Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : The Trump Presidency -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: i-node who wrote (66976)	4/15/2018 6:55:16 PM
From: zzpat	2 Recommendations Recommended By bentway Ivan Inkling Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 362146

Comey had no business investigating Clinton while she was running for the highest office in the land. If this is how we run things from now on the party in power can destroy all future candidates from the other party by putting them under a cloud of investigations (it's what Putin would do). Republicans don't want a constitutional democracy. They want a dictatorship.

To: i-node who wrote (66976)	4/15/2018 7:19:04 PM
From: Lane3	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 362146

It is fundamental to the jobs these people are doing -- certainly at the top -- that they be free of political bias that in any way affects their work product. They are honor-bound to do that. And if they can't they shouldn't be in the job. Indeed. The honesty problem stems from the fact that someone (perhaps HRC) might not be charged with a crime she clearly should have been charged with (after all, she was the presumptive candidate). I think that's dishonest....He saw her as the favorite in the race and admits he was (perhaps, probably, whatever) influenced by it. He "admitted" that her being the likely winner influenced his decision to make a public announcement. A charge against her is a different matter. To that he stated that he had looked into the matter and concluded that no reasonable prosecutor, given prosecutorial discretion, would charge her. Now, if you want to see her locked up, you might take exception to that conclusion, but he did not admit bias and you have not demonstrated bias thus far. You seem to be attributing your opposition to his conclusion to perceived bias on his part without cause other than your disagreement. I could have missed something. If you can show that he admitted that his conclusion was based on other than what he claimed it was, please share.