BUCK: This is up on CNN right now. Of course, they’re very excited about this story. “A potentially precedent-setting disqualification hearing is underway Friday in an Atlanta courtroom, aimed at determining if Republican Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene of Georgia is constitutionally barred from running for reelection because of her role in the January 6 insurrection.

“Greene is testifying as a witness during the marathon hearing — making her the first lawmaker to testify under oath about their involvement in … January 6.” They keep saying “insurrection.” I’m not gonna keep reading that.

She’s currently on the stand being questioned by lawyers for the voter who challenged her candidacy at the disqualification hearing. “Greene said that she ‘had no knowledge of any attempt’ to illegally interfere with the counting of electoral votes on January 6. Greene also testified that she believes President Joe Biden lost the election to Trump.”

Clay, this is a reminder to the question I think we’ve been asking — and I want to get into Fauci’s understanding of the judiciary —

CLAY: Yeah, right.

BUCK: — in just a second, but this is a breaking news item here. It’s underway, this hearing is underway right now, because we’ve been asking, with the border about to be blown wide open — and we have Stephen Miller, formerly of the Trump administration, really top adviser on immigration issues and the border with Donald Trump.

He’ll be joining us the next hour to talk about this, but it doesn’t look like anything’s gonna go well for Biden and the Democrats if I want to be to. So what’s their play? Stuff like this, having constant news stories about January 6th, but also trying to abuse the law — to weaponize the legal process — to stop a representative from running for office because they don’t like something that happened that she had nothing to do with? This is just dirty tricks, it looks like to me.

CLAY: Yeah, it is, and I think it’s a big story because I always look to the precedent that’s being set and also to past precedents. Buck, I can’t remember — you tell me if you can. Other than someone going to prison and therefore not being able to continue to fulfill their role, for instance, isn’t Jesse Jackson Jr., didn’t he go to prison for felony violations?

Certain Rod Blagojevich, the governor of Illinois, went to prison. Eliot Spitzer. I mean, there have been guys who have been unable to fulfill their duties. But I can’t remember a sitting, elected congressman or senator that was not allowed to run because of something they said or did that was not criminal in nature.

And that’s a long way of saying, there does not appear to be to be very precedents for situations such as these in the modern era. Again, if you can think of them, I would be curious. You can tweet me @ClayTravis. My recollection is not perfect on these stories. But can you remember one, Buck? I’m talking about somebody who was in Congress or in the Senate — not a criminal-related action — and it was not allowed to run for reelection.

BUCK: My understanding is they have in your neck of the woods, Clay, kicked a few candidates off the ballot.

CLAY: There’s a battle there, but those are not sitting congressmen or -women.

BUCK: For sure.

CLAY: In my local congressional seat race in Nashville, there are big battles over who’s being allowed to run for a newly created district that is going to have a Republican congressman.

BUCK: My understanding — and you may have more background on this for sure — is that obviously Morgan Ortagus and Robbie Starbuck are two of the people that were running in that very contested Republican primary.

CLAY: Yeah.

BUCK: Both of whom I know, and they’re just booted off the ballot ’cause they passed a measure that they haven’t lived there long enough, right? Isn’t that it?

CLAY: It’s actually interesting. They passed that measure, but the governor waited to sign it. The Republican Party actually did not allow them to be on the ballot because — and I’m not an expert on the governance. But supposedly you have to vote in the Republican primary for three of the previous four years in order to be considered a bona fide Republican.

So because they haven’t voted in the Republican primary in the state for three of the previous four years, that is the way that they disqualified them. I think they disqualified three people based on that. Now, I know some about this district because it’s a newly created district here in the Nashville area.

That is a messy political scene ’cause it’s been going on for months now over who’s gonna run and who’s gonna be eligible and who’s not. And that may well end up in the courts and get litigated there before all is said and done. But the Marjorie Taylor Greene when to me the thing that is the most intriguing is she’s actually the sitting congresswoman, whether you like her or not.

BUCK: This is lawfare, basically. This is trying to weaponize law.

CLAY: Yeah, she would be reelected, presumably, otherwise. They’re trying to get her off of this district based on something that she said. And I just can’t think, Buck, of any president for that ever occurring.

BUCK: Just so we know, a federal judge has allowed this to go through, right? So this is happening right now. That’s why the testimony is happening today in Atlanta. This is from, again, the CNN write-up of it: “Several of Greene’s constituents in her northwest Georgia district initiated the challenge last month with backing from a coalition of liberal activists and constitutional scholars.”

Yeah. No surprise. “They claim Greene aided the insurrection by promoting voter fraud myths, posting videos before January 6 railing against the peaceful transfer of power, and allegedly coordinating with protest organizers.” This is a federal lawsuit to stop the reelection of a Republican, a sitting member of Congress, because a bunch of lib activists don’t like her, basically.

This is trying to use the law — and, remember, it’s a more likely than not standard, right? This is not a beyond a reasonable doubt standard. This is a 51%, and that’s the theory behind it, and you get the win. So I don’t think this is gonna work, but it is going forward. And I think it also just does go to show you the lengths to which the left will try to use the system to thwart the will of people in districts, to thwart the will of people nationally in the midterm elections.

They’ll cheat, basically, Clay. They’re gonna try to find a way to cheat however that is and then tell us about how they’re so pure and wonderful in saving our democracy. I mean, this lawsuit is absurd.

CLAY: Yeah. And I think it just is emblematic of the sort of dirty tricks that will be employed. Again, I want you to think about the precedent being set here. We’re not talking about somebody who engaged in criminal behavior. We’re not talking about somebody who is behind bars and unable to represent their district as a result.

The idea that you could be taken off the ballot for something you said, essentially, even if it is a wild or outlandish thing? That’s the purpose of elections. People get to decide whether they should be represented by Marjorie Taylor Greene or not, and if her constituent base decides that her opinions are too outlandish to represent them, that’s the entire purpose of the ballot.

Taking her off the ballot when she is a sitting congresswoman is… First of all, Republican’s gonna win that district no matter what because it’s very much of a Republican district. But it defeats the entire purpose of democracy if her constituents aren’t allowed to make a decision about who represents them.

BUCK: The way we judge someone’s character and what they’re contributing to society when they’re in elected office is to vote — unless they, to your point, break lawsuit, unless they do something that is illegal. And posting videos that say, “I think this election is stolen”? This is First Amendment protected activity. I know the libs don’t believe in the First Amendment anymore.

CLAY: Yeah.

BUCK: I know Barack Obama is going on tour now to tell everybody about the biggest threat to democracy is disinformation. This coming to you from the Democrat Party that tried to have a soft coup against President Trump with the Russia collusion lie for four years. But, anyway, “the biggest threat is disinformation.”

This is unsettling, to say the least, what’s going on right now. It’s political score settling, and it is something that we have to watch because I feel like this will not be successful, but this should have never made it into a court. Any decent federal judge should have said, “You’re not allowed to have a bunch of activists sue to prevent somebody that they don’t like from running for reelection in Congress because they don’t like her so much.”

CLAY: They didn’t like what she said. That’s essential what they are trying to go after — and again, there’s just no precedent for this existing. And if you don’t like what someone said, beat them.

BUCK: They’re claiming coordination with the protests. That’s the part of this that goes to, you know, action beyond, but coordinate with them how? What does that even me?

CLAY: Then charge her with a crime.

BUCK: Exactly.

CLAY: If she committed a crime, then charge her with a crime — and, by the way, if she’s charged with a crime, she could still run and, again, her constituents could decide whether or not she should still represent them.