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: bentway who wrote (150239)	1/18/2020 1:04:07 AM
From: Katelew	1 Recommendation Recommended By i-node Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 354275

I haven't studied everything Parnas has said, but so far I would say that his testimony should be allowed as long as he can be cross-examined. For one thing he made an obvious lie that the NYT inadvertently reported two days ago. The main thing is that Parnas has nothing new to say so he's no harm as a witness. I've noticed that no one is blathering anymore about getting John Bolton to testify. I guess Dems realized they aren't going to get what they want from him. How many times has Bolton publicly said "I will testify if the House subpoenas me." The way it works is that following a subpoena, a POTUS will then exert executive privilege and then the SCOTUS will adjudicate whether or not executive privilege should be ignored in a particular case. Dershowitz explained it all on Fox, raising the question of why is it that Dems have avoided subpoenaing anyone. As for me, I'm all for bringing more witnesses and dragging out the trial. It will keep Sanders, Warren, and whats-her-name off the campaign trail.