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 (143292)	11/10/2019 6:49:09 PM
From: Lane3	2 Recommendations Recommended By bentway CentralParkRanger Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 362061

What is the case for releasing their testimony to the public while not releasing that testimony favorable to Trump? How many times do I have to say this. All the testimony they have is being released. If there is not testimony favorable to Trump, it's because they don't have any. If there is any and they don't have it, it's because those who can offer it aren't testifying. You can't release what you don't have and you don't have what you can't get because Trump won't let it be gotten. as can be seen by Schiff's highly unusual process I have not been paying perfect attention but I haven't seen anything unusual. It's hard to judge unusual in the specific since there have been so few impeachments so I'm not sure what you're calling unusual. But I haven't seen anything inconsistent with the way investigations and trials operate in the broader universe, which I have been posting about today.

To: i-node who wrote (143292)	11/10/2019 7:16:44 PM
From: combjelly	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 362061

What is the case for releasing their testimony to the public while not releasing that testimony favorable to Trump? What testimony might that be? Do you have any proof, or is this more wingnut speculation? Previous impeachments of presidents have never been conducted in this manner Previous impeachments had an independent DOJ doing its job and appointing people to do an investigation rather than acting as the president's personal lawyer and refusing to. Ask Barr about this.