Is there a reasonable doubt that on July 25, Mr. Trump should have known that all of the aforementioned allegations against the Democratic National Convention or Crowdstrike Holdings Inc were baseless?
Is there a reasonable doubt that on July 25, Mr. Trump should have known that all of the aforementioned allegations against Joseph Biden, Hunter Biden, and Burisma Holdings Limited were baseless?
If you answer both of these questions in the affirmative, you must acquit Mr. Trump on this charge.
Given that the US intelligence community had, by then, spent two years telling the Office of the President, “it was the Russians, it really really REALLY was the Russians, it wasn’t the Chinese, or some 500 pound guy, or anyone else, it was the RUSSIANS”…there can be no reasonable doubt on that one.
Mr. Trump apparently doesn’t agree with your hidden premise, which is that when the intelligence community says it was the Russians, there is no reasonable doubt that it was the Russians.
We could go way off the deep end on this. There are ellipses in the memorandum right after the word “Crowdstrike”. Presumably Mr. Trump would claim that there are good reasons to suspect something fishy, but that they are classified/a matter of national security. It is not clear whether any of the people who have given testimony so far are aware of what isn’t on the memorandum, although Col. Vindman would probably know.
Trump doubts it, but his doubt, given the preponderence of evidence, isn’t reasonable. In other words, he’s an irrational conspiracy theorist.
Trump actually realizes that it was the Russians, but admitting such would both (a) taint his “huge” victory in 2016, and (b) make it difficult for him to maintain his chummy relationship with Putin.
Preponderance of evidence is a different standard, and not enough to dispel a reasonable doubt. The “reasonable” in reasonable doubt does not mean “more than likely”, it’s more of a “is there any possible way to do so without contradicting the facts”. Unless I’m wrong, of course.
And in the real world House Democrats have released a resolution describing the game plan moving forward:
“WASHINGTON – Democrats leading the House of Representatives released an eight-page resolution Tuesday that outlines how the next phase of theimpeachment inquiryinto President Donald Trump will operate, offering both sides of the aisle subpoena power as committees embark on public hearings.
The resolution from Rules Committee Chairman Jim McGovern, D-Mass., could be voted on as early as Thursday. It makes clear that information gathered by the six committees that have been conducting oversight into Trump would funnel to the House Judiciary Committee – the panel that has traditionally been charged with impeachment.
“None of us came to Congress to impeach a president – but each of us took a solemn oath to protect and defend the Constitution,” McGovern said.”
ETA: Let’s say the House managers claim the president had no good reason to ask for the physical server from Ukraine. The administration says they have a good reason, but it’s classified. The jury is asked whether there is any reasonable doubt that Mr. Trump should have known there is no reason to ask for the physical server. Of course it is possible for there to really be a reason, and for that reason to be classified!
He is the President of the United States. He has access to the vast investigative resources of the U.S. government. He has had years to have these particular conspiracy theories investigated, but chose not to. And if he chooses to believe that the U.S. government is involved in some massive conspiracy to lie to him, that doesn’t change what he *should *know.
These allegations never had any basis to begin with. Therefore, a reasonable person would believe they were baseless.
If I tell you my next door neighbor was JFK’s true assassin, you can choose to believe that. But your degree of belief doesn’t have any bearing on the reality that it was no more than something I said, something without any evidentiary basis. And in the absence of my producing any evidence, there is no reasonable doubt: you should have known my claim was baseless, period.
No, and for the same reasons as above. With the added detail of Trump’s lack of concern about these allegations until it became apparent that Biden might be a political threat to his re-election. (It’s not like any more is known about Hunter Biden and Ukraine in 2019 than in January 2017.) Funny, that.
Whether or not that is unreasonable requires a long and uninteresting debate over whether a reasonable person in the President’s position would or should trust the intelligence community, given the leaks, the investigations of those close to him, etc. Attempting to justify those and other actions could easily lead to a “factual” question for the rationale behind every presidential act, and even private acts before his term.
Max will agree to all of that but still thinks… what are you doing here, Max? Hating on Democrats? Defending Trump? I’m honestly not sure why you’re taking this devil’s advocate position, you’re not getting paid. It’s gotta be miserable defending the indefensible.
