engage in any rebellion or insurrection." those two words are used.

[indiscernible] -- congress is throwing words out there. they don't necessarily mean a different thing. they defined incitement as inciting or producing a minute wallace -- action imminent -- imminent lawless action that will incite or produce such or that is likely to produce such action. producing a minute wallace -- imminent lawless action. that is very restrictive. that is very limiting.

we have now seen it on full display here. the danger of using words way beyond their meeting to allow political opponents -- political opponents to smear their opposition in a court of law. i understand the constraints. and the role that you play. and they have exploited that to the max. well, what are the words that do not amount to the insurrection? well, we know there are words like that. or statements like that. ku klux klan leader -- "advocating the duty and necessity or propriety of crime, sabotage, violence, or unlawful methods of terrorism as a means

to accomplish political reform -- industrial or political reform." they said, that is advocacy, not incitement of violence. a representative of the naacp, "if we catch any of you going in any of them racist stores, we are going to break your damn neck." that is advocacy, not incitement for violence. a war professor, "we are taking the effing streets again." not incitement for violence, but advocacy. protected by the first amendment. so, we know the kind of words then -- so what do we have from then? we have

we have a rally -- we have a rally. there is no evidence that it was anything but a peaceful rally. and an accusation that she organized a, which she didn't. and while she urged people to go to it, she didn't even go do it herself and there is zero evidence that anything unlawful happens there. these kind of rallies have been -- happen in the capitol of the u.s. every single year. and, you know, guess what is one of the things they always say? left wing, right-wing, democrats, republicans, whatever

-- what do they always say? once we are done here, we will go to the capitol, tell your representative to vote for your issue -- ok? that, in their world, is calling for violence. when it is absolutely appropriate, for people to go to the capitol of the u.s., to enter into it, it is absolutely lawful to do that to go talk to the congress,men, the house and senate -- whatever they might be. go to the capitol. then, what about this, representative greene? did you take anyone on a tour of the capitol between generate and january 6?

did any of you give any maps of the capitol to anybody? what are they talking about? congress men do that every single day for their constituents. is giving a tour or a map some sort of code word, to be viewed as participating in a flawless riot? 1776. what about independence day? or how about talking about the declaration of independence? or what about talking about the revolutionary war, for our independence? these are now codewords for advocating a violent overthrow of the government of the u.s. what an outreach. they want to hijack and cancel

words like 1776, the declaration of independence, independence day, and the american revolution. what about, oh no, defense of the second amendment? if you advocate for defense of the second amendment, you are in favor, and in fact are engaging in the violet overthrow the government of the u.s. -- violent overthrow of the government of the u.s. that is the implication, isn't it? the second amendment says, a well regulated militia, necessary for a free republic, i don't remember exactly. so, yes, there's a military application, if you will, in a militia.

a militia was a factor in winning the revolutionary war. many people who were in the issue fought in the civil war. and so, and they were able to do that because of the second amendment, in many cases. so, advocating for the second amendment is no code word for engaging in an insurrection and rebellion against the u.s. how about "get our freedoms back?" she said those words. oh, my word. i mean -- yes, people on the conservative side are concerned the biden administration is taking our freedoms.

so, yeah, that is a concern, about what will happen with the election of biden, and it is going to be the case, we have lost some of them -- some of them. to be concerned about that is quintessential political speech. what about -- they keep saying this -- the events of january 6. so, what we are going to do is mesh them altogether, right? they are all one thing. let's mesh them altogether. the first amendment allows you to do that. the first amendment provides freedom of association -- under the first amendment, as assembly. protected by the first amendment. is if you have a peaceful rally,

which they had, there no evidence of otherwise, -- there is no evidence of otherwise, some people lead, as some did in the capitol, and some commit an illegal act. this rally does not lose its first amendment protection. because our actions here that show us in that situation -- because the actions here that show us in that situation cannot be attributed to the organization itself or, who could ever have a rally? nobody can guarantee that somebody might show up. whether they be supporters of what the rally is about or provocatuers, or whatever, i've been to a rally with 500,000 people the capitol.

there is a two-step analysis. why was the rally peaceful? nonviolent? unquestionably so. this is what the supreme court said. the right to association not lose protection merely because some members of the group may have participated in conduct or advocated doctrines that itself is not protected. the naacp is particularly instructive here in that.

as it were constitutionally protected speech. designed to influence government action. i.e. separately constitutional riot of members of congress to object -- to vote on the electoral college. along with the illegal actions by a few that the acts of the latter don't strip the others of the first amendment rights where the government failed to prove that "the naacp authorized either actually or inherently the unlawful conduct." either authorized or ratified. [indiscernible] -- worried about that. so we have different events,

some that are subject to personal protection, others, attack on the capitol, others that are not. and to -- and to drag her into, did you promote the rally? did you put it on your calendar? are you invited to speak -- were you invited to speak? we all know she was invited to speak. it's the stripper of her first amendment rights. all of these are -- it's to strip her first amendment rights. all of these are first amendment rights it is not incitement, much less involves -- much less constitutes involvement in unlawful action. the insurrection is narrowly

defined. " in cases -- i quote in cases from 1842, 1795 militia act -- they also basically the same thing. and has to be an armed uprising that is so formidable as to divide the authority of the u.s. in order to suppress it. and of course, we have a case where you can have mob violence and it's not an insurrection. unless it is such a risk that actually military forces are required to intervene. i mean -- how do we know all this? ok?

well, in 1867, it was put up on the screen for a moment. i have the right to give you a copy. now, i don't know who can read that. [laughter] i confess, i cannot. however, therefore, what i have done is, at 3:00 in the morning thursday morning, i figured out how to not only zoom it, ok, to make it larger, the applicable

section, but copy them -- so i did that. those are the attachments. because it was 3:00 in the morning, i kind of screwed up on my numbering. so it is 1a, 1b, then 2 through 14 or so. this takes you step-by-step through the analysis of the attorney general of the u.s. in 1867. i am showing them to you. what the words engage and insurrectionary rebellion are, what they mean and met. -- and meant. because those words were not just use in 1868 -- used in

1868. this is what the attorney general was addressing. it was used in the reconstruction act. because they were going to open up voting to the people who lived in the confederacy. fll -- full confederacy. they were required to take an oath. one of them was they had to swear that they did not "engage in insurrection or rebellion" or "aid and comfort to the enemies of the u.s." 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, 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] [indistinct conversations]

[indistinct conversations]

>> c-span is your unfiltered view of government. we are funded by these television companies and more including wow. >> has changed. today, a fast and reliable internet connection is something that no one can live without. so we are there for our customers with speed and reliability. now more than ever it starts with great internet. >> wow supports c-span as a public service along with these other television providers, giving you a front row seat to democracy. tonight on q&a, journalist matthew constantly talks about his book the right, the 100 year war for american conservatism. >> we see through line of

figures who have a populace that is negatively charged and becomes conspiratorial, and lives on scapegoats and can often lead to places to where they are arguing not just against the left but against america itself. that is the danger for the right. >> that is tonight on c-span's q&a tonight. you can listen to all of this on our free c-span now app. next, a look at preserving democracy in the united states and abroad with condoleezza rice and michael mcfall. they cover russia's invasion of ukraine and spreading democracy in former soviet states. this is just over one hour. >>