Thanks to you...
...from now on, members of the party out of power, whichever one it is, can expect to have people poring over their lives looking for a defect and to eventually go to jail.
Quote:Thanks to you...
Thanks to me?
Quote:...from now on, members of the party out of power, whichever one it is, can expect to have people poring over their lives looking for a defect and to eventually go to jail.
You mean like "Whitewater"?
Quote:A core crime that the Manhattan District Attorney will likely include in an indictment of former President Donald Trump is “falsifying business records in the first degree,” a felony under New York State law (N.Y. Penal Code § 175.10). Prosecutors and indeed all of us are compelled by the rule of law to consider how such a charge compares to past prosecutions. Are like cases being treated alike?
Here it appears they are. Prosecution of falsifying business records in the first degree is commonplace and has been used by New York district attorneys’ offices to hold to account a breadth of criminal behavior from the more petty and simple to the more serious and highly organized. We reach this conclusion after surveying the past decade and a half of criminal cases across all the New York district attorneys’ offices.
Here's what you've accomplished.
They've been counting on the fact that Republicans won't respond in kind by poring over high ranking Democrats' lives looking for something that could be made to look criminal.
I don't know about the foundations of Whitewater...
Former Vice President Mike Pence (will not) appeal a recent ruling compelling him to testify as part of a Justice Department probe into former President Donald Trump’s actions leading up to the Jan. 6, 2021, insurrection.
A federal judge ruled last month that Pence must comply with a grand jury subpoena issued by special counsel Jack Smith, who is heading the investigation.
Both Trump and Pence had sought to block the full enforcement of the subpoena, though they made two different legal arguments.
Trump’s team argued that executive privilege, which bars some presidential conversations from being made public, applied to Pence’s testimony. Pence, in contrast, argued that the Constitution’s “speech or debate” clause, which shields members of Congress from certain law enforcement actions connected to legislative duties, applies because Pence was acting as president of the Senate on Jan. 6 in order to certify President Joe Biden’s election.
James Boasberg, the chief judge for the U.S. District Court for the District, rejected wholesale Trump’s argument in his late-March ruling but handed Pence a partial victory. Though Pence would be compelled to testify, the ruling allows Pence to decline to answer questions related to his actions on Jan. 6 itself. But he will be required to answer questions about any potential illegal acts by Trump.
Pence adviser Devin O’Malley said in a statement Wednesday that Pence had “prevailed” in arguing to limit his testimony and that the judge’s ruling satisfied the legal objections Pence’s team had put forward.
“The court’s landmark and historic ruling affirmed for the first time in history that the speech or debate clause extends to the vice president of the United States,” O’Malley said.
“Having vindicated that principle of the Constitution, Vice President Pence will not appeal the judge’s ruling and will comply with the subpoena as required by law,” he said.
Pence last week declined to answer questions about if he would appeal the judge’s ruling, sidestepping the topic in an interview with CNN on Thursday.
It’s not clear if Trump himself will appeal the ruling.
Pence’s testimony would mark a significant and historic development in the probe, which would see a former vice president testify about the potential criminality of his ticket-mate’s actions.
Pence’s decision comes a day after Trump was indicted in New York in connection with a separate case involving his role in hush money payments made during the 2016 election.
It’s also the latest significant blow to Trump in the federal probes. An appeals court on Tuesday upheld an earlier ruling ordering former Trump chief of staff Mark Meadows and other top White House aides to testify as part of the Jan. 6 investigation.
Quote:Here's what you've accomplished.
And how exactly did I manifest this power?
After more or less stable government in the US for almost 250 years, from now on, the party out of power can refuse to accept the results of a fair election and claim the winner is "illegitimate". But I wouldn't think to blame that on you.