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 (230367)	3/23/2022 7:12:48 AM
From: puborectalis	2 Recommendations Recommended By bentway Ms. Baby Boomer Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 356053

Under Attorney General William Barr, the Justice Department has repeatedly strayed from its commitment to independence and the rule of law. Barr has demonstrated a disregard for these values, putting personal and political priorities first and undermining the constitutional separation of powers—in short, he has acted in a manner unbefitting the powerful position of attorney general. We’ve identified a long string of actions that constitute serious misconduct, and may inflict lasting damage to the Justice Department. Looking at Barr’s tenure since his February 2019 confirmation, we’ve identified a long string of actions that constitute serious misconduct, and may inflict lasting damage to the Justice Department. These actions generally fall into four key categories of misconduct that are antithetical to the department’s responsibilities to the public and to the Constitution. Namely, Barr has on numerous occasions interfered with impartial prosecutions, prioritized politics over justice, undermined the independent special counsel’s investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 election, and hindered congressional oversight.

To: i-node who wrote (230367)	3/23/2022 8:15:26 AM
From: Brumar89	2 Recommendations Recommended By Ms. Baby Boomer rdkflorida2 Respond to of 356053

There was no material cheating.. You yourself admitted all the votes counted were legitimate. The "cheating" was just that too many blacks were encouraged to vote. The entire point of the laptop issue is we can't know who had the laptop, who put fake info on it, etc etc etc. In other words, there is no proof of anything. Its worthless as evidence. Probably Russian intelligence stole a laptop from a hotel or something, loaded it up with face shit and then carried it to the DE repair shop knowing Biden would be Trump's major rival. The entire point of the laptop issue is that it contains the proof contained the proof of wrongdoing on both Hunter's and Joe's parts.

To: i-node who wrote (230367)	3/23/2022 12:43:23 PM
From: Smiling Bob	2 Recommendations Recommended By CentralParkRanger Ms. Baby Boomer Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 356053

Hunter is a crackhead that was exploiting and trying to exploit his relationship Anything he wrote or said lacks any value in any way, for or against any argument. He could have been high as a kite when writing that stuff There was NOTHING on the laptop that implicates his father in any way You have proof the 10% was nothing more than talk? That dad got it? That dad was even "the big guy"? Maybe Hunter was trying to squeeze another 10% for more crack by implying his dad was watching? Junkies will sell their body and steal and kill for their next hit. Hunter is a crack witness. Crack would be a pun here. You'd get better testimony asking a dog what is on the top of a house.

To: i-node who wrote (230367)	3/23/2022 2:18:00 PM
From: Lane3	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 356053

The entire point of the laptop issue is that it contains the proof contained the proof of wrongdoing on both Hunter's and Joe's parts Just what was Joe proven to have done? You posted this earlier: ...suggest he was using or hoping to use his father’s vice-presidential visits to Ukraine as leverage in his business dealings. Assuming that's true, exactly what would be so earth shaking about it? First of all, the article (which I found despite no link) uses the word, "suggest," which implies that there's no smoking gun to report, only a hint of a possibility. If more were known, the piece would have said so. And second, what's so terrible about name dropping? It's tacky but people do it all the time. If the laptop "suggests" anything beyond Joe's name being dropped, some quid pro quo, apparently no one has yet found out just what. This is potentially a major story that relates to what is now the biggest foreign policy crisis in the world. An vague and indirect suggestion? Really?