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?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
|
When the Republicans’ counsel asked about the “irregular channel” with Ukraine, Sondland shot back: “I’m not sure how someone could characterize something as an ‘irregular channel’ when you’re talking to the President of the United States, the Secretary of State, the National Security Advisor, the Chief of Staff of the White House, [and] the Secretary of Energy.”
“I don’t know how they can consider us to be the irregular channel, and they to be the regular channel, when it’s the leadership that makes the decisions,” he added.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
Hybrid Mode
