Redline Posted December 19, 2019 Share Posted December 19, 2019 (edited) 4 hours ago, mogandave said: I said it was a small percentage, you said “It’s not that small.” It’s less than 1%. Now you attack me for your ignorance-not a surprise. Of the world population? Tricky ???? And I did not call you ignorant-I said you preferred to listen to others that are-see, really I’m ok ???? Edited December 19, 2019 by Redline Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mogandave Posted December 21, 2019 Share Posted December 21, 2019 On 12/20/2019 at 1:25 AM, Redline said: Of the world population? Tricky ???? And I did not call you ignorant-I said you preferred to listen to others that are-see, really I’m ok ???? A small percentage of academics. Please try to follow along. I never claimed claimed you called me ignorant. Please quit making stuff up. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Redline Posted December 21, 2019 Share Posted December 21, 2019 3 hours ago, mogandave said: A small percentage of academics. Please try to follow along. I never claimed claimed you called me ignorant. Please quit making stuff up. How many law professors are in the USA? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mike787 Posted December 21, 2019 Share Posted December 21, 2019 Trump is invincible...he has diplomatic immunity. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popular Post Sujo Posted December 21, 2019 Popular Post Share Posted December 21, 2019 2 minutes ago, mike787 said: Trump is invincible...he has diplomatic immunity. A diplomat he certainly aint. 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popular Post Eric Loh Posted December 21, 2019 Popular Post Share Posted December 21, 2019 6 minutes ago, mike787 said: Trump is invincible...he has diplomatic immunity. If he is invincible, he don’t need diplomatic immunity. Just need a cape and an oversized underwear. 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
J Town Posted December 22, 2019 Share Posted December 22, 2019 Trump has blocked 12 key witnesses from testifying. You know who does that? A criminal. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jingthing Posted December 22, 2019 Share Posted December 22, 2019 1 hour ago, J Town said: Trump has blocked 12 key witnesses from testifying. You know who does that? A criminal. Obviously. But the 45 fan style is to avoid the obvious and always seek out the cockamamie debunked conspiracy theory. The server! 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mogandave Posted December 22, 2019 Share Posted December 22, 2019 2 hours ago, J Town said: Trump has blocked 12 key witnesses from testifying. You know who does that? A criminal. I know right? How many Schiff block? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sujo Posted December 22, 2019 Share Posted December 22, 2019 4 minutes ago, mogandave said: I know right? How many Schiff block? Only the ones that cannot provide evidence about the investigation. All others welcome. Btw, blocking the witnesses that know nothing is within his job description. But trump doing it is reasons for impeachment. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mogandave Posted December 22, 2019 Share Posted December 22, 2019 On 12/21/2019 at 4:29 PM, Redline said: How many law professors are in the USA? Almost 30k, but it was 500 law professors and 700 ”scholars”, yes? How many “scholars” do you think there are? Over half a million professors and how many grad students? That’s just academia so 1,200/500,000 - 0.2%, yes? If you just went with law professors: 500/30,000- 1.7% Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mogandave Posted December 22, 2019 Share Posted December 22, 2019 13 minutes ago, Sujo said: Only the ones that cannot provide evidence about the investigation. All others welcome. Btw, blocking the witnesses that know nothing is within his job description. But trump doing it is reasons for impeachment. No, Trump doing it is reason to take it before court. That you believe otherwise means nothing. You understand the President does not answer to the House, yes? There seems to be some confusion about that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mogandave Posted December 22, 2019 Share Posted December 22, 2019 19 minutes ago, Sujo said: Btw, blocking the witnesses that know nothing is within his job description. Yes. His job description was impeaching the President. As such, blocking witnesses that will not help him, or in fact might hinder him from doing that is part of his job description. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sujo Posted December 22, 2019 Share Posted December 22, 2019 25 minutes ago, mogandave said: No, Trump doing it is reason to take it before court. That you believe otherwise means nothing. You understand the President does not answer to the House, yes? There seems to be some confusion about that. No, trump doing it is reason for impeachment. Congress has sole subpoena rights. if he doesnt answer to the house he cant complaint he wasnt allowed to defend himself. easy way to finish it, allow the evidence, or no right to complain. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sujo Posted December 22, 2019 Share Posted December 22, 2019 23 minutes ago, mogandave said: Yes. His job description was impeaching the President. As such, blocking witnesses that will not help him, or in fact might hinder him from doing that is part of his job description. What witnesses with direct knowledge were blocked by schiff? 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mogandave Posted December 22, 2019 Share Posted December 22, 2019 42 minutes ago, Sujo said: No, trump doing it is reason for impeachment. Congress has sole subpoena rights. What does this even mean? The house can subpoena, he can use executive privilege, and they can go to court and hash it out. I’m sorry you don’t seem to understand it, but this is how it works. It worked the same way for Obama and every President before him. One half of Congress (the House) has sole authority over the impeachment, the other half of Congress (the Senate) has sole authority over the trial. 42 minutes ago, Sujo said: if he doesnt answer to the house he cant complaint he wasnt allowed to defend himself. easy way to finish it, allow the evidence, or no right to complain. Easy way to finish what? The impeachment is over. You think the House is going to dictate to the Senate (one half of legislative branch), the President (the Executive Branch) and the Court (the Judicial Branch) how the Senate will run the trial? Really? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
candide Posted December 22, 2019 Share Posted December 22, 2019 3 hours ago, Sujo said: What witnesses with direct knowledge were blocked by schiff? He will never answer this question. When ones ask them to switch from general and vague arguments to precise facts, they usually (Trumpers) don't answer. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popular Post candide Posted December 22, 2019 Popular Post Share Posted December 22, 2019 Interesting quote "I'm not really making a political judgment about him, because that's not our expertise at Christianity Today. I am making a moral judgment that he's morally unfit, or even more precisely, it's his public morality that makes him unfit. Anybody in leadership has — none of us are perfect. We're not looking for saints. ... But a president has certain responsibilities as a public figure to display a certain level of public character and public morality." https://www.axios.com/christianity-today-evangelical-trump-removal-d6e3309f-a163-4bae-a437-708a0f07acad.html 1 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jingthing Posted December 22, 2019 Share Posted December 22, 2019 30 minutes ago, candide said: He will never answer this question. When ones ask them to switch from general and vague arguments to precise facts, they usually (Trumpers) don't answer. Exactly. Allergic to facts and reality. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mogandave Posted December 22, 2019 Share Posted December 22, 2019 3 hours ago, candide said: He will never answer this question. When ones ask them to switch from general and vague arguments to precise facts, they usually (Trumpers) don't answer. I have no way of knowing what anyone knows, or what they are gong to testify. Did Schiff allow the whistleblower to testify? That would be one, yes? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mogandave Posted December 22, 2019 Share Posted December 22, 2019 Dang, dudes are up early.,,, Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
candide Posted December 22, 2019 Share Posted December 22, 2019 (edited) 31 minutes ago, mogandave said: I have no way of knowing what anyone knows, or what they are gong to testify. Did Schiff allow the whistleblower to testify? That would be one, yes? That would be one but he wanted to remain anonymous and is protected by law. For the others It's quite easy to know. Do they have any particular knowledge of what Trump did re Ukraine between March and September 2019? Let's start with only one, in order to spare your time. Does Biden have any particular knowledge of what Trump did between March and September 2019 concerning Ukraine? Edited December 22, 2019 by candide 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mogandave Posted December 22, 2019 Share Posted December 22, 2019 5 minutes ago, candide said: That would be one but he wanted to remain anonymous and is protected by law. For the others It's quite easy to know. Do they have any particular knowledge of what Trump did re Ukraine between March and September 2019? Let's start with only one, in order to spare your time. Does Biden have any particular knowledge of what Trump did between March and September 2019 concerning Ukraine? Well that’s one, so everyone that claiming anyone with pertinent testimony was allowed to testify is a lie, yes? Did Schiff not promise the whistleblower would testify? Makes him a liar as well. As I understand it, the whistleblower has no right to not testify. I don’t know what Biden knows, do you? I don’t think he did anything criminal, but he spent a lot of time in Ukraine and (I think) is familiar with all the players. I don’t see Biden and his son conspiring with the Ukraine to get Trump impeached a bigger stretch than Trump conspiring with the Russians to throw the election. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
candide Posted December 23, 2019 Share Posted December 23, 2019 4 minutes ago, mogandave said: Well that’s one, so everyone that claiming anyone with pertinent testimony was allowed to testify is a lie, yes? Did Schiff not promise the whistleblower would testify? Makes him a liar as well. As I understand it, the whistleblower has no right to not testify. I don’t know what Biden knows, do you? I don’t think he did anything criminal, but he spent a lot of time in Ukraine and (I think) is familiar with all the players. I don’t see Biden and his son conspiring with the Ukraine to get Trump impeached a bigger stretch than Trump conspiring with the Russians to throw the election. The whistleblower is protected by law. Biden has not been involved with Ukraine since a long time and was not in a position to observe anything about Trump during this period of time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sujo Posted December 23, 2019 Share Posted December 23, 2019 1 hour ago, mogandave said: Well that’s one, so everyone that claiming anyone with pertinent testimony was allowed to testify is a lie, yes? Did Schiff not promise the whistleblower would testify? Makes him a liar as well. As I understand it, the whistleblower has no right to not testify. I don’t know what Biden knows, do you? I don’t think he did anything criminal, but he spent a lot of time in Ukraine and (I think) is familiar with all the players. I don’t see Biden and his son conspiring with the Ukraine to get Trump impeached a bigger stretch than Trump conspiring with the Russians to throw the election. Even repubs said the wb testimony was 2nd or 3rd hand. His complaint was verified by other witnesses so he was not needed. Reubs complained it was heresay, so why call him if not direct evidence. both repubs and dems have always agreed to wb protection. That is very important so that others can come forward with govt wrongdoings no matter who is in office. i do know what biden knows. Absolutely nothing first hand about what trump asked ukraine to do. Or do you think trump had him listening in on the calls. repeat ad nauseum. What you think the bidens may have done is totally irrelevant to the investigation into what trump did. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mogandave Posted December 23, 2019 Share Posted December 23, 2019 1 hour ago, candide said: The whistleblower is protected by law. Biden has not been involved with Ukraine since a long time and was not in a position to observe anything about Trump during this period of time. As I understand it, as the whistleblower did not follow protocol, they’re technically not whistleblower in the legal sense and it can be argued they enjoy no such protection. Biden could have maintained contact and could be influencing testimony, yes? One question might be if he has had any contact with any witnesses, the whistleblower, or anyone in the Ukraine in the last 24 months. Again, I’m not accusing Biden of anything, and I don’t believe he’s done anything criminal, but I’m not assuming he’s pure as the driven snow either. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tifino Posted December 23, 2019 Share Posted December 23, 2019 Tweeter trumps Whistle-blower! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mogandave Posted December 23, 2019 Share Posted December 23, 2019 12 minutes ago, Sujo said: Even repubs said the wb testimony was 2nd or 3rd hand. His complaint was verified by other witnesses so he was not needed. Reubs complained it was heresay, so why call him if not direct evidence. both repubs and dems have always agreed to wb protection. That is very important so that others can come forward with govt wrongdoings no matter who is in office. i do know what biden knows. Absolutely nothing first hand about what trump asked ukraine to do. Or do you think trump had him listening in on the calls. repeat ad nauseum. What you think the bidens may have done is totally irrelevant to the investigation into what trump did. So the second hand testimony is relevant, but the first hand testimony is no. Any one should be able to provide testimony for Pompeo, and someone else can substantiate it, perfect. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
heybruce Posted December 23, 2019 Share Posted December 23, 2019 47 minutes ago, mogandave said: As I understand it, as the whistleblower did not follow protocol, they’re technically not whistleblower in the legal sense and it can be argued they enjoy no such protection. Biden could have maintained contact and could be influencing testimony, yes? One question might be if he has had any contact with any witnesses, the whistleblower, or anyone in the Ukraine in the last 24 months. Again, I’m not accusing Biden of anything, and I don’t believe he’s done anything criminal, but I’m not assuming he’s pure as the driven snow either. Where did you get that understanding about the whistleblower? Why are you focused on Biden? Why not focus on the people who were there and have first hand info? You know, the ones Trump and the Republicans don't want to testify. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popular Post Sujo Posted December 23, 2019 Popular Post Share Posted December 23, 2019 51 minutes ago, mogandave said: As I understand it, as the whistleblower did not follow protocol, they’re technically not whistleblower in the legal sense and it can be argued they enjoy no such protection. Biden could have maintained contact and could be influencing testimony, yes? One question might be if he has had any contact with any witnesses, the whistleblower, or anyone in the Ukraine in the last 24 months. Again, I’m not accusing Biden of anything, and I don’t believe he’s done anything criminal, but I’m not assuming he’s pure as the driven snow either. What part do you not understand. What biden did is irrelevant to what trump did. Hunter Biden could have assasinated the prosecutor, still not relevant to what trump is accused of. He had proper ways to investigate and chose the wrong one. The whistleblower followed all protocol. 1 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now