462
So he’s just been sitting on them for two years?
Well, that, and complying with lawful subpoenas. No lawyer takes these type of notes because they're keeping a diary. They do it because they know that shits gonna hit the fan eventually, and they want to keep out of the splat zone.
complying with lawful subpoenas.
Didn't he refuse the subpoena from the January 6th committee though?
Yup, he fought that and delayed things to the point he avoided any testimony.
Which makes all his current comments super bullshit given his avoidance of the right time to talk about it all.
IIRC, he was never actually subpoenaed, but was quite vocal that he wouldn't cooperate, so the committee simply didn't bother. They certainly would have taken his testimony if offered.
The VP does have a unique position, being the only elected person in the Federal Government involved in two branches at once. It's possible that the committee didn't want to get bogged down in litigating that as part of the subpoena.
load more comments
(10 replies)
Well yeah, everyone knows you wait till you start your presidential campaign to drop dirt
Here is an alternative Piped link(s): https://piped.video/watch?v=Ly82nabRRYc&
Piped is a privacy-respecting open-source alternative frontend to YouTube.
I'm open-source, check me out at GitHub.
This is the best summary I could come up with:
Former Vice President Mike Pence has confirmed that he took notes on his conversations with former President Trump leading up to the Jan. 6 riot, as Trump repeatedly pressured him to reject the results of the 2020 election during the certification in Congress.
“I generally didn’t make a practice of taking notes in meetings over the four-year period of time, but given the momentous events that were unfolding, I did take a few notes to remind myself of what had been said,” he added.
The four-count indictment brought against Trump on Tuesday over his efforts to remain in power after the 2020 election referenced Pence’s contemporaneous, and previously unreported, notes from the time.
The former vice president’s notes from a Jan. 4, 2021, meeting detailed various election fraud claims that Trump made, as he pushed Pence to send back or reject electoral votes during the Jan. 6 certification.
When Pence noted at the meeting that “even your own counsel is not saying I have that authority” to send the votes back to the states, Trump reportedly responded, “That’s okay, I prefer the other suggestion,” in which the former vice president would unilaterally reject the votes.
I knew the founders of this country would never have given any one person the right to choose what Electoral College votes to accept and which ones to reject,” Pence said in the interview.
I'm a bot and I'm open source!
It almost appears like there's no chance Trump won't go to jail.
Almost. Because he has yet to be punished when blatantly admitting to committing crimes.
I prefer to not set myself up for further disappointment. Remember when it almost appeared certain that Mueller was going to pin Russia conspiracy shit on Trump? All we got was a lot of "sure looks bad but not enough proof to indict" kinda stuff. Whether because he was kept on a tight leash or the investigation cut off too soon idk. Maybe both.
As much corruption as there is in politics at the higher levels, and as much as the richy-riches aren't held to the same legal standard as the rest of us peons, I think it is a good idea to wait and see and not get ahead of ourselves.
There appeared no chance that he would win the 2016 elections so... I'll believe it when I see it.
Gotta thank the electoral college (again) for that
Came down to like 100k votes in a handful of swing states that gave him the win.
load more comments
(1 replies)
The first criminal trial is March 2024, election in November. I don't think he'll be in jail before the election, and it's hard to know what is going to happen, but he might win.
Considering how dumb trump is, he may just incriminate himself on day 1 of the trial, the jury deliberates and its all over by lunch.
load more comments
(1 replies)
load more comments
(2 replies)
All the more reason to convict him as an accomplice. He knew what was coming and still did nothing to stop it.
Its complicated, because he did stop it. He also immediately took notes and immediately told others about the conversations, actions which clearly paint him as somebody fully versed in the processes of establishing cooperation with law enforcement on an informer basis.
It is also arguable that the entire insurrection that day was a cover to specifically murder Mike Pence on the Capitol steps. There was day of chatter that the gallow was brought into the city in one of the vehicles in Alex Jones' caravan. We know that with the charging of Donald Trump, Alex Jones is now essentially the only conspirator of Jan. 6 who remains charge free.
Whatever we think of Mike Pence, our country still existing might have solely rested in his hands and it appears he did the right thing in the way he knew how. He saved his life. He saved his family's life. He saved his country.
I find the idea of giving Pence one iota of credit for any of that to be profane in the extreme, but if it turns out to be true… ugh… I suppose I would have to. I also don’t believe his motivations would have been anything other than self-serving.
still, gross. he’s such a terrible person.
Yeah he's a religious nutter but at least he respects democracy.
at least he respects democracy.
bigotry and hate are not compatible with democracy, a cornerstone of which is equality
load more comments
(46 replies)
Broken clock is right twice a day man. Being saved by a piece of shit isn't fun.
well… he’s not a broken clock. he’s a self-serving asshole whose self-interest just so happened to coincidentally align with not destroying American democracy at that particular moment. it had nothing to do with anything but himself.
and THAT is what sucks the most, not to mention that people are praising him for it.
load more comments
(4 replies)
load more comments
(1 replies)
Its complicated, because he did stop it. He also immediately took notes and immediately told others about the conversations, actions which clearly paint him as somebody fully versed in the processes of establishing cooperation with law enforcement on an informer basis.
Yeah, I hate to admit it, but I might not be giving him enough credit. When I read about his conversation with Dan Quayle I thought he was trying to find a legal basis for doing what the mob wanted, but it may have been the other way around. He may have been attempting to establish unambiguously that he intended to comply with the law, and he consulted with someone who is not only another attorney, but a former vice president, in order to leave no doubt about what the law mandated.
load more comments
(1 replies)
He saved his life. He saved his family’s life. He saved his country.
And then he failed to assure that all of these things would remain safe going forward. This is still going on, and had Pence not refused to be cooperative before, the path forward would be much more clear today than it is.
Only time will tell whether Pence did just barely enough to avert collapse, or only enough to delay collapse. Neville Chamberlain was trying to keep Britain out of war, and he did, for a time. Until he didn't, and history remembers the outcome.
Neither of us have security clearances we really dont know if he has ever refused to collaborate. Confidential informants have to keep their cover.
And seeing that they attempted to murder him, I am not sure I can say he was able to keep his cover for very long.
load more comments
(1 replies)
He refused to go along with the conspiracy - that's why the votes were counted and why the process was only delayed some hours rather than weeks.
Doing nothing was doing something. He didn't cave to rejecting the votes selectively, which is what made that fail. So it seems like Pence did exactly what needed doing.
load more comments
(1 replies)
view more: next ›
this post was submitted on 06 Aug 2023
462 points (96.2% liked)
politics
18075 readers
2805 users here now
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect!
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS