- Nov 2005
I asked you a question in another thread which you predictably cowered from which exposes your hypocrisy.Corroborated by what? Other opinions? That's not factual corroboration. How many people in prison have been found guilty on faulty opinion and later released.
You don't want "opinions" on a "phone conversation" to be used to indict Trump.
What if it were Biden?
Let's say, hypothetically, people come forward and a phone transcript comes forward that, similar to Trump's situation, provides a demonstration of quid pro quo.
Would you likewise insist we could not indict based on this information?
Of course you wouldn't because that position is a b.s. standard that does not exist.
Testimony IS EVIDENCE whether you want to admit it or not.
And a review of who said / did what is what is used in the real world to convict people.
This crap of you trying to reinvent standards is simple partisanship.
The same situation could exist with Biden, but you guys would leap at the chance if you had any viable testimony / transcript showing any guilt his way.The complaint amounts to an opinion. No cigar. It does not matter who agrees with it.
TESTIMONY is valid, whether you want to admit it or not.