I purchased the physical piece of art. I do not own the rights to use the image as I please, that was not part of my agreement. Yatsan is within the law to use the image they painted in any way they decide. I should add having some experience in production graphic arts, the law is pretty clear on this. I think it is a great piece of work and am very happy with it BTW. I like the new one, you still have plenty of time, don't rush it! |
|
|
|
Two consecutive events can imply guilt. Are you saying that they can't?
You mean like Biden's son getting a high paying job at a company being investigated for corruption after his dad threatens to have the lead prosecutor fired and hold back aid if they don't? Good point. |
|
|
|
Considering all available evidence, I think it's very reasonable to assume that the democrats filled out the official subpoena forms and included them with all of the subpoena letters they sent out in regards to the impeachment inquiry, even before October 31.
I understand that the only evidence that you are willing to consider is whether or not you are able to see a picture of the actual subpoena, and think it's reasonable to assume that the democrats didn't fill out the official subpoena forms and include them with the subpoena letters. What is "all available evidence?" You mean some people talked about it? People talk about lots of things that don't exist, the Trump Ukraine quid pro quo for example. Your assumptions are not a standard of evidence, neither are the words of others. It is very reasonable to assume you can not produce the subpoenas because they never existed. A filled out subpoena form is not a subpoena. An authorized, signed, and recorded subpoena complying with due process is a subpoena. |
|
|
|
.......Please don't mis represent my comments. "SORE LOSERS" is not synonymous to "BETTER"
This is favorite tactic of Twitchy Seal and the left in general. Don't respond to the comment or question you actually made, but to the one you WISH was made in order to topic slide and create a logically fallacious defense for a topic you can't argue and wish to avoid. This is one of the main reasons the left require censorship to function, because an open discussion reveals how little logic is at the base of their arguments.
Agreed. But I'm not convinced Twitch is at the radical end of the line like blue* and hell*. Twitchy Seal thinks the ends justify the means. When you stand for nothing, you fall for anything. That type is just as dangerous because there are so many so eager to believe anything as long as it works for their preferred belief system bias. That's the problem with true believers, they are convinced they are fighting for whats right so much they blind themselves to the fact that they are the vehicle of that destruction they claim to be fighting. |
|
|
|
On break for Day 2 of hearings. I wasn't able to watch it from the beginning, but Trump is having a bit of a melt down on Twitter, attacking Marie Yovanovitch mid testimony. It was Obama that media suggested was looking and acting King-like, not Trump. It's only that Trump is not the King they'd wished for, right?
So there you have it. A bunch of sore losers who did get a Congressional majority advocating impeachment, for, whatever. And now they are scraping around in impeachment hearings looking for some plausible impeachable offense.
It really is that simple. And people see this and know it.
Meanwhile, exactly what real, useful work has the Democratic Congress done?
I don't think "Party A is better than Party B" is a valid argument, or even relevant, when it comes to whether or not a president should be impeached. Please don't mis represent my comments. "SORE LOSERS" is not synonymous to "BETTER" This is favorite tactic of Twitchy Seal and the left in general. Don't respond to the comment or question you actually made, but to the one you WISH was made in order to topic slide and create a logically fallacious defense for a topic you can't argue and wish to avoid. This is one of the main reasons the left require censorship to function, because an open discussion reveals how little logic is at the base of their arguments. |
|
|
|
more of the same
The only thing you've done in the last 20 pages of this thread is create an alternate reality for yourself where Pompeo and Giuliani never received subpoenas, and a congressional subpoena isn't a subpoena. Have fun living there by yourself, because not one other person on planet earth is stupid or bull-headed enough to live their with you. So what part of this absolves you of having to prove your premise that the subpoenas were real? |
|
|
|
 1Hz3HZT4v8qxtyYiRQ66UHTUSK3dKCnVMW |
|
|
|
I don't think she can replicate the 2016 nomination again. The fact that the DNC had their thumbs on the scale in HRC's favor will make voters too suspicious of her, and efforts to favor her will be scrutinized.
Clinton would get votes from Democrats if she were nominated, but I don't think she has a reasonable chance of winning the general election. The base would not be energized, and Obama would not be around to spy on Trump for her. Her problem will be with mainstream voters. I don't think the DNC has anyone even close to as strong as her. The current contenders probably are more able to be associated with, but they are all weak. Hillary is cut throat and everyone knows it. That is one thing she has even if no one really likes her. That is why I think she is most likely to be the DNC nomination, because everyone else will fold like a paper bag in the wake of running against Trump. Everyone will eat up this "rematch" bullshit too on both sides. This is going to happen, its too perfectly scripted not to. |
|
|
|
Your argument is unless you accept the subpoenas are real without reading them you are not "capable of thinking both logically and honestly"?
This really is a flat earther level argument. I don't have to see that the earth is round to know it is round. The preponderance of evidence suggests that, much like the subpoenas exist, the earth is round. It does mean that, as explained above. You can't enforce a subpoena without due process. If it is not enforceable, then it is not a subpoena.
Sigh... No, it doesn't. Congress can request for judicial intervention in order to get somebody to comply with a congressional subpoena. So far, that has not happened yet with Giuliani or Pompeo. It has, however, happened in the past. You clearly have no idea what you're talking about yet you keep talking. Why? Produce the subpoenas hyenas.
We've never tried to wriggle our way out of acknowledging that we can't produce them. However, only a fool would think they don't exist after the people being subpoenaed publicly acknowledged their existence. Do you really think Pompeo and Giuliani are trying to pull a fast one over on you? What's wrong with you? What evidence? You mean people talking about the subpoena? That is evidence? What else? In order to have a preponderance of evidence you must first have evidence, then multiple sources of it. You have neither. You have a preponderance of assumptions. The judicial intervention you just described is what is required to meet the standards of due process and enforce a subpoena. If the subpoena has no legal standing, then it is not enforceable, and therefore by definition NOT A SUBPOENA. No penalty, no subpoena. Of course you can't even produce a document even resembling a subpoena from The House regarding impeachment before October 31st 2019. |
|
|
|
I can't find them. I've only found 8 congressional subpoenas in total from the past 7 years. Show me where there are hundreds of other congressional subpoenas (ballerinas  ). I don't remember saying there were hundreds of them. Is your point because there aren't a lot of them clearly some must be unpublished? That doesn't seem logical as it could simply be a matter of fact that they don't often exercise their subpoena authority, but you do seem to be a fan of assumptions. P.S. Your rhymes suck Chuck. Produce the subpoenas Tina. |
|
|
|
And in 2018 we voted in Nancy Pelosi and a bunch of democrats that ran on impeaching the president.
Not trying to be confrontational. But the whole "but he's the president" thing I think is pretty dangerous. The president is not a King. He's the head of 1 of the 3 co-equal branches of government. You know what else is dangerous? Preventing The President of The United States from exercising his Constitutional authority using the guise of "investigations" and "checks and balances". This has become a pretty clear pattern now. It seems though any time investigations, checks, and balances swing the other way suddenly it is an outrage and an "obstruction" of some yet undefined and undocumented crime investigation. It is investigation after investigation revealing nothing and constantly churning out new baseless accusations of some crime looming just around the corner for 3 solid years. Checks and balances go both ways, and the legislative branch is demonstrably exceeding its authority. |
|
|
|
ANY subpoena has basic legal requirements to be enforceable. This is not because of what jurisdiction they were issued from but because that is what due process requires. Part of that due process is a filing of the subpoena, certifying it, and serving it. That means as standard procedure public records are generated, ones which you should easily be able to produce, but can't.
Just because a document has to be certified and served doesn't mean public records are generated. There are plenty of scenarios where documents, like subpoenas for example, being made public would be a violation of privacy or interfere with an investigation. Sometimes Subpoenas are made public, but not very often. Go see how many subpoenas you find on the internet if you don't believe me. Then go see how many congressional subpoenas you can find. The answer is not many. That's because A) Congress is not required to make the subpoenas public and B) It's just a form. If they want to make the substance of the subpoena public they would put the subpoena letter on the internet. There are groups that are very against the exception Congress has when it comes to requiring records to be public, and the laws have been challenged, which is why in Jan 2017 The House voted to be even more explicit: https://www.congress.gov/115/bills/hres5/BILLS-115hres5eh.pdfIn the House of Representatives, U. S.,
January 3, 2017.
Resolved, That the Rules of the House of Representatives of the One Hundred Fourteenth Congress, including applicable provisions of law or concurrent resolution that constituted rules of the House at the end of the One Hundred
Fourteenth Congress, are adopted as the Rules of the House
of Representatives of the One Hundred Fifteenth Congress,
with amendments to the standing rules as provided in section
2, and with other orders as provided in sections 3, 4, and 5.
SEC. 2. CHANGES TO THE STANDING RULES. ... Records created, generated, or received by the
congressional office of a Member, Delegate, or the Resident Commissioner in the performance of official duties
are exclusively the personal property of the individual
Member, Delegate, or the Resident Commissioner and
10
•HRES 5 EH
such Member, Delegate, or Resident Commissioner has
control over such records.’ And let me stop you before you play the "that's for records, not for Subpoenas!" Anything filed with the clerk is considered a record. If you're going to continue to insist that all congressional subpoenas are public record, and if a subpoena isn't available to the public then it must not exist, I kindly request you let me know where all the other subpoenas are. I've only been able to find 8 out of thousands. Your public record argument is unrelated and a non-sequitur. A subpoena is not just a record. This post is a record. A subpoena has actionable legal force. It is a matter of due process and constitutional law it has certain requirements based on that fact. " The Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment requires that before any witness under congressional investigation can be punished for failure to cooperate, the pertinency of the interrogation to the topic under the congressional committee's inquiry must be brought home to the witness at the time the questions are presented. The Justices have explained: Unless the subject matter has been made to appear with undisputable clarity, it is the duty of the investigative body, upon objection of the witness on grounds of pertinency, to state for the record the subject under inquiry at that time and the manner in which the propounded questions are pertinent thereto.10 Even when a legislative committee acts within bounds, the form of questions asked and the rulings on objections to them maybe so obtuse as to make it violative of due process of law for courts to punish a refusal to answer." http://www.ncsl.org/Portals/1/Documents/relacs/2018_PDS/Committee_Sub_Jones.pdfhttps://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/frcrmp/rule_17https://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/frcp/rule_45No, it doesn't mean that. This is your unfounded assertion. At least you abandoned your incorrect application of the term "court of record." Your argument is unless you accept the subpoenas are real without reading them you are not "capable of thinking both logically and honestly"? It does mean that, as explained above. You can't enforce a subpoena without due process. If it is not enforceable, then it is not a subpoena. Let me put it in simpler terms for you. You are driving down the highway and you get pulled over. The cop asks for your drivers license. You hand it to him and he says "hey this expired 3 months ago". He then tickets you for driving without a license. You have your license in your hand, but legally speaking you have a piece of plastic because it has no authority under the law. A subpoena without authority under the law to punish is by definition not a subpoena (Latin for under penalty). Just like it is not a license because it has no legal standing, a subpoena is not a subpoena without its own basic constitutional due process requirements as outlined above. Produce the subpoenas hyenas. |
|
|
|
Boom. Great find. On the downside, I guess we'll never be able to prove that the subpoenas exist now.    BOOM great excuse to never have to prove your premise. All you have is a sad chain of topic sliding, logical fallacies, assumptions, and sophistry. You are the verbal equivalent of street performers juggling for nickles. All I am expecting you to do is prove your premise, that the supposed subpoenas issued by the house before October 31st exist by providing the document. This isn't that high of a standard of evidence. You are the ones who brought up FOIA as a distraction and topic slide. FOIA has nothing to do with it. The subpoenas are public records. You can't find them, therefore you will manufacture any excuse you can think of to justify the fact that you can not prove your premise with a very basic standard of evidence, the document itself. You have fun with Mike Pompeo, FOIAs, and more Mike Pompeo. I am not confusing anything.
Then why did you give the definition for a judicial subpoena instead of a congressional subpoena? You didn't know what a house clerk was and were insisting that they somehow communicated with and stored records in a court, which they don't. You were confused, and then you were wrong. In order for a subpoena to have legal force it must be filed with a court of record and made public, as well as personally served to the person required to comply with it. Without these steps it is just a request for information and not a subpoena.
Despite your personal preference of definition, a congressional subpoena is still a subpoena; its just not a judicial subpoena. It does not have to be filed with a court of record -- I'm not even certain it _has_ to be made public. This all stems from a misunderstanding on your part several pages back. Instead of admitting you were wrong, you doubled-down, tripled-down and now have quadrupled-down on your error. It doesn't change the fact that you were wrong to begin with. Meanwhile, not one single person, Republican or otherwise, claims that the subpoenas don't exist -- you are alone in this camp. Yes, one more thing.
When will you produce the subpoenas Nutilduhhh?
Again: they are not publicly available as of yet. That hasn't changed since 3 hours ago. ANY subpoena has basic legal requirements to be enforceable. This is not because of what jurisdiction they were issued from but because that is what due process requires. Part of that due process is a filing of the subpoena, certifying it, and serving it. That means as standard procedure public records are generated, ones which you should easily be able to produce, but can't. Then why did you give the definition for a judicial subpoena instead of a congressional subpoena? You didn't know what a house clerk was and were insisting that they somehow communicated with and stored records in a court, which they don't. You were confused, and then you were wrong. - prepare the roll of Members-elect.
- call the Members-elect to order at the commencement of each Congress; to call the roll of Members-elect, and, pending the election of the Speaker, to preserve order and decorum; and to decide all questions of order.
- prepare and distribute at the beginning of every session a list of reports required to be made to Congress.
- note all questions of order, and decisions thereon, and to print these as an appendix to the Journal of each session of the House.
- prepare and print the House Journal after each session of Congress, and to distribute the Journal to Members and to the executive and the legislature of each State.
- attest and affix the seal of the House to all writs, warrants, and subpoenas and formal documents issued by the House.
- certify the passage by the House of all bills and joint resolutions.
- receive messages from the President and the Senate when the House is not in session.
- prepare and deliver messages to the Senate and otherwise as requested by the House.
- retain, in the official library, a permanent set of the books and documents generated by the House.
- manage the office and supervise the staff of any vacant Member (the vacancy may have occurred by expulsion, resignation, or death) until a successor is elected.
In addition, the Clerk:
- acts as custodian of all noncurrent records of the House, pursuant to Rule VII.
- is responsible, under the supervision and direction of the U.S. House of Representatives Fine Arts Board, for the administration, maintenance, and display of the works of fine art and other similar property of the Congress for display or for other use in the House wing of the Capitol, the House Office Buildings, or any other location under the control of the House (P.L. 100-696). In addition, pursuant to the rules of the United States Preservation Commission, the Clerk may be asked to provide staff support and assistance to the Commission. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clerk_of_the_United_States_House_of_Representatives#DutiesMeanwhile, not one single person, Republican or otherwise, claims that the subpoenas don't exist -- you are alone in this camp. In letters to State Department employees, the Committees have ominously threatened- without any legal basis and before the Committees even issued a subpoena - that "[a]ny failure to appear" in response to a mere letter request for a deposition "shall constitute evidence of obstruction." https://www.scribd.com/document/429357573/White-House-Letter-to-Speaker-Pelosi-Et-Al-10-08-2019Starting to see a pattern... yeah, me too: "HUGE! EXCLUSIVE BOMBSHELL: Documents Released by Ukrainian General Prosecutor’s Office Reveal MILLIONS Funneled to Hunter Biden and the John Kerry Family" https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2019/11/huge-exclusive-bombshell-documents-released-by-ukrainian-general-prosecutors-office-reveal-millions-funneled-to-hunter-biden-and-the-john-kerry-family/https://www.scribd.com/user/259237201/JohnSolomon/uploads |
|
|
|
https://amp.usatoday.com/amp/4176641002There are apparently many people whose identities must be kept secret under all circumstances who are saying that they want Clinton to run in 2020. She has also been giving multiple subtle hints that she plans on entering the race. Among those with a realistic chance of getting the nomination, she probably has the best chance of winning the presidency, even though the chances of this happening are very low. I think she will have trouble getting the nomination. Sure about that? She practically owns the DNC. Remember what she did to Bernie? She is simply letting the only possible viable contenders exhaust their resources while she conserves hers and avoids most of the debates. Even if the vast majority find her revolting, she has more of a chance than any of the other contenders just based on pure spite. Some of these people hate Trump so much anyone who can beat him, they have their vote, doesn't matter who. They could clone Hitler and put him up against Trump these same people would vote for cloned Hitler. |
|
|
|
Be prepared for him to shift the argument to something else at this point.
He said as he shifts the point. How is this for not shifting the point. When will you produce the subpoenas Nutilduhh? I'm still stuck on how his brain somehow thinks that the [ existence of an investigation into Bidens son ] and the fact that [ Biden pressured Ukraine to fire the prosecutor investigating his son ] are not 'mutually exclusive'. Maybe he just confused about what mutually exclusive means? What? That's simply not true. A "court of record" has the power to fine or imprison. Guess who else does? Congress, even though they haven't actually done it for almost a century. There is no court involved with the issuing of a congressional subpoena. That is the clerks job, as described above to file, keep, and attest to the record.
A "permanent set of the books and documents generated by the House" is not the same thing as a court. Where are the subpoenas Nutilduhh?
We've told you several times already: they are not publicly available as of yet. https://www.justsecurity.org/67076/public-document-clearinghouse-ukraine-impeachment-inquiry/Just Security has compiled and curated all publicly available documents in Congress’s impeachment inquiry concerning President Donald Trump in connection with Ukraine. This collection seeks to include significant original source material, including relevant legislation, letters, subpoenas, deposition transcripts, executive branch communications, and litigation documents. Anything else? I am not confusing anything. In order for a subpoena to have legal force it must be filed with a court of record and made public, as well as personally served to the person required to comply with it. Without these steps it is just a request for information and not a subpoena. Yes, one more thing. When will you produce the subpoenas Nutilduhhh? |
|
|
|
Also, what does a clerk do?
You were already provided with this answer: ^^^ you can read all about it for yourself in this link "Rule 45. Subpoena Primary tabs (a) In General. (1) Form and Contents. (A) Requirements—In General. Every subpoena must: (i) state the court from which it issued;" https://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/frcp/rule_45https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clerk_of_the_United_States_House_of_Representatives#DutiesUnder duties: "attest and affix the seal of the House to all writs, warrants, and subpoenas and formal documents issued by the House. ... retain, in the official library, a permanent set of the books and documents generated by the House." "A court of record is a court that is required to keep a record of its proceedings. All the proceedings, acts and decisions of the court are retained on a permanent record. These records of the court are presumed to be accurate and cannot be impeached collaterally. Strictly speaking court of records has the power to fine and imprison." https://definitions.uslegal.com/c/court-of-record/Like I said, a subpoena imposes to "fine or imprison" as a penalty, therefore it must be filed with a COURT of record. That is the clerks job, as described above to file, keep, and attest to the record. Where are the subpoenas Nutilduhh? |
|
|
|
What do you think Viper1, what does "clerk" mean?
I know exactly who it is. You don't as you didn't do the research which was clear from you throwing out court of law references for congressional subpoenas. Then tell me, what is "clerk", and what is their job? I have said on multiple occasions I'm not going to hold your hand. I asked you to prove your points by providing information from actual government documents and you said you wouldn't. And now you're trying to get me to do it for you. No. I spent hours pouring over documents. Do your own research. I can only assume based on your refusal to take action and prove your points that you have zero interest in the truth about any of this. Your concept of burden of proof is so twisted I am not sure what the point is.
I'm going to say this one more time. The burden of proof is yours. So prove it. Burden of Proof
A fallacy is when someone makes an argument based on unsound reasoning. Burden of proof is one type of fallacy in which someone makes a claim, but puts the burden of proof onto the other side. For example, a person makes a claim. Another person refutes the claim, and the first person asks them to prove that the claim is not true. In a logical argument, if someone states a claim, it is up to that person to prove the truth of his or her claim.
A negative claim is a colloquialism for an affirmative claim that asserts the non-existence or exclusion of something. The difference with a positive claim is that it takes only a single example to demonstrate such a positive assertion ("there is a chair in this room," requires pointing to a single chair), while the inability to give examples demonstrates that the speaker has not yet found or noticed examples rather than demonstrates that no examples exist (the negative claim that a species is extinct may be disproved by a single surviving example or proven with omniscience). The argument from ignorance is a logical fallacy. There can be multiple claims within a debate. Nevertheless, it has been said whoever makes a claim carries the burden of proof regardless of positive or negative content in the claim.
All your dancing around is nothing more than that. The burden of proof is yours as you can provide it but refuse to. So you think I should prove that subpoenas that I don't think exist, don't exist? Also, what does a clerk do? |
|
|
|
What do you think Viper1, what does "clerk" mean?
I know exactly who it is. You don't as you didn't do the research which was clear from you throwing out court of law references for congressional subpoenas. Then tell me, what is "clerk", and what is their job? |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
