Marjorie Taylor Greene Just Issued A DIRE Warning To Everyone…

Due to her position in the Senate last January, U.S. Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene is fighting a lawsuit filed by liberals challenging her eligibility to run for re-election.

Greene warned supporters in an email:



“Democrat operatives, lawyers, and dark money groups are trying to RIP my name off the ballot and STEAL my voters’ right to vote for me.”

“Despite donating millions to my opponents, they know they can’t beat me in a fair election. So, they do what Deep State Elites do best – they try to change the rules to benefit them.”

“They’re trying to prevent me from winning before the election starts! Frankly, I’m worried that without your help, they might succeed. And if they succeed, they will have set the precedent to BAN President Trump from running in 2024!”

“So please, sign your statement of support above. And then if at all possible, I urge you to generously donate to help me fight these Democrats in court!”

Earlier this month, a liberal lawsuit attempting to disqualify Greene from running for reelection was allowed by an Obama-appointed federal judge.

CBS News reported:

The challenge to Greene’s candidacy was mounted by a group of five voters from her congressional district who argued she is ineligible to run for federal office under a provision of the 14th Amendment that was ratified after the Civil War and meant to keep former Confederate officers and officials from holding public office again.

In a challenge filed with Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger in late March, the voters argued Greene voluntarily aided and engaged in the January 6 insurrection to obstruct the peaceful transfer of power, thereby disqualifying her from serving as a member of Congress under the constitutional provision.

Greene asked a federal court in Atlanta to intervene in the effort from the group of voters, seeking a preliminary injunction and temporary restraining order. But Judge Amy Totenberg of U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia rebuffed Greene’s request, finding she failed to establish a strong likelihood of success on the legal merits of the case.

Totenberg wrote in her 73-page ruling, This case involves a whirlpool of colliding constitutional interests of public import.”

The judge noted, “The novelty of the factual and historical posture of this case — especially when assessed in the context of a preliminary injunction motion reviewed on a fast track — has made resolution of the complex legal issues at stake here particularly demanding.”

As “50 pages of newspaper stories, hearsay, and political hyperbole, ” James Bopp Jr. Greene’s attorney described the lawsuit.

As Bopp also pointed out during last week’s hearing, a ruling against Green might ultimately lead to challenges to Donald Trump’s qualifications.

Greene has voiced opposition to the lawsuit previously. Here’s what Greene said:

“This is the same evil playbook the dishonest Communist Democrats use against President Trump and his family.  Now they are using it on me, because they know I’m effective and will not bow to the DC machine,

“As I’ve said many times before, I’m vehemently opposed to all forms of political violence,” Greene proclaimed. “I’ve never encouraged political violence and never will.”

In a similar lawsuit against Rep. Madison Cawthorn, a federal judge blocked the complaint. The lawsuit was filed by Free Speech for People, a campaign finance reform organization.

Among the allegations against Rep. Cawthorn are that he “was involved in efforts to intimidate Congress and the Vice President into rejecting valid electoral votes and subvert the essential constitutional function of an orderly and peaceful transition of power.”

The violence perpetrated by a handful on January 6th at the United States Congress has been used by socialist Democrats and Biden. Even if they didn’t take part in the disturbance, the Capitol is pursuing anyone even vaguely engaged.

They are using lawfare to attempt to hurt Republicans.

An attempt to keep lawmakers off the ballot because of their claimed involvement in a Jan. 6, 2021, “insurgency” at the United States Capitol was rejected by an Arizona judge. According to the attorney who argued the case, Capitol certainly foreshadows the outcome of similar efforts in other jurisdictions.

In his decision, Superior Court Judge Christopher Coury ruled against plaintiffs’ motions to remove Rep. Paul Gosar (R-Ariz.) and Rep. Andy Biggs (R-Ariz.) as well as state Rep. Mark Finchem, a Republican, said it takes congressional action not a suit filed by a private citizen in state court to remove an elected official from office.

Coury held:

“The express language of the United States Constitution controls this issue. The Disqualification Clause creates a condition where someone can be disqualified from serving in public office. However, the Constitution provides that legislation enacted by Congress is required to enforce the disqualification pursuant to the Disqualification Clause.”

“Aside from criminal statutes dealing with insurrection and rebellion which Congress has enacted (lawsuits which require the government, not private citizens, to initiate), Congress has not passed legislation that is presently in effect which enforces the Disqualification Clause against the candidates.”

The “disqualification clause” in Section 3 of the 14th Amendment refers to a law passed by Congress after the Civil War that made former Confederate officials unable to pursue public office in the United States Constitution.

Coury states, “Legislation that proposes to enforce the Disqualification Clause currently is pending in the United States Congress, but has not yet been enacted. Therefore, given the current state of the law and in accordance with the United States Constitution, Plaintiffs have no private right of action to assert claims under the Disqualification Clause.”’

Attorneys from Free Speech for People (FSP), an Austin, Texas-based left-wing advocacy group, represented 11 Arizona people who brought the complaint against Gosar, Biggs, and Finchem.

FSP said in a statement to reporters that it is planning to appeal the judge’s decision to the Arizona Supreme Court.

“This ruling is contrary to the law. Arizona is not exempted from the mandate of Section Three of the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. A candidate who has taken an oath of office and then engaged in insurrection has no place on a future Arizona ballot. We will be appealing this decision to the Arizona Supreme Court.”

Sources: Conservativebrief, Cbsnews, Pbs.org