Then get him in before the entire committee to testify in private and then release an unclassified transcript....this ain't rocket science. If the president has indeed violated the law then we, ALL of us, are entitled to know what that is instead of one little man keeping it secret.
The President has not been accused of violating the law, or even of committing "high crimes and misdemeanors." But you are right. We are entitled to know, and one of the results of the inquiry now under way will be to vouchsafe that knowledge to us. But there is no requirement that we be constantly informed in real time of the detailed proceedings of that inquiry.
Only for the democrats in this instance....since next year is an election year.
Here is what you said:
A legal accusation is a charge.
OK, so what? Is your beef that the Golden One is being "accused" (in your sense of the term) of perfidious things rather than "charged?" Then he had better grow a thicker skin and what to be "charged."
Personally I don't believe anyone should ever be accused of anything without corroborating evidence....that is kinda foundational to our country wouldn't you agree? Have you seen any corroborating evidence to support the accusations? If so, please post a few sample here....I would be interested in seeing them.
We "accuse" each other of all kinds of things all the time in the sense that you mean it--which is basically no more than saying bad things about somebody. You only need evidence if you are sued for defamation.
So you go with the idea that truth is incidental when accusing people of violating the law?...that it is really no different than opinion?
He is a tit for tat guy.....he even admitted that when he gets hit he hits back harder. Maybe if the democrats would drop the unremitting hatred they openly display toward him he might reciprocate; if he wouldn't then your complaint would be valid.
You are misinformed about Trump. He only backs up when he gets a political nose bleed caused by his opponent.
