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?

Trump is invincible...he has diplomatic immunity.

2 minutes ago, mike787 said:

Trump is invincible...he has diplomatic immunity.

A diplomat he certainly aint.

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. 

Trump has blocked 12 key witnesses from testifying.

 

You know who does that?

 

A criminal.

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! 

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? 

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.

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%
 

 

 

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. 

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. 
 

 

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.

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?

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? 

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.

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

 

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.

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?

Dang, dudes are up early.,,,

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?

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.

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.

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 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. 

Tweeter trumps Whistle-blower!  

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. 

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.

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.

50 minutes ago, mogandave said:

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. 

First hand evidence is completely relevant. So call all that have it.

 

Hint, its not wb, bidens, schiff.

 

It is pompeo,mulvany, bolton, perry, giuliani.

22 minutes ago, heybruce said:

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.

Where did you get that understanding about me being focused on Biden?

Someone else (candied?) made Biden the focus, not me.