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 : Politics for Pros- moderated -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: sm1th who wrote (696634)	11/21/2019 6:05:54 PM
From: niceguy767	3 Recommendations Recommended By alanrs SirWalterRalegh skinowski Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 793917

Why? The best defense is an aggressive offense! 1. Mueller failed badly with his aggressive "Russia collusion" offense. 2. Nadler failed badly with his aggressive "obstruction" offense. 3. Schiff failed badly with his aggressive "quid pro quo", morphing into "extortion", and once again morphing into "bribery" offense. Question is: Why would so many seemingly bright Democrats climb on these faulty buses 3 times knowing they had zero arrows in their quiver, just lame ducks? That's a "huge" risk for them to take! My guess is that they were willing to go all out on offense in hopes that they could break our duly elected President so that he wouldn't be able to uncover the Obama/Clinton era multitude of sins comprising (you guessed it) 1. Collusion 2. Obstruction 3.Quid pro quo, extortion and bribery Let's start with that $7.4 billion Ukraine misallocation of US dollars via Burisma (and Bidens), and go backwards from their into Iran, Clinton Foundation and Uranium One.