Quote:
Originally Posted by Jim in CT
i understand
the difference between a presumption and a wild, random guess. But a presumption isn’t evidence.
if trump called his own witnesses who said “since ukraine got the aid and since there was no investigation, I presume there was no quid pro quo”, that is also a presumption arrived at after a logical review of facts. would
you consider that evidence of his innocence?
You seem to immediately believe all presumptions that help the left, and immediately dismiss all
presumptions that help the right.
Can you cite any examples that don’t follow that pattern?
He’s not getting removed from office. No chance. And given the weak slate of democratic candidates currently running, there’s a good chance he gets re elected.
As rockhound said, we’re due for a recession, that usually marks
the end of the run for the party in power.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
|
If Trump didn't withhold all information requested and refuse to let any witnesses testify, perhaps he would be able to rebut the testimony presented to date. He has been afforded that opportunity and did not use it.
Since he will not, I assume the evidence to date is not disprovable and he has no witnesses who would dispute it.
I have seen statements issued by members of his cabinet that seem to contradict testimony, go ahead and do it under oath.
Threaded Mode