Innocent Until Proven Guilty - Unless You Are President Trump

Jump to Last Post 1-4 of 4 discussions (104 posts)
  1. RJ Schwartz profile image91
    RJ Schwartzposted 4 months ago

    Speaker of the House Pelosi spoke to reporters today and was posed with this question, “Why would the public not think that the House is dead set on a course to impeach the president…?”

    “It’s called an impeachment inquiry and if the president has something that is exculpatory — Mr. President that means if you have anything that shows your innocence — then he should make that known,” Pelosi said.

    The burden is actually on the prosecution to prove that President Trump committed a crime, so why is the person who is third in line to run America speaking just the opposite?

    The transcript has already been released......

    1. promisem profile image97
      promisemposted 4 months agoin reply to this

      Only a partial transcript was released. Trump refuses to release the full version.

      1. RJ Schwartz profile image91
        RJ Schwartzposted 4 months agoin reply to this

        no, the full transcript was released

        1. promisem profile image97
          promisemposted 4 months agoin reply to this

          A transcript with ... means parts were taken out.

          Nor is it a verbatim recording of the call but a collection of written notes approved by Trump officials.

          1. RJ Schwartz profile image91
            RJ Schwartzposted 4 months agoin reply to this

            and he released the 1st call transcript this morning

            1. promisem profile image97
              promisemposted 4 months agoin reply to this

              That call is not the one related to the impeachment inquiry.

              He's just trying to trick people into thinking it's the one that matters.

              1. MizBejabbers profile image90
                MizBejabbersposted 4 months agoin reply to this

                Promisem, they really tickle me with their logicless logic.Smoke screen! Anyone who watched the Yovanovitch testimony today knows she has Trump by the shorthairs!

                1. promisem profile image97
                  promisemposted 4 months agoin reply to this

                  No one likes to admit when they are wrong, including myself. But some people will go to amazing lengths to avoid admitting it.

                  1. Misfit Chick profile image78
                    Misfit Chickposted 4 months agoin reply to this

                    I like his response to harassing her on Twitter: "I have a right to free speech!"

                    Of course he does, who can stop him? LoL!

                2. Live to Learn profile image80
                  Live to Learnposted 4 months agoin reply to this

                  ??? A disgruntled former employee who has no knowledge of any wrongdoing in connection with anything the democrats are attempting to impeach on has the president by the short hairs?

                  Good Lord. Have the democrat faithful separated themselves completely from reality?

    2. MizBejabbers profile image90
      MizBejabbersposted 4 months agoin reply to this

      Why should the transcript matter? In the beginning, Trump proudly announced that he had done it and then tried to backtrack and cover it up. Then Mulvaney admitted it was a quid pro quo and then tried to backtrack. In criminal law, a confession is as good as guilty. I realize that the Republicans try to cover Trump's ass by saying that a sitting president can't be indicted, but I think he may be the first to cover himself with that trick.

      1. RJ Schwartz profile image91
        RJ Schwartzposted 4 months agoin reply to this

        You sound just like Hillary - At this point, why does it matter.......

      2. The Minstrel profile image82
        The Minstrelposted 4 months agoin reply to this

        Good jog RJ Schwartz! The point is this: if Trump was impeachable they would have voted for impeachment a long time ago. This inquiry bullshit is all about keeping a lie in the news cycle to discredit this president as long as possible. It's a political stunt. Yes, he did release the full transcript. It was a masterful move. It threw a huge wrench in their strategy. Plus, the people that should have been offended or at least put on the spot (The Ukrainians!), said they were not pressured. Okay, let me think now, "You don't have a quid pro quo, the Ukrainians said they were not pressured even though lying Adam Schiff halfway across the world in America said they were, and all you have in these public hearings are disgruntled diplomats who didn't like policy. They are hearsay witnesses that would have been thrown out of any reputable court in the US. Wow! Bombshell! They truly have a slam dunk case against the president! Schiff, Pelosi, Nadler, and the rest of the so-called leaders or conspirators need to be tried for lying under oath and bringing shame to the once honorable branch of government called the House of Representatives.

        1. RJ Schwartz profile image91
          RJ Schwartzposted 4 months agoin reply to this

          Now they are pivoting to the term "attempted" - trying to imply that the President attempted something but was caught in the act...these Democrats are destroying their Party and the foundations this nation was built on - impeachment for differences of politics is so "banana republic"

    3. Misfit Chick profile image78
      Misfit Chickposted 4 months agoin reply to this

      Well, a partial semi-transcript (not sure what to call it) has been released - and whoever released it forgot to take out a couple incriminating sentences.

      This is how people end up in courts - they LOOK/SEEM guilty - and then the court is supposed to determine whether or not they actually are. And so far, Trump looks guiltier than we originally thought. Just because you and the rest of his blind supporters refuse to consider the possibility - much less acknowledge any wrongdoings he has EVER done - doesn't make him not guilty.

      Don't worry, he still has plenty of time to continue his divisive 'non-pc' discourse that you all think is so damn neato.

    4. Don W profile image83
      Don Wposted 4 months agoin reply to this

      "The burden is actually on the prosecution to prove that President Trump committed a crime"

      No, impeachment is a judicial proceeding, but not a criminal proceeding. There is no requirement for anyone to prove Trump committed a crime.

      At this stage there is also no official requirement to "prove" anything, as this is an impeachment inquiry, not an impeachment trial. The purpose of an inquiry is, by definition, to gather information.

      "...why is the person who is third in line to run America speaking just the opposite?"

      She isn't. She is referring to something called an affirmative defense:

      "This is a defense in which the defendant introduces evidence, which, if found to be credible, will negate criminal liability or civil liability, even if it is proven that the defendant committed the alleged acts".
      https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/affirmative_defense

      So Pelosi is saying, if Trump has an affirmative defense, he should make the committees conducting the inquiry aware of it. In theory, if such an explanation were sufficient to negate the accusations against him, that could end the inquiry and remove the need for an impeachment trial.

      "The transcript has already been released......"

      No, what was released was a partial transcript compiled from notes of the conversation. It was also reportedly "developed" using automated voice recognition software. That's why the a notice appears on the document published by the White House saying the transcript is based on "...recollections of Situation Room Duty Officers" etc.
      https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/u … 9.2019.pdf

      Also, an NSC official who witnessed the conversation first hand recently testified that the partial transcript has been edited to remove additional references to Biden. He testified that he attempted to correct the record, but was rebuffed.
      https://apnews.com/c45cb728edf84d96adf9a88e98979c51

      So available evidence currently suggests the partial transcript that was released is not a complete record of the conversation. If transparency is important, then releasing a full, unedited transcript would be a step in the right direction.

      1. Randy Godwin profile image91
        Randy Godwinposted 4 months agoin reply to this

        I wonder why they stored the transcript on an secret server. Just kidding. It's apparent why they did. Trump is a crook...

  2. Randy Godwin profile image91
    Randy Godwinposted 4 months ago

    No one has seen the actual transcripts of either call. For some strange reason they have been stored where they cannot be accessed by ordinary means.

    As for the "transcript" where Trump actually bribes the Ukraine president, it's simply a memorandum of 10 minutes, where in actuality, the conversation lasted almost 40 minutes. So much for the veracity of the "perfect phone call".  roll

  3. GA Anderson profile image91
    GA Andersonposted 4 months ago

    "He made a telephone call."

    Wilderness, (Dan), I am in that position described as being between a rock and a hard place.

    I agree with the main points I have seen you make; The Democrats are looking for anything that could hurt Pres. Trump, they are trying to make hay off of one phone call's content, and I agree that the phone call itself is not enough to justify their claims of abuse of office.

    But, there have been some game-changers for me. The first was that by my perception of the president, I can see him doing exactly what the Democrats have accused him of doing - abuse of office for personal gain, and second was David Holmes' opening statement. His is not hearsay or 2nd or 3rd hand information.

    I agree the Democrats are out to savage president Trump by any means they can find. And I agree they would make any molehill into a mountain to do so. But, in this case I think their molehill is a mountain. I think Pres. Trump did exactly what he is being accused of, and I think such abuse of his power is worthy of Congressional action.

    I think impeachment is inevitable for two reasons; the first is that the Democrats have the majority, and the second is that I think there is substance to their charges.

    However, I would not support removal from office by the Senate, ( I think there is enough wiggle room for reasonable doubt - I prefer the rectitude of the Impeachment action and the verdict of the 2020 voters), and I don't think the Senate will break ranks and vote for removal for purely partisan reasons.

    GA

    1. wilderness profile image96
      wildernessposted 4 months agoin reply to this

      While I won't go so far as to say he made that call to improve his re-election chances, it wouldn't surprise me if that was indeed the primary purpose.

      But that's a far cry from proving that WAS the intent - all the claims in the world mean nothing without proof.  And without that intent I don't see that anything was so terribly wrong.

      But mostly I'm just dejected at what our government has come to.  Partisanship is bad enough (IMO) but this goes far beyond that with the entire Democrat section of the house going on not one but now two witch hunts where they start out with one thing and it morphs into anything they can find to harm a political rival.  It is not seemly, it is not just and it can only cause harm to the country.  This whole thing is, just as the collusion "investigation was, just a Democrat ploy to rid themselves of a president that doesn't follow their rules or goals.

      1. GA Anderson profile image91
        GA Andersonposted 4 months agoin reply to this

        Amen brother. I can give witness to that sentiment.

        GA

      2. Misfit Chick profile image78
        Misfit Chickposted 4 months agoin reply to this

        I don't agree with you or GA... Pelosi really did not want to impeach Trump. She had too many good reason not to. And, there were not a majority of Dems who were willing to take up the question of impeachment until the whistleblower report came out. It raised a big hairy question; and THAT is when 'the majority' of Dems jumped the boat. At that point, Pelosi had no choice.

        You all get mad about the private inquiry, but that WAS NOT an impeachment - that was to determine whether or not the actual impeachment process was necessary: was there enough 'evidence' within the testimonies to justify an accusation of abuse of power?

        With what we are hearing now from witnesses, there was. No, nothing is 'proven' yet - but then again, Trump et all are not cooperating with regards to testifying. You KNOW that only puts a spotlight on the question of guilt. If Trump did nothing wrong, why not let his people testify? Surely he CAN SEE (as can all of you) how/why anyone might get the wrong idea about that call. Its NOT like the Dems perspective is that hard to grasp.

        Why all the grandstanding?

        I actually don't have nearly as much of a problem with Trump asking Ukraine for an investigation into the Biden's - but, I DO have a BIG problem with him trying to get them to investigate the 'crowdstrike' stuff: the idea that the server involved in the Russian interference in our election was in the Ukraine and not Russia...

        It was announced that Russia had been trying to interfere with our 2016 election BEFORE Trump was ever elected. Now, maybe the Dems got carried away on the collusion stuff - but I have personally HAD IT with Trump dissing our FBI people (and a whole lot of others) every chance he gets. WHY?!! What is Trump hiding that he has to keep it in the back of everyone's mind that RUSSIA isn't 'really' our enemy?

        This is the question I want answered; and it probably won't even be taken seriously enough to get covered.

        1. wilderness profile image96
          wildernessposted 4 months agoin reply to this

          I agree - Pelosi did not want to start an impeachment process.  But there were large numbers of increasingly vocal Democrats who did, and they gained in number until it was not politically impossible to ignore them.  So...we have an impeachment proceedings because Democrats wanted one and all jumped on the bandwagon.

          No, the whistle blower did not raise a question - he raised the possibility that it was politically possible to convince people of wrongdoing when there was no evidence of it. 

          I served on a jury last year where the judge gave quite a speech to us that the defendants refusal to testify was [b]NOT[/i] to be taken as any sort of evidence of guilt.  Yet we continue to see "Well, he must have something to hide or he would appear before congress and cooperate in the effort to find dirt, any dirt anywhere or any time."  Comments like "You KNOW that only puts a spotlight on the question of guilt. If Trump did nothing wrong, why not let his people testify?" fall dead center in this and makes it very obvious that it is all about appearance rather than "the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth".

          That you had "had it" with Trump is hardly a reason to declare he's guilty or criminal activity, yet that's exactly what thousands of people did when the cry went out that he had personally colluded with Putin to fix the election.  And here we are again, with the same thing happening all over - a disgruntled whistle blower insinuates there was wrongdoing, can't prove anything and yet the whole Democrat party jumps up screaming that we need another tremendous "investigation" (into anything and everything) to see if they can't find something, somewhere, that shows how evil Trump is.

          I'm sick of it.  If that's how our government is going to work, if that's the best we can find for "leaders" of our nation, if our legislature is going to deteriorate into a bunch of kids fighting in the sandbox over who gets the red shovel, then get rid of them and start fresh.

          Which is exactly what we need to do and which is what got Trump elected in the first place - American disgust with how our government was being operated.  As this whole thing has proceeded we are finding out just who the "deplorables" are and just how dirty the upper echelon truly is.  ALL of them.

          1. PrettyPanther profile image83
            PrettyPantherposted 4 months agoin reply to this

            It is not just the defendant - Trump - who is unwilling to trstify. The defendant is ordering his staff not to testify and not to answer lawful subpoenas.

            You conveniently omitted that important detail.

            1. wilderness profile image96
              wildernessposted 4 months agoin reply to this

              So we keep hearing.  But unless Trump has a very valid reason for thinking those subpoenas are illegal in the first place, or do not carry the weight of law, I don't see him ordering others to become criminals.  I'm sure you do - you would shout to the heavens he is a crook and taking others with him - but I don't see him as that stupid.  Gullible, maybe, if someone is telling him it's OK to do that, but not stupid.  Again, you will disagree, for aren't you one of the ones declaring him to be just that - stupid and of very low IQ?

          2. Randy Godwin profile image91
            Randy Godwinposted 4 months agoin reply to this

            America is now disgusted with Trump's lawlessness. Are you happy now?

            1. wilderness profile image96
              wildernessposted 4 months agoin reply to this

              Same-O same-o.  Do you not learn, Randy?  Making accusations, even making claims of criminal activity, means exactly nothing until decided by a court.  Except, of course, that you don't care if what you want to say is true or not.

            2. RJ Schwartz profile image91
              RJ Schwartzposted 4 months agoin reply to this

              Do you speak for America now Randy?

              1. Randy Godwin profile image91
                Randy Godwinposted 4 months agoin reply to this

                I was responding to Dan's assertion about what could happen in 2020, RJ.

                And no, not all America, just the intelligent portion. tongue

          3. Misfit Chick profile image78
            Misfit Chickposted 4 months agoin reply to this

            "No, the whistle blower did not raise a question - he raised the possibility that it was politically possible to convince people of wrongdoing when there was no evidence of it."

            That's right, there was the suggestion of it... which is why the inquiry to find out if there was anything to it took place AND continues in public view. There is also the fact that the WH tried to hide it.

            "refusal to testify was [b]NOT[/i] to be taken as any sort of evidence of guilt"

            No, it is not evidence of guilt; but neither does it straighten anything out, either - which is my point, it puts a spotlight on WHY they refuse to testify. They COULD do their duty and explain themselves in an orderly way. They aren't. Why not clarify the truth if the Dems have everything wrong?

            "That you had "had it" with Trump is hardly a reason to declare he's guilty or criminal activity"

            I didn't say he was guilty... I said that was the question I have. I could really care less about the Biden's. Why does he keep trying to pull the wool over everyone's eyes about Russia; AND why do you support him on that? Do you have a thing for Russia, too? I already said that the Dems went overboard in their collusion bs.

            "the whole Democrat party jumps up screaming that we need another tremendous "investigation" (into anything and everything) to see if they can't find something, somewhere, that shows how evil Trump is."

            Well, that is just because he keeps DOING & SAYING things that make him SEEM guilty - and again, Trump does absolutely nothing to try and set the record straight aside from attacking people who have good reason to ask questions of him.

            "I'm sick of it.  If that's how our government is going to work, if that's the best we can find for "leaders" of our nation, if our legislature is going to deteriorate into a bunch of kids fighting in the sandbox over who gets the red shovel, then get rid of them and start fresh."

            Totally agree. I am also very sick of the pendulum swinging from one extreme to the next while we all go nowhere as a country and accomplish nothing. Next year the socialists that you fear so much will probably gain power - and you'll cry. But, you won't admit that you had anything at all to do with it by forcing your ridiculous extremism in the opposing direction.

            "Which is exactly what we need to do and which is what got Trump elected in the first place - American disgust with how our government was being operated."

            Yes, that was why he was elected... and I will remind you ALL that he was elected by all kinds of different people, including former Obama voters and Bernie voters who saw an opportunity to stick it to both the government and the Dems. Conservatives keep dissing 'liberals' when they should be thanking them.

            These very same people may or may not make a different choice next time around. But, living in Seattle, I can tell you that many liberals/independents/progressives who voted for Trump regret that decision at this point because of the way he has handled himself pretty much as a very rude dictator - especially women, but I had a long conversation with a very worried 'white guy' flat-earther who very much regretted his vote and was worried, LONG before this impeachment stuff started.

            1. wilderness profile image96
              wildernessposted 4 months agoin reply to this

              "No, it is not evidence of guilt; but neither does it straighten anything out, either - which is my point, it puts a spotlight on WHY they refuse to testify."

              With the implied assumption that there is some nefarious activity going on or he WOULD testify.  Right back to the point that refusing to speak is not guilt.

              "Why not clarify the truth if the Dems have everything wrong?"

              Do you honestly believe that a single Dem in that room would accept anything he said?  They wouldn't accept God's testimony if it was that Trump is innocent!  Which is a very good reason for refusing to speak - anything he said will be spun into guilt and you know that as well as I do.

              "Why does he keep trying to pull the wool over everyone's eyes about Russia; AND why do you support him on that?"

              This is the very kind of thing I'm talking about.  I've never supported Trump's dealings with Russia, for I don't know what they were.  So where in the world are you getting your info for a statement like that?  I DO support peaceful co-existance with them, though - don't you?

              Yes, yes, I know.  In 2020 not a single vote will be placed for Trump because everyone in the country is leaving him.  We hear that and we hear it...but I don't see it actually happening.  Just claims that it is.

              1. Randy Godwin profile image91
                Randy Godwinposted 4 months agoin reply to this

                So you're okay with the extortion then?

              2. Randy Godwin profile image91
                Randy Godwinposted 4 months agoin reply to this

                Trump doesn't have the nerve to testify, Dan. He may give some written answers--something he said was unacceptable from the Whistle blower--but I seriously doubt he will do even that as his written answers to Mueller are now under scrutiny since the Roger Stone conviction.

                1. RJ Schwartz profile image91
                  RJ Schwartzposted 4 months agoin reply to this

                  Why aren't the Democrats charging him?  What's the holdup?  Your Party has spent three years working on nothing but impeachment and you still don't have anything even close to a "high crime" other than the fact that Trump beat Mrs. Clinton handily.

                  1. Valeant profile image95
                    Valeantposted 4 months agoin reply to this

                    The articles of impeachment are coming Ralph.  Trump is stalling to try and get this closer to the 2020 election.

                    Why on Earth would he block the grand jury testimony from the Mueller Report being available to Congress?  Why would he obstruct an investigation into the hostile foreign government that attacked our democracy in 2016?  These are the illegal actions of a guilty person.

                  2. Sharlee01 profile image84
                    Sharlee01posted 4 months agoin reply to this

                    RJ - It is clear the Dem's have no charges as of yet. They are having the inquiry to make an attempt to stumble on some form of crime. This is sad, it is not American to accuse someone and then look for the crime.  It is a waste of money and it stands to further discourage many people in the way our Government is failing us... and we have very little we can do about it.

                    It's long overdue if the Dem's have any form of punishable crime Trump committed. it's time to name those crimes. This kind of inquiry is not on we should have to watch. It's unconstitutional and just plain wrong. If Trump committed an impeachable crime and it is proven factually he deserves to be impeached. Otherwise, this is nothing but a smear campaign.  So far I have seen nothing that could be an impeachable crime.

                  3. Randy Godwin profile image91
                    Randy Godwinposted 4 months agoin reply to this

                    Do you not understand a sitting POTUS cannot be charged, RJ? Otherwise Donnie would already be indicted alongside his former attorney Michael Cohen. As it is, he is considered an unindicted co-conspirator. In other words, a criminal who is waiting to be indicted.

                    And that's just the beginning of his troubles, Ralph.

        2. Sharlee01 profile image84
          Sharlee01posted 4 months agoin reply to this

          I agree with your sentiment in regards to Pelosi's thought process. She did the right thing in calling for an official inquiry. However, she knew the gamble of where this could end up. One must also note she has emphasized time and again "this is an inquiry to find facts".  In my opinion, she has been around the block, and unless the inquiry comes up with provable facts she will not send it to the Senate for a trial.

          It appears there is a lot of smoke, but will it amount to a provable fire?  The inquiry has certainly presented the elusion of abuse of power. But can they connect the dot with a factual case?

          When I look at how obviously transparent Trump was about the call, holding the funds, and even using Guliani doing his back door bidding, it seems it would be hard to prove his motives or his purposely abusing his power. To me, this looks planned and was an abuse of power. I just wanted to point out the scenario of extortion or abuse of power may be hard to prove in a trial. This may give Pelosi pause when it comes to calling for impeachment proceedings.  It would be a political gamble to proceed if impeachment allegations could not be proven.

  4. Doc Snow profile image95
    Doc Snowposted 4 months ago

    "The transcript has already been released......"

    And IMO, the transcript was already sufficiently damning to warrant impeachment.  The quid pro quo--aid for political dirt--was implicit but unmistakable to an impartial mind, given that both the Presidential meeting and the military aid had been withheld for months by July 25.  The abuse of power documented in that transcript is nothing short of spectacular.

    1. hard sun profile image89
      hard sunposted 4 months agoin reply to this

      Yes. It's almost surreal that we are even still arguing there was abuse of power.

 
working

This website uses cookies

As a user in the EEA, your approval is needed on a few things. To provide a better website experience, hubpages.com uses cookies (and other similar technologies) and may collect, process, and share personal data. Please choose which areas of our service you consent to our doing so.

For more information on managing or withdrawing consents and how we handle data, visit our Privacy Policy at: https://maven.io/company/pages/privacy

Show Details
Necessary
HubPages Device IDThis is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.
LoginThis is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.
Google RecaptchaThis is used to prevent bots and spam. (Privacy Policy)
AkismetThis is used to detect comment spam. (Privacy Policy)
HubPages Google AnalyticsThis is used to provide data on traffic to our website, all personally identifyable data is anonymized. (Privacy Policy)
HubPages Traffic PixelThis is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized.
Amazon Web ServicesThis is a cloud services platform that we used to host our service. (Privacy Policy)
CloudflareThis is a cloud CDN service that we use to efficiently deliver files required for our service to operate such as javascript, cascading style sheets, images, and videos. (Privacy Policy)
Google Hosted LibrariesJavascript software libraries such as jQuery are loaded at endpoints on the googleapis.com or gstatic.com domains, for performance and efficiency reasons. (Privacy Policy)
Features
Google Custom SearchThis is feature allows you to search the site. (Privacy Policy)
Google MapsSome articles have Google Maps embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
Google ChartsThis is used to display charts and graphs on articles and the author center. (Privacy Policy)
Google AdSense Host APIThis service allows you to sign up for or associate a Google AdSense account with HubPages, so that you can earn money from ads on your articles. No data is shared unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
Google YouTubeSome articles have YouTube videos embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
VimeoSome articles have Vimeo videos embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
PaypalThis is used for a registered author who enrolls in the HubPages Earnings program and requests to be paid via PayPal. No data is shared with Paypal unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
Facebook LoginYou can use this to streamline signing up for, or signing in to your Hubpages account. No data is shared with Facebook unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
MavenThis supports the Maven widget and search functionality. (Privacy Policy)
Marketing
Google AdSenseThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Google DoubleClickGoogle provides ad serving technology and runs an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Index ExchangeThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
SovrnThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Facebook AdsThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Amazon Unified Ad MarketplaceThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
AppNexusThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
OpenxThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Rubicon ProjectThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
TripleLiftThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Say MediaWe partner with Say Media to deliver ad campaigns on our sites. (Privacy Policy)
Remarketing PixelsWe may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites.
Conversion Tracking PixelsWe may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.
Statistics
Author Google AnalyticsThis is used to provide traffic data and reports to the authors of articles on the HubPages Service. (Privacy Policy)
ComscoreComScore is a media measurement and analytics company providing marketing data and analytics to enterprises, media and advertising agencies, and publishers. Non-consent will result in ComScore only processing obfuscated personal data. (Privacy Policy)
Amazon Tracking PixelSome articles display amazon products as part of the Amazon Affiliate program, this pixel provides traffic statistics for those products (Privacy Policy)
ClickscoThis is a data management platform studying reader behavior (Privacy Policy)