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 : A Real American President: Donald Trump -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Honey_Bee who wrote (184309)	1/31/2020 1:07:35 PM
From: FJB	1 Recommendation Recommended By Honey_Bee Respond to of 454075

ACQUITTAL DAY? Right Side Broadcasting Network

To: Honey_Bee who wrote (184309)	1/31/2020 1:34:05 PM
From: FJB	5 Recommendations Recommended By alanrs CF Rebel Honey_Bee locogringo Woody_Nickels Respond to of 454075

Eric Ciaramella. Nolte: Let’s All Thank President John Roberts for Outing the Fake ‘Whistleblower’ By unilaterally refusing to allow valid questions like this one, John Roberts is rigging the trial against Trump. We all owe Chief Justice John Roberts a big thank you for confirming the name of the phony, Deep State whistleblower who launched this stupid impeachment hoax. Eric Ciaramella. Eric Ciaramella. Eric Ciaramella. Eric Ciaramella, a CIA analyst and raging partisan who falsely accused President Trump of impeachable crimes, who has a history of working with former Vice President Joe Biden, and who might have had his own agenda in wanting Biden’s corruption in Ukraine covered up… Yep, that’s him. After much speculation that Ciaramella is the guy, Roberts confirmed it Thursday through his unconstitutional act of commission. Justice Cuck refused to read an impeachment question submitted by Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY). The question was for House manager Rep. Adam Schiff (D-CA), whose staff worked with Eric Ciaramella to cobble together this hoax by way of a fake whistleblower complaint. It was a simple and relevant question: To the Manager Schiff and counsel for the President: Manager Schiff and Counsel for the President, are you aware that House Intelligence Committee staffer Shawn Misko had a close relationship with Eric Ciaramella when at the National Security Council together, and are you aware and how do you respond to reports that Ciaramella and Misko may have worked together to plot impeaching the President before there were formal House impeachment proceedings?” Roberts, who has no authority to do so, refused to read the question. Why? Because, without any authority, he said he would not read questions that reveal the name of the whistleblower. And so, by refusing to read this question, this specific name, Roberts confirmed the whistleblower is, indeed, one Eric Ciaramella. For his part, Sen. Paul who, unlike Roberts, is an elected official, was not amused. He tweeted: My question is not about a “whistleblower” as I have no independent information on his identity. My question is about the actions of known Obama partisans within the NSC and House staff and how they are reported to have conspired before impeachment proceedings had even begun. [A]nd are you aware and how do you respond to reports that Ciaramella and Misko may have worked together to plot impeaching the President before there were formal house impeachment proceedings. What’s more, by unilaterally refusing to allow valid questions like this one, Roberts is rigging the trial against Trump. The Senate is the jury. Paul is a member of that jury. So it is not only outrageous not to allow a juror to ask a question; it is also a violation of the Sixth Amendment not to allow the president to face his accuser, to question and cross-examine his accuser. No legitimate jury in the world can make a fair ruling without a good look at the accuser. What’s more, it is not even Roberts who would be revealing the name; it is the senator asking the question revealing the name. Roberts is merely reading someone else’s question, which proves his motives are not only partisan, but one more example of the chief justice fabricating something out of whole cloth to benefit Democrats. After all, this is the same President John Roberts who singlehandedly rewrote the unconstitutional Obamacare mandate into a “tax” — something the lawmakers who wrote the Obamacare law specifically said it was not — just so he could protect Barack Obama’s signature policy. *Follow John Nolte on Twitter* *@NolteNC. Follow his Facebook Page* *here*.

To: Honey_Bee who wrote (184309)	1/31/2020 1:34:19 PM
From: FJB	1 Recommendation Recommended By Honey_Bee Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 454075

Official: Shots Fired Near Mar-a-Lago… …Driver Breached Security Checkpoints Two suspects are in police custody after breaching two security checkpoints at President Donald Trump’s private Mar-a-Lago club on Friday, law enforcement officials said. In a statement via the Palm Beach Sheriff’s Office, Florida Highway Patrol troopers were trailing a black SUV when it rammed through the checkpoints at around 11:40 a.m. EST, prompting officers to open fire as the suspects sped toward the front of the property. The suspects were arrested after state highway troops and a PBSO helicopter located them on-site. Both the Federal Bureau of Investigations and the Florida Department of Law Enforcement are investigating the incident. Details about possible injuries are currently unknown. This story is developing. Check Breitbart News for updates.

To: Honey_Bee who wrote (184309)	1/31/2020 1:40:03 PM
From: FJB	2 Recommendations Recommended By Honey_Bee Woody_Nickels Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 454075

???? DEVELOPING: Senate Trial Extended to NEXT WEDNESDAY — Senate Pushes Sham Until After Scheduled SOTU Address January 31, 2020, 12:25 pm by Jim Hoft

To: Honey_Bee who wrote (184309)	1/31/2020 1:41:11 PM
From: FJB	3 Recommendations Recommended By Honey_Bee locogringo Mrjns Respond to of 454075

MURKOWSKI SAYS NO WITNESSES! foxnews.com Murkowski comes out against impeachment witnesses, putting Trump on path to acquittal Judson Berger 3-4 minutes Republican Sen. Lisa Murkowski came out Friday against calling witnesses in President Trump’s impeachment trial, all but assuring the Senate will move to wrap up proceedings with a likely acquittal in a matter of days, if not hours. “Given the partisan nature of this impeachment from the very beginning and throughout, I have come to the conclusion that there will be no fair trial in the Senate. I don’t believe the continuation of this process will change anything. It is sad for me to admit that, as an institution, the Congress has failed,” said Murkowski, R-Alaska, a key moderate senator who has been closely watched on the witness question. DEMS SIGNAL THEY WON'T ACCEPT TRUMP ACQUITTAL The announcement came after Sen. Lamar Alexander, R-Tenn., who also had been on the fence on the issue, announced late Thursday that he would not support additional witnesses in Trump's "shallow, hurried and wholly partisan” trial. Right now, Sens. Susan Collins of Maine and Mitt Romney of Utah are the only GOP senators to signal support for witnesses. Presuming Democrats vote as a bloc and no other Republicans defect, this would leave the pro-witness side with just 49 votes. SEN. ALEXANDER AGAINST IMPEACHMENT WITNESSES The Senate is expected to vote on the witness question later Friday. From there, proceedings could drag on through Friday night and into the weekend – and possibly beyond – but it takes a two-thirds supermajority to convict a president. Few senators have publicly budged from party lines during the course of the trial, leaving impeachment managers far short of the votes needed to convict barring some extraordinary turn. Murkowski, after keeping her views close to the vest, issued her statement just as what could be the final day of proceedings got underway. In it, she said she "carefully considered" the question of allowing witnesses and documents in the trial, "but ultimately decided that I will vote against considering motions to subpoena." She even seemed to take a swipe at Sen. Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass., for a day earlier applying not-so-subtle pressure on Chief Justice John Roberts to side with those seeking witnesses. On the floor Thursday, Warren gave Roberts a question that asked if refusing to allow witnesses would “contribute to the loss of legitimacy of the chief justice, the Supreme Court, and the Constitution?" Murkowski said in her statement: “It has also become clear some of my colleagues intend to further politicize this process, and drag the Supreme Court into the fray, while attacking the Chief Justice. I will not stand for nor support that effort. We have already degraded this institution for partisan political benefit, and I will not enable those who wish to pull down another." The statement also could have been a reference to Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky., clashing with Roberts over the last two days for the latter's refusal to read aloud his question naming the alleged Ukraine whistleblower. “We are sadly at a low point of division in this country,” Murkowski said.