Matt Gaetz. He likes ‘em young.

Page 22 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

woolfe9998

Lifer
Apr 8, 2013
14,982
11,632
136
We thought that about the 11,000 magic vote phone call too.
Nah, Trump was never going to be indicted for that. Too much room to argue reasonable doubt as to whether he actually believed he'd been cheated or not. I don't know who expected an indictment over that, but it wasn't me.
 

woolfe9998

Lifer
Apr 8, 2013
14,982
11,632
136
I hope she didn't miss any important high school classes having to go testify. This is a critical time for junior's to be learning and sealing up those grades for those college applications later in the year.
Yes, that's why I put the term "dated" in quotes. Because who knows if her parents let her out on school nights, or if she had a driver's license yet.
 

hal2kilo

Lifer
Feb 24, 2009
20,486
7,400
136
Nah, Trump was never going to be indicted for that. Too much room to argue reasonable doubt as to whether he actually believed he'd been cheated or not. I don't know who expected an indictment over that, but it wasn't me.
Wow, we can't figure out how mafia kings talk?
 

Homerboy

Lifer
Mar 1, 2000
30,423
4,442
126
10 months later

zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
10 months and still working at the job forming legislature and law to govern 330 Million Americans.
No big deal.

Pretty sure if I was under investigation for a day, let alone 10 months, for everything he is being accused of my employer wouldn't be letting me in the doors.
 

HomerJS

Lifer
Feb 6, 2002
31,143
19,406
136
Nah, Trump was never going to be indicted for that. Too much room to argue reasonable doubt as to whether he actually believed he'd been cheated or not. I don't know who expected an indictment over that, but it wasn't me.
Even if he thought he had been cheated does not give one a pass to commit illegal acts. That seem like a basic point of law
 
  • Like
Reactions: hal2kilo

woolfe9998

Lifer
Apr 8, 2013
14,982
11,632
136
Even if he thought he had been cheated does not give one a pass to commit illegal acts. That seem like a basic point of law
Intent must be proven for there to be an illegal act. So whether or not he thought he was cheated is exactly on point. If he said "find me the votes" meaning he believed he was robbed of the votes and wanted Raffenberger to restore those he was robbed of, then it wasn't illegal. If, OTOH, he didn't really believe he was cheated, then "find me the votes" meant something else entirely, and was an intended conspiracy to commit election fraud. The problem here is having to prove illegal intent beyond reasonable doubt.
 

ivwshane

Lifer
May 15, 2000
30,911
12,417
136
Intent must be proven for there to be an illegal act. So whether or not he thought he was cheated is exactly on point. If he said "find me the votes" meaning he believed he was robbed of the votes and wanted Raffenberger to restore those he was robbed of, then it wasn't illegal. If, OTOH, he didn't really believe he was cheated, then "find me the votes" meant something else entirely, and was an intended conspiracy to commit election fraud. The problem here is having to prove illegal intent beyond reasonable doubt.
Illegal intent? Like having multiple states forge fake letters certifying fake electoral votes? Like trying to blackmail another country to make up a fake scandal to smear a rival? Like publicly stating the election was rigged?

For fuck sakes I think we have all the internet we need!
 

woolfe9998

Lifer
Apr 8, 2013
14,982
11,632
136
Illegal intent? Like having multiple states forge fake letters certifying fake electoral votes? Like trying to blackmail another country to make up a fake scandal to smear a rival? Like publicly stating the election was rigged?

For fuck sakes I think we have all the internet we need!
I was discussing a specific issue related to a specific statement in a specific phone call. Explaining why he has not and likely will not be prosecuted over the content of that call.
 
Mar 11, 2004
22,057
4,344
136
I was discussing a specific issue related to a specific statement in a specific phone call. Explaining why he has not and likely will not be prosecuted over the content of that call.
I mean sure if you ignore all the other statements he's made, including ones where he deliberately fucking told GOP people in states to commit crimes and that he'd take care of it from there. I'm not sure why you'd do that (hell I'm not sure why you'd ignore just the rest of that call since I'm pretty sure he explicitly made it clear what his intent actually was...) but I guess if you want to make sure none of these assholes doing this shit are ever held responsible, sure you can keep going "well he says he means it in whatever way that we've decided let's him legally off the hook, so its all good for me" as your reason to not even attempt to hold him accountable for it.

Can't fathom why people have no faith in the justice system, from the lowest level all the way to SCOTUS.
 
Feb 4, 2009
32,577
13,304
136
Intent must be proven for there to be an illegal act. So whether or not he thought he was cheated is exactly on point. If he said "find me the votes" meaning he believed he was robbed of the votes and wanted Raffenberger to restore those he was robbed of, then it wasn't illegal. If, OTOH, he didn't really believe he was cheated, then "find me the votes" meant something else entirely, and was an intended conspiracy to commit election fraud. The problem here is having to prove illegal intent beyond reasonable doubt.
I learn such interesting things from you.
I have a good concept of what’s fair or valuable or market value or acceptable can be legal nightmares. You have opened my eyes to a new concept.
 

woolfe9998

Lifer
Apr 8, 2013
14,982
11,632
136
I mean sure if you ignore all the other statements he's made, including ones where he deliberately fucking told GOP people in states to commit crimes and that he'd take care of it from there. I'm not sure why you'd do that (hell I'm not sure why you'd ignore just the rest of that call since I'm pretty sure he explicitly made it clear what his intent actually was...) but I guess if you want to make sure none of these assholes doing this shit are ever held responsible, sure you can keep going "well he says he means it in whatever way that we've decided let's him legally off the hook, so its all good for me" as your reason to not even attempt to hold him accountable for it.

Can't fathom why people have no faith in the justice system, from the lowest level all the way to SCOTUS.
Like I said, I was commenting on why he hasn't been prosecuted over that specific telephone statement. And doing so in response to another poster. I have not offered an opinion on anything else. Not in this thread, anyway.
 

Amol S.

Platinum Member
Mar 14, 2015
2,086
547
136
Practicing C++ and staying on topic.

MattGatezBot.h
C++:
#ifndef MATT_GATEZ_BOT_H
#define MATT_GATEZ_BOT_H

#include <map>
#include <string>
#include <vector>

using std::string;
using std::vector;
using std::map;

class MattGatezBot
{
    public:
        MattGatezBot()
        {
            vector<int> rangeOne = {0, 15};
            theMap.insert({rangeOne, "too young"});
            vector<int> rangeTwo = {16, 18};
            theMap.insert({rangeTwo, "sexy future wifey"});
            vector<int> rangeThree = {19, 25};
            theMap.insert({rangeThree, "is great"});
            vector<int> rangeFour = {26, 35};
            theMap.insert({rangeFour, "is ok.  "});
            vector<int> rangeFive = {36, 45};
            theMap.insert({rangeFive, "too old.  "});
            vector<int> rangeSix = {46, 55};
            theMap.insert({rangeSix, "too old and is a granny.  "});
            vector<int> rangeSeven = {56, 100};
            theMap.insert({rangeSeven, "*vomits at the thought.  *"});
        }
        string opinion(string name, int age)
        {
            for(map<vector<int>, string>::iterator it = theMap.begin(); it != theMap.end(); it++)
            {
                if(((it -> first)[0] <= age) && ((it -> first)[1] >= age))
                {
                    string toReturn = name;
                    toReturn.append(it -> second);
                    return toReturn;
                }
            }
        }
        string childServicesRadingPlace();
        string caught();
    private:
        map<vector<int>, string> theMap;
};

#endif
MattGatezBot.cpp
C++:
#include "MattGatezBot.h"

string MattGatezBot::childServicesRadingPlace()
{
    string toReturn = "Start acting in need of severe medical care and almost dying.  ";
    return toReturn;
}

string MattGatezBot::caught()
{
    string toReturn = "Start claiming the person was at or above the legal age of 16 ";
    toReturn.append("to be considered an adult according to Florida state law.  ");
    return toReturn;
}
main.cpp
C++:
#include "MattGatezBot.h"
#include <assert>
#include <iostream>

using std::assert;
using std::cout;

int main()
{
    MattGatezBot bot();
    cout << bot.opinion("Mitsy", 5);
    cout << bot.opinion("Hellen", 80);
    cout << bot.opinion("Betty", 37);
    cout << bot.opinion("Hannah", 17);
    cout << bot.caught();
    cout << bot.opinion("Latesha", 47);
    cout << bot.opinion("Dina", 16);
    cout << bot.caught();
    cout << bot.opinion("Ashley", 25);
    cout << bot.opinion("Alison", 27);
    cout << bot.opinion("Eve", 16);
    cout << bot.opinion("Rebbeca", 14);
    cout << bot.caught();
    cout << bot.childServicesRadingPlace();
    assert((5/5) == 5);
}
 
Last edited:
  • Haha
Reactions: pcgeek11

ivwshane

Lifer
May 15, 2000
30,911
12,417
136
Like I said, I was commenting on why he hasn't been prosecuted over that specific telephone statement. And doing so in response to another poster. I have not offered an opinion on anything else. Not in this thread, anyway.
I’m sure if this were to go to court and we got a partisan judge that completely isolated what was said on the call would be a valid defense but in front of any other judge or jury, the whole picture would be used to prosecute him.

So why do we need to only entertain this information in a bubble?
 
Last edited:

woolfe9998

Lifer
Apr 8, 2013
14,982
11,632
136
I’m sure if this were to go to court and we got a partisan judge that completely isolating what was said on the call would be a valid defense but in front of any other judge or jury, the whole picture would be used to prosecute him.

So why do we need to only entertain this information in a bubble?
This entire line of discussion started with another poster saying this:

We thought that about the 11,000 magic vote phone call too.
That is what I was replying to.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY