Pelosi: If Trump Has Anything That Proves His Innocence, He Should Put It Forward

[Weatherman2020]

Trump is free to release any doccumentation or witnesses at any time that may just clear all of this up.

He's not done so.

Perhaps there is none.

That’s not the way justice works in America, Commie.

 

[bripat9643]

Trump is free to release any doccumentation or witnesses at any time that may just clear all of this up.

He's not done so.

Perhaps there is none.

Another Stalinist self identifies. You would feel much more at home in Cuba or Venezuela

Well certainly Trump's first hand accounts could dispel the narratives created by these second hand accounts. No?

Simply releasing a full, true transcript of the call would help. No?

We already have the closest thing we are ever going to get, and it's far more credible than any of these "witnesses."

 

[Weatherman2020]

Welcome to Stalins Amerikkka where you need to prove your innocence.

Twitter

OH... Can I ask you if you consider Hilary innocent now? After all you and conservatives hounded her for years, even after the FBI flat out said that no prosecutor would pursue the case with the evidence? Did Trump bother with even a clear idea on what Biden, father or son did that warranted an investigation?

Is it not reasonable to say that this administration should come forward if they have evidence that proves Trumps innocence. The witnesses have provided plenty of specifics that could easily undermine the Dems' case if any of it is untrue. State could release phone logs or email chains that show that Trump didn't pursue an investigation in exchange for military aid. They could produce witnesses who are willing to testify under oath the alligations are false. None of that is happening. That is telling.

The best way to expose a lie is the truth. Seems to me that the truth is blatently obvious.

Find one quote of anyone saying Hillary needs to prove her innocence.

Zip. Nada.

The evidence of crimes were the only thing nailing her.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

Trump is free to release any doccumentation or witnesses at any time that may just clear all of this up.

He's not done so.

Perhaps there is none.

That’s not the way justice works in America, Commie.

This is impeachment, dope. Trump needs to make his case or one will be made for him.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

Trump is free to release any doccumentation or witnesses at any time that may just clear all of this up.

He's not done so.

Perhaps there is none.

Another Stalinist self identifies. You would feel much more at home in Cuba or Venezuela

Well certainly Trump's first hand accounts could dispel the narratives created by these second hand accounts. No?

Simply releasing a full, true transcript of the call would help. No?

We already have the closest thing we are ever going to get, and it's far more credible than any of these "witnesses."

We already have the closest thing we are ever going to get, and it's far more credible than any of these "witnesses."

No we dont and it is not credible as it is not complete. There is nothing stopping Trump from releasing a full and complete transcript of the call except a desire to keep it from the public.

 

[forkup]

Welcome to Stalins Amerikkka where you need to prove your innocence.

Twitter

OH... Can I ask you if you consider Hilary innocent now? After all you and conservatives hounded her for years, even after the FBI flat out said that no prosecutor would pursue the case with the evidence? Did Trump bother with even a clear idea on what Biden, father or son did that warranted an investigation?

Is it not reasonable to say that this administration should come forward if they have evidence that proves Trumps innocence. The witnesses have provided plenty of specifics that could easily undermine the Dems' case if any of it is untrue. State could release phone logs or email chains that show that Trump didn't pursue an investigation in exchange for military aid. They could produce witnesses who are willing to testify under oath the alligations are false. None of that is happening. That is telling.

The best way to expose a lie is the truth. Seems to me that the truth is blatently obvious.

Find one quote of anyone saying Hillary needs to prove her innocence.

Zip. Nada.

The evidence of crimes were the only thing nailing her.

Don't look but you just did. By saying she committed crimes you are assuming guilt. And unlike Pelosi, you are doing it AFTER the investigators have already concluded that they couldn't indict on the bases of the evidence hence she wasn't nailed for anything and you still insist she committed a crime.

I will give you an analogy. Let's say the FBI gets a complaint from a secretary of CEO T. In that complaint, she alleges she overheard another secretary say that CEO T called a hitman to kill the CEO of a rival company. The FBI gets to CEO T's headquarters and CEO T gives them the tape to that phonecall. In it, investigators hear CEO T ask to do him a favor and make the CEO of the other company 'disappear'. What are the chances he isn't arrested on the spot?

Now let's say he isn't and the FBI investigates further. Talking to other secretaries, some who confirm it, some who implicate other board members. Those board members (Sondland) then confess that this plot did indeed happen. At the same time, CEO T hires lawyers who argue, all the way to the supreme court that the FBI can't compel testimony from board members and staff who have signed an NDA. Further, they argue that documentation requested by the Feds can't be giving because it's confidential. Do you think someone like that would not be convicted and do you feel that these activities in itself aren't a clear indication of guilt?

I think you fundamentally either deliberate or by accident misunderstand the concepts you are trying to argue. Innocent until proven guilty is a concept that is a cornerstone of jurisprudence. So is the right to not incriminate yourself. Innocent until proven guilty doesn't mean investigations (wich this inquiry is) are somehow unfair. Or asking a defendant to provide exculpatory evidence is somehow Stalinism.