Debate Info

Debate Score:6
Total Votes:7
More Stats

Argument Ratio

side graph
 The Democrat Party has turned rules of law enforcement on it's head. Intent is now guilt! (4)

Debate Creator

FromWithin(8234) pic

The Democrat Party has turned rules of law enforcement on it's head. Intent is now guilt!

Let's play along in this Democrat witch hunt and accept their claims that Trump was trying to smear a possible Presidential opponent...

In this new Democrat rule of law, any person with the possible intent (hearsay evidence) of misappropriating Government funds for personal reasons, IS GUILTY AND THROWN OUT OF OFFICE!

There needs to be no proof of such a possible intent, and even though the supposed misappropriating of funds never happened, Democrats believe they can pronounce Trump guilty and kick him out of office.

Under this mindset, every politician since the dawn of time would have to be kicked out of office for working on his personal election strategy during company (or Government) time. When politicians are working for Americans, we pay them to be doing our work, not working on their personal election strategy.

Therefore, every politician who has ever worked on personal upcoming elections, during company time, under Democrat rule of law, MUST BE THROWN OUT OF OFFICE! Even with no proof! All hearsay!

Add New Argument
2 points

So if a politician has worked on defeating his oppenent on company time, he is GUILTY and should be thrown out of office!

How many politicians would pass that test?

So how is it any different when tax payer dollars go to the Ukraine, or to politician salaries on company time?

Democrats say Trump can not use tax payer dollars to help his future election, so why can other politicians use their tax payer salaries during company time, to help their future election?

If politicians are finding dirt on their opponents during working hours, how is it different? It's using their tax payer provided offices for personal gain.

1 point

There was no Trump-Ukraine Quid Pro Quo.

Gordon Sondland, U.S., Ambassador to the European Union, testified to Congress that President Trump explicitly told him to make that abundantly clear to the Ukrainian president.

The classified transcript of Trump's phone conversation with the Ukrainian president ''there were no evidences of quid pro quo either''.

Sondland also concedes that it is *merely his ''GUESS'' that aid was being withheld to the Ukraine until they announced an investigation.

Yes, you are looking at the actual proof, but Democrats only operate on hearsay.

Hearsay in a real court would have this case thrown out before it began.