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 (143287)	11/10/2019 6:20:15 PM
From: i-node	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 361055

>> It is not only appropriate to interview them but it would be negligent not to. What is the case for releasing their testimony to the public while not releasing that testimony favorable to Trump? >> OK, I assume that by justice you meant fairness. Yes. >> I have mostly focused on your conflation of investigation and trial. Another prominent example is the complaint that testimony was secret followed by complaint that it was being made public. I'm not conflating anything. If anyone is, you are -- by conflating this outrageous anything-goes investigation with a fair process. There are no laws here: There is only what is right versus wrong. The artifacts of the legal system are a mere convenience -- as can be seen by Schiff's highly unusual process, one designed to damage Trump regardless of whether there is an impeachment. It is entirely inconsistent with the rule of law. Previous impeachments of presidents have never been conducted in this manner because there was a recognition of a strong public interest in knowing the truth. We are not getting truth today. This is a national embarrassment.

To: Lane3 who wrote (143287)	11/10/2019 6:39:57 PM
From: i-node	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 361055

I'm gonna try to get off this topic, but I really feel the need to drive home the point that in an investigation, the investigator doesn't just investigate the crimes or the people he or she wants to suspect. And in fact, the worst investigations are those where alternatives aren't investigated. Where the spouse is arrested for murder without checking out other credible alternatives. You don't do that. But that is precisely what Schiff is doing. You cannot credibly refuse to have the whistleblower testify. This argument that "all he did was to blow the whistle" is nonsense. He has to explain where he got his information. How he came to report it. Did he speak with Schiff first, or go to the lawyer who claimed the "coup" started in January 2017, or that the impeachment was beginning then. These look like apparent "setups" and cannot be ignored. Every person who has knowledge needs to testify. And I suppose since we're allowing opinions on the anti-Trumpites, we need to allow opinions from Trump supporters. Okay, you get the last word if you want it on this.