And over 700 historians who have signed a separate letter.
Yes. Look, there's one -- one of the two article really does bothers me on the weaponization font and that is that the s...
you heard Chuck Schumer, you know, we want witnesses. But, you know, only witnesses that we think are relevant.
the public is squarely in two camps and vote -- and they're squarely in two camps here.
The President did not have corrupt intent.
The facts simply do not align with the Democrats' claim of obstruction.
Too many of our dogs currently suffer from inhumane conditions in commercial breeding facilities.
Abuse of power is, at this point, just a vestige of quid pro quo.
Democrats just know they can't beat President Trump in 2020; they can't beat the President on his merits.
Trump does not state a quid pro quo in the call.
The President didn't have corrupt intent, and that is why the Democrats cannot make out a prima facie case.
The President wasn't asking Ukraine to, quote/unquote, 'make up dirt about my opponent.'
There was also significant reason to believe that the Bidens were involved in corruption.
The President was not seeking to help with his 2020 campaign.
House Democrats should have worked through the courts, but they didn't.
The administration has consistently cooperated with Democrats, even though they have been out to get this President sinc...
The facts are on our side, and so is the law.
You don't have the facts because the other party on your quid pro quo... never felt pressure.
