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 (192804)	1/31/2021 10:35:25 AM
From: Sam	1 Recommendation Recommended By CentralParkRanger Respond to of 361498

Really? You are still on that kick after Trump didn't take HCQ for his own COVID? You cite propaganda that talks about how Asian peoples have a lower incidence of COVID per capita because they take HCQ but fail to mention the fact that the vast majority of people wear masks in Asia and have cultural habits that aren't as touchy feely as European cultures? There are plenty of actual randomized studies on this that show conclude that HCQ doesn't do squat--see below. There are plenty of anecdotal reports that claim that it does help. But there are always anecdotal reports about snake oil. You're such a bozo. A Randomized Trial of Hydroxychloroquine as Postexposure Prophylaxis for Covid-19 Conclusions After high-risk or moderate-risk exposure to Covid-19, hydroxychloroquine did not prevent illness compatible with Covid-19 or confirmed infection when used as postexposure prophylaxis within 4 days after exposure. (Funded by David Baszucki and Jan Ellison Baszucki and others; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT04308668. opens in new tab.) more at nejm.org

To: i-node who wrote (192804)	1/31/2021 1:38:37 PM
From: bentway	Respond to of 361498

I think Mr. Shepard went to the trouble of debunking you and your hero: Message 33173696 Some people take HCQ for it's legitimate, prescribed uses. Have they fared better than random people? NO.

To: i-node who wrote (192804)	1/31/2021 3:00:27 PM
From: bentway	1 Recommendation Recommended By rdkflorida2 Respond to of 361498

Don't Hold Your Breath Waiting for a Trump Library Author Anthony Clark explains in Politico why he doesn't expect it to happen By John Johnson, Newser Staff Posted Jan 30, 2021 12:27 PM CST newser.com (NEWSER) – Every president since FDR has had a presidential library, and Barack Obama is currently working on his version of one to continue the tradition. What about Donald Trump? The Washington Post reported earlier this month that Trump likes the idea of raising $2 billion from his grass-roots supporters and opening one in Florida. But in a lengthy piece at Politico, Anthony Clark—author of a book on presidential libraries—assesses the chances and concludes that a Trump library probably won't happen. No, it's not because Trump famously doesn't spend time reading books—"presidential libraries aren’t that kind of library," notes Clark—or because of the Jan. 6 Capitol riot. It's because the process is way more expensive and complicated than you might think, and the particulars don't seem well suited to Trump. "If he does build a library, it’s likely Trump would want the legitimacy and imprimatur of the federal government, as a 'seal of approval' for his story, told his way," writes Clark. For that to happen, Trump would have to raise the money, buy the land, have it built, raise hundreds of millions more for maintenance—"and give it, almost unthinkably, to the government." Trump also could opt to go his own way, outside the National Archives system, as Obama is attempting to do. But the upkeep gets expensive in perpetuity, as the Richard Nixon library (which started independent, then joined the rest) found out. Clark floats the idea that Trump might take a more "Trumpian" route: He could license his name to "a for-profit enterprise—maybe a casino, or a golf course, or a ticketed museum with an attached hotel—to operate as a tourist attraction for the MAGAs and the (morbidly) curious." (Read the full story, which points out that Trump's legal troubles could make it tricky to pick a site.)

To: i-node who wrote (192804)	1/31/2021 6:43:45 PM
From: Sam	1 Recommendation Recommended By Eric L Respond to of 361498

Your commander needs you now more than ever! Go forth, help defend him from those dastardly Dems! Something went terribly wrong with Trump's defense Opinion by Elie Honig Updated 5:32 PM ET, Sun January 31, 2021 (CNN)Just over a week before the start of his second impeachment trial, former President Donald Trump's entire legal team has walked away. What already promised to be an unpredictable and unprecedented show on the Senate floor just got even messier, as it appears that Trump will insist on repeating the same dangerous lie that sparked the Capitol riot -- that the election was stolen from him -- and led to his (second) impeachment in the first place. Here's what we know. The mass resignations of all five of Trump's lawyers show us something has gone terribly wrong on the defense team. And these lawyers were no hacks -- several of them are Justice Department alums, and the (former) lead attorney, Butch Bowers, was a government ethics specialist. They would not abandon a client this close to trial without darn good reason. Any defense attorney holds a broad obligation to represent his or her client zealously. That's a crucial part of our adversarial justice system. But there are limits on what a defense attorney can argue. For example, per the American Bar Association, it would be unethical for any attorney to raise an argument "that he knows to be false." The "rigged election" narrative certainly fits that description. It's telling that the source of the falling-out between Trump and his (former) lawyers was his insistence that they raise the "stolen election" defense. Trump's defenders certainly could have argued in good faith and within ethical boundaries that it is unconstitutional to hold an impeachment trial for a former president, or that Trump's actions were protected political speech under the First Amendment. I disagree with both of these arguments on the merits, but Trump and his attorneys certainly would have been within their rights to make these claims before the Senate. But the "stolen election" argument crosses a line. What happens next? I see three possibilities. One, Trump could find a new legal team. Time is absurdly short; typically, even in a routine criminal trial, the legal teams would be in endgame crunch-time mode by now -- never mind for a historic impeachment proceeding. But whoever does take on this representation should understand that, if he actually raises the "stolen election" defense, he does so at his own professional and reputational risk. The "stolen election" lie fueled the Capitol insurrection on January 6 and repeating it now from the well of the Senate only threatens to provoke more unrest. Trump also could choose to represent himself. This is extremely unlikely but legally possible. Criminal defendants can and at times do elect to represent themselves -- it's called "pro se," in the Latin legalese -- and there's no technical reason Trump can't do the same at impeachment. But do not count on this happening. Or Trump could elect not to defend himself at all. There is nothing in the law that requires a person facing impeachment to have any legal representation. Trump could, in essence, choose to sit this one out, and to rely on Republican senators to make the case for him on the floor. Given last week's vote by 45 senators to consider a motion on the constitutionality of trying a former president -- which signaled, but did not necessarily lock in, support for Trump by those who voted to hear the motion (more on this below) -- Trump might choose to sit back and hope that at least 34 of those senators vote to acquit. Convicting an impeached official requires a two-thirds vote of the Senate. We are, once again, in uncharted territory with Trump. His stubborn insistence on continuing to promote the dangerous election fraud lie caused the Capitol insurrection has now cost him his legal team. And if he continues to press that lie, it could cost him -- and the country -- even more. Now, your questions: Linda (Florida): In the impeachment trial, can the senators cast their votes confidentially? Technically, the Senate can choose to vote in secret, but it almost certainly won't. The Senate generally makes its own procedures for impeachment by majority vote; however, there is a separate provision of the US Constitution that enables the Senate to hold any vote publicly if so requested by one-fifth of all senators (20 of the 100 senators). It seems virtually certain that, even if the secrecy issue did arise, at least 20 senators would vote to hold the impeachment vote publicly. Count on seeing every senator stand up in the well at the end of trial and declaring his or her verdict, guilty or not guilty. Adam (New York): Given last week's vote by 45 Republican senators about the constitutionality of trying a former president, is there any chance the Senate still convicts President Trump? Yes. Last week, Sen. Rand Paul made a motion on the Senate floor to consider his argument that it is unconstitutional to try a former president. (I believe he's wrong, as I explained here.) Fifty-five senators (all 50 Democrats plus five Republicans) voted to "table" (essentially, to put off) the motion, while 45 senators (all Republican) voted to hear the motion. A Trump representative has claimed that, "In fact, 45 senators have already voted that it is unconstitutional." But that's wrong. Those 45 senators voted only to hear debate on and consider the motion, but not on its ultimate merits. In fact, at least two of the 45 senators, John Thune and Rob Portman, have publicly stated that their votes to hear Paul's motion do not mean they will necessarily vote to acquit Trump. To be sure, the vote on Paul's motion does signal that many and perhaps all of the 45 senators are inclined toward acquitting Trump, but it does not guarantee any such outcome. cnn.com