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 (150598)	1/21/2020 10:29:38 AM
From: mistermj	1 Recommendation Recommended By FJB Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 364291

You have a bad habit of declaring your opinions as facts and yourself as sole arbiter. They are not... and you are not. But you obviously get great joy from "trying" to play that game. I'm not buying it...and I'm on to you.

To: Lane3 who wrote (150598)	1/21/2020 11:51:16 AM
From: i-node	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 364291

Biden is a material witness per the Turley article two posts back in this thread. I would not ignore his analysis. “In a conventional trial, Biden would be a relevant defense witness. Biden’s testimony would have bearing on a key question in an abuse-of-power trial. Trump insists that he raised the issue of Hunter Biden’s relationship with a Ukrainian energy firm to the Ukrainian president as part of an overall concern he had about ongoing corruption in that country. If that contract with the son of a former vice president could be shown to be a corrupt scheme to advance the interests of a foreign company or country, it might be Trump’s best defense” There is, quite simply, no way Hunter Biden isn’t a material witness in the trial of Trump given the idiotic charge against him. Turley provides a more in the weeds analysis in the paragraph following the one quoted above. I just don’t think in a legally cogent analysis you can discount it as you apparently are. Turley is one of the two outspoken truly independent experts here. I think ignoring either of them likely ends in a grossly erroneous conclusion.