• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

News Trump: Mar-a-Lago just raided by FBI

Page 167 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
IronWing said:
The Bundys come to mind.
Click to expand...
They were both indicted so it’s hard to see how that applies. If the idea is that Pence can lie to federal prosecutors, be indicted and then win at trial ok I guess, but that’s not what people here have in mind I don’t think.
 
you2 said:
Seems there is some forward movement with the investigation as pence as been served to testify but he is not the only one. They are trying to figure out why trump kept the documents he did and refused to turn them over.
Click to expand...
is it to testify about the documents, or about January 6? Or is it to testify about the documents HE had, and nothing to do with the documents Trump had... I don't even see why Pence would have any knowledge of why Trump had documents after his presidency ended, so I am pretty sure, pence and other's being served is about the January 6 investigation, not the documents investigation.
 
fskimospy said:
They were both indicted so it’s hard to see how that applies. If the idea is that Pence can lie to federal prosecutors, be indicted and then win at trial ok I guess, but that’s not what people here have in mind I don’t think.
Click to expand...
It’s about Pence dragging his feet, having judges review if he needs to speak with them, it’s about an appeal and another appeal and another appeal and another appeal and another appeal and another appeal and another appeal, then when that options gone it’s about him running for office which he will only do half heartedly, the. When the elections over either their will be a new Justice Department which could make this go on the back burner and yes I know there are State charges, when thats done there will be some sort of delay because Pence has “Stuff” to do, then another delay because his Sisters Father in-laws 3rd Cousin died and the family needs time to grieve then finally he will say something incredibly vague and get zero pushback for doing so.
That is how it’s happened and I see no compelling reason as to why it will happen differently this time.
 
Fanatical Meat said:
It’s about Pence dragging his feet, having judges review if he needs to speak with them, it’s about an appeal and another appeal and another appeal and another appeal and another appeal and another appeal and another appeal, then when that options gone it’s about him running for office which he will only do half heartedly, the. When the elections over either their will be a new Justice Department which could make this go on the back burner and yes I know there are State charges, when thats done there will be some sort of delay because Pence has “Stuff” to do, then another delay because his Sisters Father in-laws 3rd Cousin died and the family needs time to grieve then finally he will say something incredibly vague and get zero pushback for doing so.
That is how it’s happened and I see no compelling reason as to why it will happen differently this time.
Click to expand...
Who has this happened with?
 
NWRMidnight said:
is it to testify about the documents, or about January 6? Or is it to testify about the documents HE had, and nothing to do with the documents Trump had... I don't even see why Pence would have any knowledge of why Trump had documents after his presidency ended, so I am pretty sure, pence and other's being served is about the January 6 investigation, not the documents investigation.
Click to expand...
Only Jan 6. But the national security advisor is subpoena for both investigations.
 
Fanatical Meat said:
It’s happening

www.cnn.com

Pence to fight subpoena on separation of powers grounds because he was president of Senate | CNN Politics

Former Vice President Mike Pence is expected to fight a recent subpoena from the special counsel based on the grounds that he was president of the Senate at the time and therefore shielded from the order, sources familiar with the matter tell CNN.
www.cnn.com www.cnn.com
Click to expand...
I saw that, he actually has an excellent point. That’s not a spurious delay at all.

I’m pretty sure you were saying he was going to raise endless bullshit arguments to drag things out until Republicans regained power or whatever but the speech and debate clause is extremely powerful and enabled things like the pentagon papers to be revealed. It’s not something to ignore.
 
Pens1566 said:
Yeah, I don't think it's a surprise he's fighting it. In fact, if you thought he was just gonna waltz in and be all "Yeah, ok, you got me. What would you like to know?" then I have some beachfront property in KS to sell you.

https://twitter.com/x/status/1625495088506998790
Click to expand...
I don't think Pence is worried about his own criminal exposure as there's zero evidence he did anything wrong.

The question here is if, given the speech and debate clause, the executive branch can force the president of the senate to testify about the performance of his duties, which is honestly a pretty good question.

This is not like Trump's stupidity of endless appeals and if you've seen the steady stream of Trump people testifying and the swiftness through which Trump's attempts to thwart the documents case were tossed out I think it's clear those tactics don't work in a criminal environment, at least as far as grand juries/investigations go.
 
SMOGZINN said:
Ken Paxton.
Click to expand...
I agree that's a case where his trial has been absurdly delayed, although how much of that is his doing is debatable.

While I agree that people with money and power face a far more benign legal system than regular people do I don't see much of a situation where these people are able to avoid criminal charges. Again, Trump tried the same bullshit with a criminal case that he tried with all his other various legal dealings while he was president and that shit got shut down pretty fast.
 
Trump wants firing squads when he is elected again. I guess he thinks he can just have all his enemies lined up and shot. He would have had the Central Park Five executed and it's doubtful he would have expressed remorse when it was revealed that they were innocent. I'm all for firing squads though, for a certain person who is guilty of treason.
 
conehead433 said:
Trump wants firing squads when he is elected again. I guess he thinks he can just have all his enemies lined up and shot. He would have had the Central Park Five executed and it's doubtful he would have expressed remorse when it was revealed that they were innocent. I'm all for firing squads though, for a certain person who is guilty of treason.
Click to expand...

In their fucked up brains even if proven innocent they're still guilty. They had to have been guilty of something or they wouldn't have been accused and therefore it'd have been fine if they'd been executed for it. On the flipside though, Mike Tyson can admit to raping/assaulting multiple women on national TV but he was railroaded and it was a human tragedy that such an innocent man got sent to prison for rape.

Personal anecdote that helps convey what I'm talking about. I was discussing the documentary "Long Shot" with a co-worker and despite him claiming something similar happened to him, he said that if the guy from the documentary had been found guilty it would've been the right thing. "People don't end up in prison without having done something." They literally refused to believe that there are any actual innocent people in jail.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top