Marjorie Taylor Greene - Biggest Nutjob Ever to Serve?

#427
#427
GroverCleveland said:
Serious question: is that illegal in regards to a public figure?

Not debating other aspects; i believe it unethical, crass and reflects more poorly on her than him.
Click to expand...

§ 22–3053. First-degree unlawful publication. | D.C. Law Library (dccouncil.gov)

Code of the District of Columbia
§ 22–3053. First-degree unlawful publication.
(a) It shall be unlawful in the District of Columbia for a person to knowingly publish one or more sexual images of another identified or identifiable person when:
(1) The person depicted did not consent to the disclosure or publication of the sexual image;
(2) There was an agreement or understanding between the person depicted and the person publishing that the sexual image would not be disclosed or published; and
(3) The person published the sexual image with the intent to harm the person depicted or to receive financial gain.
(b) A person who violates this section shall be guilty of a felony and, upon conviction, shall be fined not more than the amount set forth in § 22-3571.01, imprisoned for not more than 3 years, or both.


Sadly, I'm sure there's some sort of carve out that shields congress from trashing private citizens.
 
#429
#429
Septic said:
§ 22–3053. First-degree unlawful publication. | D.C. Law Library (dccouncil.gov)

Code of the District of Columbia
§ 22–3053. First-degree unlawful publication.
(a) It shall be unlawful in the District of Columbia for a person to knowingly publish one or more sexual images of another identified or identifiable person when:
(1) The person depicted did not consent to the disclosure or publication of the sexual image;
(2) There was an agreement or understanding between the person depicted and the person publishing that the sexual image would not be disclosed or published; and
(3) The person published the sexual image with the intent to harm the person depicted or to receive financial gain.
(b) A person who violates this section shall be guilty of a felony and, upon conviction, shall be fined not more than the amount set forth in § 22-3571.01, imprisoned for not more than 3 years, or both.


Sadly, I'm sure there's some sort of carve out that shields congress from trashing private citizens.
Click to expand...

Is showing an image during a congressional hearing considered "publishing"?
 
  • Like
Reactions: whodeycin85
#435
#435
RockyTop85 said:
Saw a headline that she may have emailed the uncensored images to some massive email list without enabling any kind of age restriction, so presumably could have sent porn to minors. No idea if it is a felony, but I think that is what he is referring to.
Click to expand...

Yes, this is what I meant. Also, revenge porn, if this qualifies, is a felony in some jurisdictions
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: K-town Vol Fan
#436
#436
RockyTop85 said:
Probably covered by the speech and debate clause.
Click to expand...

Oh, I'm sure there's a carve out that protects the "trailer park hood rat"- but it would beg a question of relevance.

I'm not sure that any rational person could make cogent argument that issues surrounding Hunters IRS issues warrant disseminating sexually explicit photographs over C-SPAN.
 
#437
#437
I don’t think what she did should be criminal. She wasn’t the publisher but rather was showing things that have been published. Similar to holding up a newspaper clipping.

With that said, what she did was dumb and pathetic. It only serves as a distraction from an issue of actual significance
 
  • Like
Reactions: UT_Dutchman, whodeycin85 and hog88
#438
#438
Septic said:
§ 22–3053. First-degree unlawful publication. | D.C. Law Library (dccouncil.gov)

Code of the District of Columbia
§ 22–3053. First-degree unlawful publication.
(a) It shall be unlawful in the District of Columbia for a person to knowingly publish one or more sexual images of another identified or identifiable person when:
(1) The person depicted did not consent to the disclosure or publication of the sexual image;
(2) There was an agreement or understanding between the person depicted and the person publishing that the sexual image would not be disclosed or published; and
(3) The person published the sexual image with the intent to harm the person depicted or to receive financial gain.
(b) A person who violates this section shall be guilty of a felony and, upon conviction, shall be fined not more than the amount set forth in § 22-3571.01, imprisoned for not more than 3 years, or both.


Sadly, I'm sure there's some sort of carve out that shields congress from trashing private citizens.
Click to expand...
considering they have a tax payer funded hush fund for dealing with sexual allegations, I would say there probably is some protection.
 
#439
#439
Vol8188 said:
I don’t think what she did should be criminal. She wasn’t the publisher but rather was showing things that have been published. Similar to holding up a newspaper clipping.

With that said, what she did was dumb and pathetic. It only serves as a distraction from an issue of actual significance
Click to expand...

Agreed, I think the idea of her showing the photo(s) during a congressional hearing being a criminal offense is just wishful thinking by some real morons. Yeah, showing the photo(s) was trashy and moronic.
 
  • Like
Reactions: GroverCleveland, UT_Dutchman, whodeycin85 and 1 other person
#441
#441
hog88 said:
Agreed, I think the idea of her showing the photo(s) during a congressional hearing being a criminal offense is just wishful thinking by some real morons. Yeah, showing the photo(s) was trashy and moronic.
Click to expand...
Thanks Dems for saying d**k pics in a hearing
 
#442
#442
The rationalizations for her behavior are both comical and pathetic at the same time. WTF are those people thinking when they vote for her?

I suppose it's the same mindset we have here in Tennessee when the people, who actually voted, elect Marsha F*****g Blackburn over a successful, two term governor. Our state overall, is dumber than Georgia
 
#443
#443
BernardKingGOAT said:
The rationalizations for her behavior are both comical and pathetic at the same time. WTF are those people thinking when they vote for her?

I suppose it's the same mindset we have here in Tennessee when the people, who actually voted, elect Marsha F*****g Blackburn over a successful, two term governor. Our state overall, is dumber than Georgia
Click to expand...

Marsha is terrible, no doubt about that but Phil would have just been a pawn of Schummer.
 
  • Like
Reactions: GroverCleveland, UT_Dutchman, whodeycin85 and 1 other person
#445
#445
hog88 said:
Marsha is terrible, no doubt about that but Phil would have just been a pawn of Schummer.
Click to expand...
Maybe, maybe not. Apparently you listened to her dumbass because that's all she said for months, without articulating any policy positions of her own. If you voted for her, you should be ashamed.
 
#446
#446
K-town Vol Fan said:
Also don't forget if anyone on that email list lives in Utah, they just passed strict pornography laws so she might be ****ed there too.
Click to expand...

The new laws are nuts and imply lawmakers have no idea about VPN's. The big sites just shuttered in Utah, rather than complying.
 
#447
#447
BernardKingGOAT said:
Maybe, maybe not. Apparently you listened to her dumbass because that's all she said for months, without articulating any policy positions of her own. If you voted for her, you should be ashamed.
Click to expand...

I don't vote for incumbents so no I didn't vote for her but I damn sure wasn't going to vote for a Schummer puppet. A man that would have sold TN down the road to advance the Dems national agenda to our detriment.
 
  • Like
Reactions: GroverCleveland and UT_Dutchman
#448
#448
hog88 said:
I don't vote for incumbents so no I didn't vote for her but I damn sure wasn't going to vote for a Schummer puppet. A man that would have sold TN down the road to advance the Dems national agenda to our detriment.
Click to expand...
That's your opinion with no real knowledge or experience
 
#449
#449
BernardKingGOAT said:
Maybe, maybe not. Apparently you listened to her dumbass because that's all she said for months, without articulating any policy positions of her own. If you voted for her, you should be ashamed.
Click to expand...
Let's be real, you can say that for approximately half of the peoples constituents that are elected. Be consistent or be a useless, two party guzzler.
 
  • Like
Reactions: BernardKingGOAT
#450
#450
Septic said:
Oh, I'm sure there's a carve out that protects the "trailer park hood rat"- but it would beg a question of relevance.

I'm not sure that any rational person could make cogent argument that issues surrounding Hunters IRS issues warrant disseminating sexually explicit photographs over C-SPAN.
Click to expand...

I imagine it’s relevant to her nightly routine.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top