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 (221118)	12/27/2021 7:51:07 PM
From: Lane3	Respond to of 363169

What? I get no credit for having read the damned thing? Obviously, you're took exhausted to counter the argument. Which argument do you want me to counter? I found no arguments that I can either accept or counter. The document mentioned two general things that would require investigation. One was that the election officials requesting the grants did not have the authority to do so. The other was that the consultants exceeded the parameters of the grant. Now, pay attention because this is in my wheelhouse. What one does with a document like this is to investigate, which is the action that the document appropriately requested. There is nothing in that document to argue. I don't know if what was claimed is the straight story or the full story of what happened. There are documents to review and other parties to interview. I can neither accept or counter any of the claims made. They seem plausible on their face, which is why I would consider it something to be pursued. I'd have to find out the facts before arguing for or against any of the claims. Which is why I asked if the requested investigation happened. You, of course, are accepting everything in there as gospel. Like I said, this is in my wheelhouse. I don't do that. I found no arguments that I can either accept or counter without more information. As an aside, I will mention once again, as I do fruitlessly now and again, that you always think I'm disagreeing with you but I'm usually not taking a position on an issue. What I'm usually doing, instead, is giving you feedback on where your processing of issues goes astray. Like today pointing out that you still don't recognize the difference between what you know and what you don't know or the difference between a hypothesis or a claim and a fact. There are testimony and allegations in that document. No way to know short of an investigation how valid they are.