"I Don't Recall"

It's theoretically possible to prosecute someone for perjury for responding "I don't know" or "I don't remember," but if you think it's easy, you're fooling yourself.

— LeavePlutoAloneHat (@Popehat) April 22, 2022

Let's start there, because "I don't remember" is not a lie. It's an evasion. You can "get away with it." But it doesn't do your credibility any good.

During a court hearing on Friday, attorney Andrew Celli asked Greene about statements she made about trying to stop President Joe Biden's election victory from being certified.

"You said in the video on your Facebook page that the peaceful transfer of power ought not be allowed to occur," Celli said.

"I don't recall," Greene replied.

"You said the peaceful transfer of power should not be allowed to occur because [Biden] did not win the 2020 election, correct?" he asked again

"I don't recall," Greene again replied.

 

Celli then played the court a video of Greene saying exactly that.

"This is an important time in our history," said Greene. "We cannot allow this to be let go. You cannot allow it to just transfer power peacefully, like Joe Biden wants, and allow him to become our president. He did not win this election. It is being stolen, and the evidence is there."

Greene objected that this was only a "partial statement" that she made and was being taken out of context.

So they played the whole video.

It was a video she made in preparation to objection to Biden's cerfication on Jan. 6.  At least the lawyer says it is; she doesn't know.

Remember when Bill Clinton said "It depends on what the definition of "is," is"?  (Ask your grandpa!  Punk kids.)  Yeah; same energy here.  She don't know nuthin', even what she said, when she said it, why she said it.  It's all taken out of context and she didn't mean it that way but she can't tell you know how she meant it, because she don't know.

See?  Who needs perjury, when you have mendacity and blank idiocy.  This is not the defense she thinks it is. It's not even as clever as Bill Clinton thought he was; and Bill Clinton was actually clever most of the time.

Here, a more concrete example:

While being cross examined about her past violent rhetoric, Greene was asked whether she believes Pelosi is a "traitor to this country."

The question immediately made Greene uncomfortable.

"I'm not answering that question," she said. "It is speculation."

"You have said that, haven't you?" the attorney pressed.

"No, I have not said that," Greene replied.

Again, the McCarthy defense doesn't work for her.

 

The attorney would go on to read aloud a past statement from Greene in which she said exactly that.

"She's a traitor to our country, she's guilty of treason," Greene said of Pelosi in a 2019 Facebook video. "She took an oath to protect American citizens and uphold our laws. And she gives aid and comfort to our enemies who illegally invade our land. That's what treason is. And by our law representatives and senators can be kicked out and no longer serve in our government. And it's a crime punishable by death is what treason is. Nancy Pelosi is guilty of treason."

I also like her non-response response "That's speculation."  Somebody's been watching too many TeeVee courtroom dramas.  Word to the wise:  those aren't written by lawyers.  It may be a valid objection (in this case it isn't, actually) coming from her lawyer; but it doesn't work at all coming from her.

The lawyers may not win this case, but she's proven she doesn't have the courage of her convictions.  That may hurt her with her supporters.  There's no wizard of Oz, just a dumb blonde (sorry, but it's true here) behind that curtain.

Greene's Facebook page showed she repeatedly indicated support for executing [sic] prominent Democratic politicians. But now, under oath, and with her political career on the line, she lies and say she only supports peaceful demonstration. https://t.co/TJSE7scUq4

— Nicholas A. Christakis (@NAChristakis) April 22, 2022

I mean, that's just not a good look for her brand.

👀 https://t.co/Mkit8iNzqn

— Aaron Rupar (@atrupar) April 22, 2022

How it's going. If you miss it at the very end, the judge overrules the objection. "The President of the United States" he represents is Trump, not Biden. One President at a time, and all. And yes, MTG cannot be protected by executive privilege, even if she did discuss martial law with Trump ("I don't recall" is, I'm sure, the answer). Trump has to assert the privilege, he isn't there, it's the wrong objection any way you slice it.

These people are really scraping the bottom of the legal representation barrel. But that doesn't explain (to me, anyway) why this case is in court, and so many other challenges have been tossed around the country.