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: Lane3 who wrote (143279)	11/10/2019 6:11:43 PM
From: i-node	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 361883

>> Can you come up with any examples of investigations having been conducted were investigators contacted the targets before the investigators had their ducks lined up so the targets could destroy evidence and tamper with potential witnesses? Where they invited targets to come onto the investigators' turf with their own witnesses? In public, no less? Yes, this happens frequently when the investigators lack evidence. Suspects don't usually "bring" witnesses, but they will often have them identify people who can verify a story or recount events. Never in public, but it is pretty hard to argue that an impeachment investigation should be conducted other than in the plain view of the people. This is sort of beside the point: It isn't the impeachment of a president. In his letter, Pat Cipollone correctly pointed out that Congress has never attempted to conduct an impeachment inquiry against a sitting president "without a majority of the House taking political accountability for that decision" by passing a resolution by vote of the House. The Schiff argument, of course, is, "Yes, but we CAN." Okay. Maybe so. That doesn't mean it should EVER be done. The people -- people like me -- who voted for Trump, can handle what we believe to be an unwarranted impeachment. But NOT when it is unfair and secretive. While you can argue, "Yes, but we CAN", you cannot argue that it is the right thing to do as there is simply no rational basis for such a procedure. In ordinary criminal proceedings it sometimes makes sense (although, grand juries are infamously unfair in many instances). But this is an investigation of a president where negative claims are being leaked out in a clear effort to taint the public's view. What, exactly, is the NEED for secrecy? Why would Schiff conduct an investigation and release only opinions (not facts) and never those who supported Trump? At some point you have recognize the unfairness of these investigations. This is so simple and so obvious that I feel like I'm having to argue that the sky is blue against an assertion that it is purple with green polka dots. Me, too.