This professor begins with a cardinal error—conflating findings (determinations and inferences of fact) and conclusions (assertions or deductions of law). By starting with a finding (his own inference) and mislabeling it a conclusion, he reveals disqualifying bias. #WitchHunt
-
The first prof, the Harvard guy, was dead on point Dan. The facts are indisputable, and constitutional intent clear. The only question is whether one believes the actions proven by the facts require forfeiture of holding our highest office.
Wrong my friend. The readout contains all the direct evidence of the facts. Whether POTUS conditioned aid on investigations, or his motive was to uncover a Ukrainian element in the 2016-17 coup attempt or to expose Obama admin corruption (either proper) or other is all inference.
-
-
I wasn’t aware of the existence of records, testimony, etc where Trump cites the latter two as the Ukraine objective.
Dziękujemy. Twitter skorzysta z tych informacji, aby Twoja oś czasu bardziej Ci odpowiadała. CofnijCofnij
-
Wydaje się, że ładowanie zajmuje dużo czasu.
Twitter jest przeciążony lub wystąpił chwilowy problem. Spróbuj ponownie lub sprawdź status Twittera, aby uzyskać więcej informacji.