A lawsuit filed by Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-Ga.) in an attempt to stop a challenge to her eligibility to run for re-election because of her connections to the violence of January 6 seemingly isn’t turning out how she hoped. Georgia federal Judge Amy Totenberg, who’s dealing with Greene’s lawsuit, appeared likely in the wake of recent proceedings to allow the challenge to continue, according to a Friday report from CNN. Totenberg — who will rule next week — indicated that she harbors “significant questions and concerns” about a federal judge’s ruling blocking a similar challenge to the eligibility for re-election of Rep. Madison Cawthorn (R-N.C.). Federal Judge Richard E. Myers II concluded in Cawthorn’s case that an 1872 law that removed political restrictions associated with involvement in insurrection — which applied to individuals connected to the Confederacy — also covered Cawthorn.
We always knew Trump’s corruption was a family affair.
Don Jr’s coup ideas should be discussed under oath. #TrumpCrimeFamily
— Chris Hahn (@ChristopherHahn) April 9, 2022
Myers’s decision in the Cawthorn case is under appeal, a group involved in the challenges — Free Speech for People — recently reiterated. The challenges against Cawthorn’s and Greene’s re-election campaigns are tied to the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, a portion of which bans individuals who were involved in insurrection or provided certain support to enemies of the United States from running for public offices across the nation. As for Greene, Totenberg — who, in contrast to the Trump nomination behind Myers’s spot on the federal judiciary, was nominated by then-President Barack Obama — remarked in reference to that 1872 law that she doesn’t “think that the Amnesty Act likely was prospective,” meaning that she’s not inclined to believe that the law was meant to cover hypothetical future insurrectionists. The alternative interpretation would be that the law was geared towards former Confederates — focusing on past insurrectionist activity, and leaving Greene politically vulnerable.
We are taking legal action to force Cushman & Wakefield to comply with our investigation into Donald Trump and the Trump Organization's financial dealings.
Cushman has provided real estate services for the Trump Organization that are significant to our investigation.
— NY AG James (@NewYorkStateAG) April 8, 2022
Right-wing lawyer James Bopp, Jr. pointed out in recent proceedings dealing with the Greene challenge that there hadn’t been any insurrection charges doled out in connection to the Capitol riot… although there have been seditious conspiracy charges, so what exactly is he getting at here? Is he just hoping that Totenberg hasn’t familiarized herself with the facts surrounding January 6? Not only have seditious conspiracy charges been dished out — one of those to face the allegation, Oath Keepers member Joshua James, pleaded guilty to the charge. Notably, Republican state officials in Georgia — who were targeted by Greene’s lawsuit hoping to stop the challenge to her candidacy — actually back moving forward with the challenge process, although they don’t appear to publicly support any specific conclusion one way or the other regarding Greene’s eligibility to run. As Russell Willard of the Georgia attorney general’s office explained the argument, “You have an ongoing proceeding that is in compliance with state law, and we would argue in compliance with federal law,” and state leaders are angling for it to proceed. Read more at this link.
This sure looks like an illegal conspiracy.
(Yes I know that in legal terms a conspiracy is itself already illegal and the word illegal is redundant. But I wanted to say illegal again to emphasize how illegal Donald Trump Jr.’s actions appear to be). https://t.co/HN0yX6RCN1
— Ted Lieu (@tedlieu) April 8, 2022