Comments by "afcgeo" (@afcgeo882) on "Attorney who questioned Marjorie Taylor Greene reacts to her comments on the stand" video.

@danieldenton5721 They do have proof. They have statements, emails and recordings from people she was saying these things to.
101
An “I don’t remember” isn’t the same as a 5th Amendment defense. The latter carries the court’s requirement to not consider it a sign of guilt. The former does not. An “I don’t remember” in this case is an equivalent of an “I may have, or may have not”. Those statements indicate a possible, and likely guilt. If you were 100% sure you would have never said anything like that, you wouldn’t say, “I don’t remember.”
33
That comes out when and if they question the people she said it to.
10
More than the letter of the law, she despises the spirit of the law in general, as well as the justice system as a whole.
5
That is always a worry, everywhere.
3
@jimyarbrough9935 Sadly, claiming to not know who posted something to social media has some weight to it. Most politicians have staff members who manage their social media, so proving that she posted it herself becomes a huge, if not impossible burden. It’s much easier to simply ask if she was aware of the post and why she didn’t edit or delete it. You can much easier prove that she was or reasonably should have been aware of a post than her being the one pressing the keyboard keys to type it.
3
That’s not a rule. Clarification of the question often needs to happen.
2
@pamjones8007 WTF are you babbling about? Did you take your meds today? You’re incoherent!
1
@dutchdna Video and computer posts are considered hearsay in law, and without witness corroboration carry little to no weight as evidence. Both can be easily faked. That’s why you need actual people to testify.
1
@robertherman1146 No, there’s no documented proof of her statements in personal conversations. You need witnesses to testify that she indeed did say those things, and then the judge can decide whose testimony is more believable.
1
@curtisrodriguez938 Except that’s not how hearsay works. Go to law school before arguing law!
1
@curtisrodriguez938 If you go down that road and get somewhere, fine, but don’t expect that road to be easy. Her staffers may have been unreliable college kids. Her failure to supervise isn’t the same as her saying it. Being a bad staff media manager doesn’t exclude you from elections, which is why she’s saying that. MTG has a whole team of lawyers advising her.
1
@curtisrodriguez938 They’re called interns and all Congress reps hire them. It’s not an issue if whether I think she’s being truthful. That’s not what my comments are about. What you think and what you can prove are different things.
1
@elmosweed4985 He didn’t really prove she lied. She did state what she meant by it. We may not like it, but she did say it.
1
@abelis644 There was no 180° turn. People stumble in court all the time. She did say what she meant by it. Look, when someone tries to make shit up to mock the justice system, your reply shouldn’t be to make other shit up to mock the justice system. Otherwise you’re exactly like her.
1
@elmosweed4985 One more thing to keep in mind… while this is a legal proceeding and involves a judge’s ruling regarding what potentially could be a criminal act, this is a civil court process and doesn’t carry the criminal procedure burden of proof beyond a reasonable doubt. As such, her “I don’t recall” comments, while almost impossible to disprove, don’t help her so much either.
1