Halls of Shrewd'm / US Policy
No. of Recommendations: 3
"Mike Pence is preparing to resist a grand jury subpoena for testimony about former President Donald Trump's push to overturn the 2020 election, according to two people familiar with the former vice president's thinking.
'He thinks that the 'speech or debate' clause is a core protection for Article I, for the legislature,' said one of the two people familiar with Pence's thinking, who spoke on condition of anonymity to discuss his legal strategy. 'He feels it really goes to the heart of some separation of powers issues. He feels duty-bound to maintain that protection, even if it means litigating it.'
The hell you say!
Pence knows that if he testifies -willingly testifies- the wrath of the 'vangies will descend upon him. He knows his career as a theocratic politician will be as kaput as a Chinese weather balloon... that his legacies will be twofold. 1)The flunky link to 'vangies for the most shameful POTUS in the history of the USA," and 2) by deplorables, as the traitor who escaped lynching by 'vangie patriots at the Capital on Jan 6.
aside: why does spellcheck redline 'deplorables?'
No. of Recommendations: 4
'He thinks that the 'speech or debate' clause is a core protection for Article I, for the legislature,' said one of the two people familiar with Pence's thinking, who spoke on condition of anonymity to discuss his legal strategy. 'He feels it really goes to the heart of some separation of powers issues. He feels duty-bound to maintain that protection, even if it means litigating it.'
So Pence is going to rest his defense on the separation of powers? I wish he were as "conscientious" when it comes to separation of church and state.
No. of Recommendations: 0
So Pence is going to rest his defense on the separation of powers?
It would appear that's their plan.
I question whether they have a sincere conviction in that defense, or if it's just another legal maneuver to stall "the process."
No. of Recommendations: 2
sano: I question whether they have a sincere conviction in that defense, or if it's just another legal maneuver to stall "the process."
Stalling tactic. First, his role on Jan. 6 was not 'legislative' in nature. Second, the supreme court already ruled against the same attempt by Graham (who is an actual legislator) and he was forced to testify. I'm not exactly sure why Pence wants this to be front and center for months while he's running for the 2024 nomination but he's never been the sharpest tool in the shed. He'd be better off getting this over and done with sooner rather than later. And he will lose.
But it's not like he's going to ever win over the "Hang Mike Pence" crowd and he can't win anything without the cult.
