One strategy used by criminal defense attorneys, especially when they know that the evidence points clearly to their client’s guilt, is to present as many alternative theories as possible to muddy the waters and sow doubt in the minds of the jury. During the House Intelligence Committee’s impeachment hearings, many Republicans on the committee have taken on this role. This section addresses those theories.
- This was all part of official U.S. foreign policy
- Trump wanted to root out corruption in Ukraine
- Trump wanted the EU to pay its fair share of Ukraine aid
- Trump was being fiscally responsible with U.S. tax dollars
- The Ukrainians didn’t even know that aid was being withheld
- There was no pressure on Ukraine – President Zelensky said so
- Zelensky didn’t do what Trump wanted, so no crime
- Trump said emphatically “no quid pro quo”
- These were rogue operators – Trump was not involved
- It was legitimate to ask Ukraine to investigate the Bidens
- It was legitimate to ask Ukraine to investigate Crowdstrike
- This is how politics works: we pressure other countries
- The Democrats keep changing the charges
- The hearings were unfair or illegitimate
- All testimony was meaningless because the Whistleblower didn’t testify
- All testimony was meaningless because few of the witnesses actually talked with President Trump
- It looks bad, but who knows what was really in the President’s heart
For more info, visit Trump-Ukraine Central
– rob rünt
The Week In Trump 