Yup, that's all we can do when we don't have conclusive proof of something being true.
Most of your claims are assumptions as well. The only difference is you state you assumptions as if they are facts and I don't. That's "all" we can do huh? When there is no proof the best course of action is to make baseless assumptions and just believe what people tell you. Sounds like a solid plan. You didn't state the assumption that there were subpoenas issued from the house relating to impeachment before October 31st, without ever reading them, and then state that as fact? I think you did. Where are those subpoenas Twitchy? One question Nutilduhhh... what is a "clerk"? Both of these documents are signed by "clerk" What do you think that means Nutilduhhhhhhhhh.
If you had read all the government documents as I had, you would know what it means and know the exceptions as well. But you failed to do that and said you wouldn't when pressed. Here's a hint. It's not the same as what happens in terms of a court of law subpoena as it's a congressional subpoena. So have you requested the subpoenas you claim don't exist in order to prove your point? Where's your proof that Pompeo said bigfoot exists? What do you think Viper1, what does "clerk" mean? |
|
|
|
Yeah. I think it's reasonable to assume that a prosecutor is not going to re-open a case that was closed years ago unless there's some reason to think otherwise. Especially when there are allegations that the prosecutor was bribed to close it in the first place. Lots of thoughts, assumptions, and allegations. A perfectly logical standard of evidence! Produce the subpoenas Twitchy. |
|
|
|
I still think he have a high chance of winning. Seems most of the dem's candidates were either unpopular or have scandals of their own. IIRC that Beto dude has already backed out after a backlash about his stance on guns. HAHAHAHA scandal free. Hilarious. Love willful the blindness. The dems don't have anyone who stands a chance in hell against Trump, which is why they need to manufacture this whole impeachment coup attempt, because it is their only hope.
Non-American observer here, was it Biden that supposedly pulled strings for his son's business in Ukraine and had someone fired for investigating? Yes, there is some discussion about it in this thread (to stay on topic). Biden is already losing his mind, and his body is visibly fading. He is tied in with all kinds of corruption dating back a long time, especially enriching family members using his official position. There is a lot more, but that is just the obvious stuff. I predict Killery will emerge out of her cave at the last second and the world will collectively groan on both sides. |
|
|
|
I don't think there's any evidence that the Ukranian prosecutor at the time was even considering re-opening the investigation. If anything, by getting that prosecutor fired Biden made it more likely that the Burisma investigation would be re-opened. If you have any evidence to the contrary I'm all ears. Your concept of burden of proof is so twisted I am not sure what the point is. Your standard is what you think some guy you don't know was thinking at the time, and since I don't have any evidence he wasn't thinking about re-opening it, then we must assume he wasn't. This is a seriously weak form of debate. For the love of God please just take some basic logic courses. Maybe learn about scientific method, empirical data, and burden of proof while you are at it. Find the subpoenas Twitchy. |
|
|
|
It's from George Kents opening statement today. He's the "Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for European and Eurasian Affairs". And yeah, it's evidence that when Ukraine fired the prosecutor, the Burisma investigation had been closed for years. I'd heard people say that before, but nobody as qualified. Well, that explains everything about your chain of logic. Good work. He certainly isn't a risk to these supposed criminals at Burisma in a position of authority where he can RE-open an investigation now is he? You only hear the parts of reality that fit your belief system and vomit out the rest. The ideas are not exclusive and your reasoning is flawed. Where are the subpoenas Twitchy? |
|
|
|
Since TwitchySeal can't engage in an actual debate without being able silence ideas he disagrees with, I thought I would post my replies to comments here. Perhaps people can engage in an actual debate this way, and not just have some childish club where leftists stand around and reassure each other of their correctitude, normalizing increasingly erratic behavior. I am sure you would prefer the whole internet be sanitized from ideas you dislike like they do on Facebook and Twitter, but most of us don't... OP(s): https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5200685.0https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5201316.0Previous non-self-moderated thread here.
The public impeachment hearings start this week with one hearing on Wednesday and one on Friday. It's going to be covered in full on pretty much every network and should be pretty easy to find a live stream. They are hoping to wrap things up and call a vote to impeach by Christmas, but many expect it to take longer.
Wednesday, November 13William Taylor- West Point graduate, Vietnam Vet - First appointed as Ambassador to Ukraine by GW Bush in 2006 - Appointed Special Coordinator for Middle East Transitions by Obama in 2011 - Came out of retirement last Spring when Trump appointed him as Ambassador to Ukraine. (Currently Ambassador to Ukraine) - Transcript from closed hearingGeorge Kent- Appointed under Trump as Deputy Assistant Secretary for European and Eurasian Affairs on September 4, 2018 - Has worked for the State Department since 1992 - Transcript from closed hearingFriday, November 15Marie Yovanovitch- Appointed as US Ambassador to Ukraine by Obama in 2016 - Fired by Trump last Spring - Transcript from closed hearing(will update when more hearings are scheduled)
We don't know exactly what the Democrats plan to focus on or how the Republicans plan on defending them, but here are a few likely scenarios: Allegations- Trump leveraged foreign aid worth ~$450m (weapons), that Congress approved to provide to Ukraine as well as a White House visit to pressure Ukraine into publicly announcing they would be opening an investigation into Hunter Biden and Joe Biden (his most likely challenger in the 2020 election) as well as the role the Democrats played in meddling in the 2016 election.. Using the power of the President (federal foreign aid) to attack your political rivals is an impeachable offense. - Trump used his personal lawyer, Rudy Giulliani, to circumvent the Senate confirmed State Department Officials and speak on behalf of the President and Country. - Trump obstructed the Democrats investigation into the Ukraine/Biden/Trump investigation. Defense- Trump did not withhold foreign aid/White House visit in exchange for publicly announcing a Biden investigation . (There was no "quid pro quo"). The withholding of funds were not related to his request for Ukraine to investigate the Bidens. - Trump did withhold foreign aid, but it was justified because he wanted to make sure that the US Government wasn't sending foreign aid to a corrupt country. It had nothing to do with the fact the Biden was in position to be his most likely general election challenger in 2020. Asking Ukraine to investigate the Democrats involvement in the 2016 election was also not politically motivated, his only motivation was to secure future elections. - Trump did withhold foreign aid for political reasons and was wrong for doing so, but that's not an impeachable offense.
The House voted on a resolution that laid out the rules for these hearings on Oct. 31. It passed 232 - 196, (232 democrats voted yes, 2 democrats and 194 republicans voted no). - The hearings will be conducted by the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence led by Chairman Adam Schiff (d) and ranking member Devin Nunez. - Schiff will be able to question each witness for 45 minutes straight, and then Nunez will do the same for another 45 minutes. - All other members of the committee will then have 5 minutes to question the witness, alternating by Party. - Each representative will be allowed to have a staff member question the witness instead of doing it themself. - The Republicans can subpoena or request witnesses only if the chairman approves. The Republicans have had two witnesses rejected so far, Hunter Biden and the Anonymous whistle blower.
Local Rules:- When you post, you must have a clear point. If you ramble on about nothing, then your post will be deleted. - You must stay fairly close to the topic, the Public Impeachment Hearings. - Don't be an asshole. No personal attacks, name calling, tantrums, circular arguments. I am just starting this thread here to have an open version of this discussion, since clearly TwitchySeal has trouble having conversations he can't entirely dictate the flow of. I would encourage you to post your replies to the quotes in his thread here to encourage open, uncensored discussion. |
|
|
|
Yeah, they are. For Biden to pressure Ukraine to fire the lead prosecutor investigating his son, the prosecutor would have to be investigating his son. So your argument is this unsourced quote you provided is evidence they were not investigating Hunter Biden? What? Subpoenas Twitchy. Produce them. |
|
|
|
Was that an impeachment investigation? I like how you are simultaneously arguing its ok to change the rules when it is "your turn" while pointing fingers at people changing the rules at the same time. No double think there at all.
What are you even arguing here? All I'm saying that that is what the parties do. They change the rules when it benefits them. Both parties do it, and nothing changes. Do you even understand what I originally said?[/quote] Good for you. My analysis of your statement is that you are creating false equivalence in specific places where none exists using broad generalizations. What I am arguing is throwing your hands up and saying "what are you gonna do, this is what they all do, oh well lets excuse it again!" is not a logical position to take. Additionally, you aren't talking about an impeachment proceeding, which is a very big difference. |
|
|
|
Like can you please piss off with this spam? No one wants you here and you've been reported to the mods for @Flying Hellfish for such activity. But onto the subject here for ya OG. Actual odds would have to be dependent on the candidate facing him -- if he's going against a scandal free Biden, I would have to say this is probably a coin flip. If he's going against Bernie, Warren, etc -- I just don't see the dems being able to bring out Indys and the moderates from the party. I think if he faces a candidate like that, a Warren or Bernie I'd put his odds at 70-30. We'll see as this gets closer and the impeachment stuff in the house heats up. HAHAHAHA scandal free. Hilarious. Love willful the blindness. The dems don't have anyone who stands a chance in hell against Trump, which is why they need to manufacture this whole impeachment coup attempt, because it is their only hope. |
|
|
|
So according to George Kent the Burisma investigations were terminated in early 2015 and someone likely bribed the prosecutor to close them. Kinda throws a wrench into the whole "Joe Biden admitted that he bribed the Ukrainian President with $1 billion dollars to fire lead prosecutor investigating his corrupt son in 2018" theory. The pervasive and long standing problem of corruption in Ukraine included exposure to a situation involving the energy company Burisma. The primary concern of the U.S. government since 2014 was Burisma’s owner — Mykola Zlochevsky — whose frozen assets abroad we had attempted to recover on Ukraine’s behalf. In early 2015, I raised questions with the deputy Prosecutor General about why the investigation of Mr. Zlochevsky had been terminated, based on our belief that prosecutors had accepted bribes to close the case. Nope. The two concepts are not exclusive. Good try though. So where are the subpoenas Twitchy? |
|
|
|
Well yeah, this is how the party system works. They're happy when its them abusing the power, but once it flips to the other side they scream bloody murder but don't actually change anything. Both sides get to benefit when they're the winners.
Was that an impeachment investigation? I like how you are simultaneously arguing its ok to change the rules when it is "your turn" while pointing fingers at people changing the rules at the same time. No double think there at all. |
|
|
|
Are you sure congressional subpoenas require courts and aren't issued under their own authority? What is a Congressional Subpoena?
Congressional subpoena power is defined as: “the authority granted to committees by the rules of their respective houses to issue legal orders requiring individuals to appear and testify, or to produce documents pertinent to the committee’s functions, or both.” Provided in clause 2(m)(1) and (3) of House Rule XI, House committees and subcommittees specifically have the authority to subpoena documents, information, and in-person sworn testimony at public and closed-door hearings; however, the conditions under which committees issue subpoenas can vary. For example, committee chairs often have to consult or notify the committee’s ranking minority members when issuing a subpoena. In some committees, the subpoena may be served by any person designated by the chair. Additionally, the subcommittees of the Appropriations, Armed Services, House Administration, and Transportation and Infrastructure committees are granted subpoena authority. https://center-forward.org/congressional-subpoenas/Here's a congressional subpoena issued in 2017, don't see any mention of a court or a judge there: https://buckleyfirm.com/sites/default/files/Buckley%20Sandler%20InfoBytes%20-%20Cordray%20Subpoena%20%28House%20Fin%20Svcs%20Cmty%29.pdfHere's one issued on Oct 21st to Laura Cooper, Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Russia, Ukraine, Eurasia, Department of Defense, by the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, no mention of a court there either: https://www.justsecurity.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/11/ukraine-clearinghouse-2019.10.23.Cooper-subpoena.pdfIt seems as if you were operating under the assumption a court had to sign off on the subpoena this entire time, which is incorrect. Regardless, these aren't just "people" talking about it -- they are the people to whom the subpoenas were served, acknowledging they have received subpoenas that you for some reason claim doesn't exist. Mike Pompeo: https://i.imgur.com/P53g4Nh.pngRudy Giuliani: https://i.imgur.com/DD4fN7I.pngAre you still insisting that the subpoenas don't exist? I love it when you think you are being clever! One question Nutilduhhh... what is a "clerk"? Both of these documents are signed by "clerk" What do you think that means Nutilduhhhhhhhhh. |
|
|
|
I am sure when a subpoena is created, by definition it is filed in a court of public record. Why would a public record not be available to the public? What prevents people from taking about it if it doesn't exist? |
|
|
|
game-protect made a contractual agreement with me here, and then proceeded to incur several fees upon activation of the agreement. According to the terms of that agreement, he now owes me $38,000. Do you happen to live in the same jurisdiction as game-protect? Buy their debt, and collect it yourself! This debt purchase does not entitle the buyer to future fees incurred by game-protect. Taking offers. |
|
|
|
That sounds a lot like he is trying to warn people. |
|
|
|
You do know how. You just refuse to admit it, which is a symptom of your perpetual dishonesty.
I thought for a while perhaps the letter itself could act as a congressional subpoena, but the letter from Giuliani's lawyer dispelled all rational doubts that a separate subpoena document exists.
Media (all of it) = wrong
House of Representatives = wrong
Pompeo = wrong
Giuliani = wrong
TECSHARE = right??
What a narcissistic fantasy world you live in. Nutilduhhhh = wrong It doesn't matter if any of those people are right or wrong, what matters is the document doesn't exist, and no one can prove it does. People talking about it is not proof it existed. |
|
|
|
I don't know how you could never have read the subpoena and still insist it exists. |
|
|
|
Oh yeah hearsay is not admissible.
Yes it is in some instances. Including things like "self authenticating" documents of which there is a long list. Regardless, Pompeo and Rudy's documents can be considered circumstantial evidence. TS knows he's wrong so he's ignoring all other evidence than one piece of the inquiry that is unavailable on the internet. He basically has his eyes closed, his fingers in his ears and keeps shouting "SHOW THE SUBPOENA!" in hopes that we will get bored and go away. If we do, his flawless, neverending string of victories will remain uninterrupted. Even if we did find the actual subpoena document, I'm sure he has a plan to weasel his way out of acknowledging he was wrong. That's what he does best. That'e the beauty of this all Nutillduuuh. They never existed, and every day that passes and you can't provide the subpoena is another day you have no proof it ever existed solidifying your logical failure and confirmation bias. Please do forever dwell on it, all I have to do is remind you that you still can't produce the subpoenas, published, public court records. I look forward to the endless excuses for you never being able to produce them. Ever. |
|
|
|
No, this isn't a court room, and no those aren't subpoenas. Why is calling letters that are not subpoenas, not subpoenas dumb? Wouldn't it be more dumb to call them subpoenas? |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
