Judge Charles Baudroy said in a 19-page recommendation that even assuming the US Capitol riot was an uprising, “presidents have provided insufficient evidence to show that Green’s representative is” involved “in the uprising after she was sworn in as an office on January 3, 2021.
The recommendation will be adopted by Georgia Secretary of State Brad Rafensperger, a Republican. It is possible, but very unlikely, for Rafensperger to overturn the judge’s recommendation and disqualify Green himself. Rivals against the Greens can still appeal Raffensperger’s decision in state courts.
Republican primary elections in Georgia are scheduled for May 24.
The judge concluded that there was “no convincing evidence” that Green had taken direct action to help the rebels – such as physical exertion, contributing personal services or capital, issuing directives or marching orders, transmitting intelligence or even statements. Her belligerent rhetoric about the election was not enough to link her to the attack.
“Her public statements and heated rhetoric may have contributed to the environment that eventually led to the invasion,” Bodro concluded. “But expressing constitutionally protected political views, no matter how abnormal they may be before being sworn in as a representative, is not participating in an uprising under the 14th Amendment,” and is therefore not disqualification.
This result is another failure in the Liberal-backed efforts to hold Republican officials responsible for the Capitol Revolt. It also raises new questions about whether such constitutional challenges will stand a chance against former President Donald Trump if he runs again in 2024.
“This decision betrays the main purpose of the Fourteenth Amendment rebel disqualification clause and overlooks political violence as a tool for disrupting and revoking free and fair elections,” he said in Free Speech for the People, a constitutional advocacy group that supported the challenge in a statement and called on Rafensperger to disqualify Green.
In an interview after the ruling, Green’s lawyer, James Bopp Jr., told CNN that “this is a great day for the First Amendment and a great day for our democracy.”
“Behind this political slander are many well-funded Democrat lawyers … they are trying to win elections by disqualifying members of Congress,” Bopp said.
Hearing with high stakes
Bodro’s recommendation comes weeks after he led an unprecedented all-day disqualification hearing in Atlanta, where voters’ lawyers challenging Green’s candidacy tried to link her and her militant rhetoric to the violent attack on the Capitol.
She testified for more than three hours at the hearing, becoming the first member of Congress to answer questions under oath on January 6. She denied knowing about the plans for violence and repeatedly said she could not recall key facts, such as what she had discussed with White House officials about the transfer of power and with whom she was talking on January 6.
One piece of evidence that stood out for the judge was an interview Green told Newsmax the day before the attack, where she was asked what the plan was for the joint session of Congress, where Biden’s victory would be confirmed. She said, “This is our moment in 1776,” and the contenders say it is a coded message designed to encourage Trump supporters to violence.
Cheerfully, the judge wrote that this was Green’s “only conduct” that was close to triggering her disqualification, but “it is impossible for the Court to conclude from this vague, ambiguous statement that Green’s representative had been an accomplice for months. “a long undertaking to prevent the peaceful transfer of presidential power without making a huge unjustified leap.”
Bopp, Green’s lawyer, said Friday that the claimants’ views on the 1776 comments were a “ridiculous distortion of a simple statement” and praised the judge’s conclusion on the matter.
The judge acknowledged in her ruling that Green had had contacts with people who may have incited violence – and she was questioned about those contacts under oath. But the judge ruled that “evidence does not show that Representative Green was in contact with, led or assisted these individuals, or even anyone, in planning or carrying out the invasion.”
Some of Green’s testimony has been undermined by recent revelations about Trump’s last chief of staff, Mark Meadows. Green says she can’t remember if she advocated for Trump to impose martial law, but texts received from CNN show that Green told Meadows on January 17, 2021, that he should raise the issue with Trump. even if she wasn’t sure if martial law was a good idea. Such constitutional challenges have failed or have sunk into court against Republicans holding state and federal offices in North Carolina, Pennsylvania and Arizona.
This story has been updated with additional reactions and details.
Add Comment