Give me legal documents that backs that up as opposed to just saying it's so. But before you do, you should read some of the other stuff I'll be posting as none of that would back up what you're saying.

"lock up" people for refusing to answer questions. They could be locked up for obstructing justice if they wanted to do that.

https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/GPO-HPRACTICE-112/html/GPO-HPRACTICE-112-18.htm

As long as the subpoena meets the requirements set out in stuff I had listed before, and the investigation (note the difference), is within their authority, they can do so. While people are calling it an inquiry, it's simply operating as an investigation at this point. I suspect that if they decide to go to court over some issues, at that point they'd have a vote for an "inquiry" in order to "strengthen" their position.

I should note that in this document you actually posted and then cherry picked from, they talk about some of the same things. Perhaps you should read it again.

https://www.lawfareblog.com/what-powers-does-formal-impeachment-inquiry-give-house

You might also want to give this a good read

https://constitutionproject.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/05/WhenCongressComesCalling.pdf

Should also note that with Nixon, a resolution was passed in Oct 1973 for the judicial committee to investigate whether there were grounds for impeachment. They needed to do that in order to give them the authority to do so and have subpoena powers. Today however, committees have been given far more powers and authority, a lot of which the Republicans brought about. The impeachment inquiry was not voted on until Feb 1974. We're in the first part and they may decide to do the second part as well. Clinton was a different thing all together because the impeachment was derived from the investigation done by Starr.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impeachment_process_against_Richard_Nixon

Five different committees initiated inquiries into bengasi without any vote. They did it all on their own because it's simply not required.

As for all your other stuff.. That's just your opinion. For example, you're parroting the same right wing talking points regarding past impeachments. Again. Did you even read that article you posted? The right you parrot only ever points to the presidential impeachments and conveniently ignores all the others. Allowing the presidents lawyers to sit in and question. Allowing the republicans to issue subpoenas. That was a "courtesy" and not any sort of requirement. It was purely done for optics. You're arguing politics and not legal. Back up your stuff with actual legal documents.

Something else to note. It really doesn't matter if the other side can issue subpoenas. The majority can over rule them if they want and they can also limit what questions Trumps lawyers could ask as well in order to keep it focus and on track. It is simply not a trial. The trial takes place in the senate and it should be noted that the senate can do what they want as well.

You can blame the republicans for a lot of this since they're the ones that opened up the door to committees having broad powers. I seem to remember everyone saying the same thing about them doing that. But that's what it is now and everyone has to live with it. That entire paragraph was nothing more than you pleading for me (and others reading it), to agree with your opinion cause it's "wrong" as far as you're concerned. You're making a political argument and not one based on anything legal.

By the way, it's not "secretive". The republicans on the committees are in those interviews. They have the same amount of time to asked questions and the proceedings will be made public.

Bottom line, you're just making arguments based on opinion because you want it to be a circus so it will drag on for months and then you all can make the argument that there's no use he gets impeached cause the election is so close. And all this other stuff you and the republicans are spewing is so that if he does get impeached etc then you all can claim he was railroaded and it was illegal and on and on. At least be honest about what you're really trying to do.

Funny thing I heard the other day. The thought was that Trump doesn't want a second term and will actually do things like he's doing so he gets impeached. Then he can spend the rest of his time claiming he got "everything" done he said he would and then play the victim and gain a hell of a lot of support to any new ventures he starts like his own media company.

Most of the other stuff in your response was just opinion and wishful thinking. i.e.

Show me the legal arguments that makes the case as opposed to your opinion cause it doesn't fit what you want to happen.

Well yes, yes they do. It says so in the constitution. If you have legal arguments to back up your opinion, then post them because everything I read says they do. Maybe you might want to give some of this a read as well.

https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/R/R45769

Actually no, you had a whole bunch of opinion articles and the one "real" thing you had was bullshit because it was specifically for hearings and says right on the page I posted that it's a sample meant to show some of the info that should be in the subpoena. As I stated and you can go look at it again, the "letter" you claim is not a subpoena, says right in it that it's a subpoena, outlines what inquiry that it relates to and states the potential punishment. It contains the information required just isn't on some "form".

Give me an actual legal document instead of writing paragraphs of your opinion and how you "wish" it would be, or posting opinion articles. Show me the "form" that's supposed to be used for committee investigation subpoenas. Surely there should be something on the gov site(s) if one actually exists.

"Standing committees in both houses of the United States Congress have the authority to send out subpoenas for legitimate lawmaking and investigation purposes. This compels the production of testimony or records, and failure to respond constitutes contempt of Congress."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subpoena

"violation of 2 U.S.C. § 192, which makes it a misdemeanor for any person summoned as a witness by either House of Congress or a committee thereof to refuse to answer any question pertinent to the question under inquiry."

https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/365/399/

"As announced in Wilkinson v. United States,[7] a Congressional committee must meet three requirements for its subpoenas to be "legally sufficient." First, the committee's investigation of the broad subject area must be authorized by its chamber; second, the investigation must pursue "a valid legislative purpose" but does not need to involve legislation and does not need to specify the ultimate intent of Congress; and third, the specific inquiries must be pertinent to the subject matter area that has been authorized for investigation."

"in Eastland v. United States Servicemen's Fund[8] that Congressional subpoenas are within the scope of the Speech and Debate clause which provides "an absolute bar to judicial interference" once it is determined that Members are acting within the "legitimate legislative sphere" with such compulsory process. Under that ruling, courts generally do not hear motions to quash Congressional subpoenas; even when executive branch officials refuse to comply, courts tend to rule that such matters are "political questions" unsuitable for judicial remedy. In fact, many legal rights usually associated with a judicial subpoena do not apply to a Congressional subpoena. For example, attorney-client privilege and information that is normally protected under the Trade Secrets Act do not need to be recognized."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contempt_of_Congress

"Every person who having been summoned as a witness by the authority of either House of Congress to give testimony or to produce papers upon any matter under inquiry before either House, or any joint committee established by a joint or concurrent resolution of the two Houses of Congress, or any committee of either House of Congress, willfully makes default, or who, having appeared, refuses to answer any question pertinent to the question under inquiry, shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor, punishable by a fine of not more than $1,000 nor less than $100 and imprisonment in a common jail for not less than one month nor more than twelve months."

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/2/192

Guess they have some law backing them up.

As for your claim that it's just a "letter" and so has no standing.. Here's some of the 54 letters that republicans issued when investigating Clinton.. I suppose that if one doesn't comply with the request they'd escalate to something more official. Interestingly, as I was looking through the list of stuff the republicans had issued, even those "subpoenas" didn't use that form you posted. Seems like the only thing that's required is for it to state it's a subpoenas and be signed by specific people.

https://oversight.house.gov/sites/democrats.oversight.house.gov/files/documents/(3) Ryan to DNI 07-05-2016.pdf
https://oversight.house.gov/sites/democrats.oversight.house.gov/files/documents/(4) Ryan to FBI 07-05-2016.pdf
https://oversight.house.gov/sites/democrats.oversight.house.gov/files/documents/(47) Chaffet to Comey 07-06-2016.pdf
https://oversight.house.gov/sites/democrats.oversight.house.gov/files/documents/09-28-2016 Chaffetz to Eichner re Combetta and Suazo.pdf
https://oversight.house.gov/sites/democrats.oversight.house.gov/files/documents/09-22-2016 Chaffetz to MacDougall re Pagliano.pdf

https://oversight.house.gov/news/press-releases/house-republicans-issued-more-than-70-subpoenas-and-letters-investigating
(have to remove the first part of the url in order to access the documents on that list)

The "letter" you're saying is fake, says it's a subpoena. I don't remember seeing that in any of the letters I looked through from the republicans though but maybe some did. For example, the letter from Ryan to Comey did not say it was a subpoena.

Oh.. Here's a subpoena the republican used
https://oversight.house.gov/sites/democrats.oversight.house.gov/files/documents/(70) Chaffetz Subpoena to Pagliano 09-16-2016.pdf

Not the same form. The form you posted though, is only a "sample" of what is used when "A party in a case may seek a witness to appear or documents to be produced at a hearing.". What's going on is not a hearing.

https://oah.dc.gov/publication/general-subpoena-form-sample-only

"A United States congressional hearing is the principal formal method by which United States congressional committees collect and analyze information in the early stages of legislative policymaking."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_congressional_hearing

So. Got some real legal stuff to back up your opinion it's "fake"? Or are you just going to rant and call me names?

It's the algorithm. Back in the day, while backlinks to your site and pages were the primary criteria, on page keywords, ratios and the like had more weight and so even small sites could compete better. But when google added in social "signals", on page time, "clicks", "traffic" and more, I knew it was game over for small sites and we can see that today. Small companies just don't have the resources to compete when you have huge companies getting tons of all the signals required to push them up in the serps. Of course, an argument can be made that they surely would have known what would happen but we have no way of knowing without internal documents.

Looks to me that people are selling so they can buy bitcoin as it's been dropping in price.

They're not. It's the extreme left that is pushing for a lot more socialism and it's only the extreme radical left that might say communism but I rarely see that sort of thing. As for it not working? There are plenty of countries where more socialism is working just fine for them so the argument about it not working is false. I'm curious though. Which countries do you think work without having any socialism at all?

Their subpoenas are different. i.e. they're not the same as a legal subpoenas. His argument is that they don't have the "force of law". Which would be correct except they have the "force of the constitution". Many times a court won't hear cases regarding these subpoenas because it's a political thing and not legal. I suspect they only get involved if it's actually about the powers given out in the constitution. i.e. you refuse to provide information to a group who has the power to get that info under the constitution so they can do their job, then they would hear the case and rule against you.

The problem is that because of the overlap of terminology, people assume it's all just like the legal system with law backing it up. It's not. They're a completely different beast.

The result of not complying could be different but for both, "obstruction" is a typical one which is exactly what the congressional subpoena he was talking about says in it. Don't provide the documents, then you can be "charged" with obstruction. In this case it would get added to the impeachment. I did hear something else about what they could do, some sort of special "jail". But I haven't researched that at this point. It's the first time I've ever heard that there is something like that.

How could I be parroting if I didn't read anything as you seem to think. Bit of false reasoning on your part it seems.

I read the actual subpoena. I looked at that "form". But I also went and read a bunch of stuff about what a congressional subpoenas is, what it means, how courts treat them etc etc etc. You seem to be the uneducated one in this as all your talking points are straight from the right wing media and those that traffic in "conspiracy theories".

From my understanding, the only vote she has to call is the actual impeachment one since, nothing is laid out in the constitution except that congress can do it how they want. Why do you have such a hard time seeing that. Seems that you simply want to hold onto your opinion as it suits your bias.

How about you give me balanced legal arguments from actual legal sources from both sides so I can then make up my own mind. You won't though as you seem to only reference opinion crap that suit your purposes. You'll just make some personal attack as justification for not doing that when in fact you can't.

I did. Ranting and raving like a lunatic claiming I don't know anything while not providing any solid information to back up your claims does not make you right. It just shows that you're unwilling to have a rational debate about these things.

The real funny thing is that you seem to have reading comprehension issues. I actually agreed with you on several points. But for some reason you are unwilling to admit that congressional subpoenas are different than "legal" ones. I was going to post links about what they are and what "powers" they have but I wanted to see if you would go and research it yourself. You didn't. You don't care about facts. You don't care about expanding your knowledge. You only provide information that confirms your opinion. Makes me think at this point that you simply seek to rant at people, call them names and the like cause they don't believe everything you do and that's all you care about. You only want to "win" like a true keyboard warrior.

The first Thorium reactor was built back in the 60/70s I think it was and ran for several years. It was basically shut down because it didn't produce the material for nuclear bombs and so no one continued working on them. That's changed though and a new small test one has been built in the Netherlands. The tech is still being worked on though and there are two types. But, when compared to regular nuclear reactors, they're far safer, produce more energy and have far less waste. I think the waste from "old" style reactors has a half life of 10,000 years but thorium is only 500 years. It should be noted though that you do still need some uranium to get it all going though but it's not the bomb type. There's something as well about making more material using breeder reactors but I haven't really looked into that.

Countries all over the world are building new nuclear plants like crazy right now. I think China and India have the highest number scheduled and they're also dumping a lot of money into thorium reactor research. I read something that said China wanted to have the first thorium one up and running within 15 years or something like that. From what I can tell, the US won't be leading this tech but will end up playing catch up.

Small local reactors would be a way out that's for sure but it could be possible one day.

It could very well have been a case of "the process is the punishment". Eight years is a long time to have a case against you open. I'm sure there would have been some on going stress and the like from it.

I can't see that happening any time soon. For example, you've got to replace solar panels something like every 20-25 years and they have toxic materials in them. Currently they get dumped into land fills or shipped off to third world countries. Everyone is so focused on reducing CO2 etc, that they don't realize the mountain of toxic waste that is going to be produced. Maybe one day there will be panels etc that don't have that sort of drawback but until that time, the newer thorium reactors are the real "answer" but not something that can be done locally either.

There is a massive business opportunity currently out there though. Recycling (and heavy R&D to bring down the costs, get more reusable out of them etc) of all those solar panels and batteries.

You mean "Dear Leader".

Yes, impeachment is not a criminal proceeding. And so all the things like facing your accuser, due process and the like, simply don't apply which also means they write their own form of subpoena. Impeachment is basically like a grand jury proceeding and indictment. Trump will have his turn to defend himself etc if he gets impeached (indited) and it goes to the senate for "trial". So what's your point?

As for issuing his own subpoenas etc, I get the impression it has nothing to do with impeachment, but which committee is doing things. If I was Pelosis I'd probably do the same thing just so he couldn't turn it into a circus and just get it done and then, assuming they want to go through with it, get it into the hands of the senate as soon as possible and let them have their shit show.

I really don't get the whole "real impeachment" thing. Congress can do things how they want. The right just throws out "prior presidential" impeachments as precedent but what about all the other impeachments. The constitution seems pretty crystal clear to me, congress has sole power and can run things however they want. If he gets impeached, then maybe he should try and take it to the supreme court and get a ruling on it or something. If it's such a big deal, then maybe they should have written some laws or do some constitutional amendments to set out exact procedures to follow. But really, do you think either side wants to really do that? They all love the show they get to put on far to much. I must say though, I'm a bit surprised at how little the Dems are making this a show. I thought it would be a hell of a lot more. Almost makes me think they're actually serious about it.

Funny that you would post links to pretty much all right wing sources and then talk about other peoples confirmation bias. I also noted that most of them showed a hell of lot of "red" on newsguard for "This website severely violates basic standards of credibiilty and transparency". I find that humorous since it's not exactly tough to do things in a way to get some green from that tool so the overall rating shows green. Even breitbart shows up as green (despite two categories I would consider very important being red for them)

Most countries are going to have something like the SEC unless they don't have something like wall street, stocks and bonds etc I would think as then they have no need for one.

SEC would not have direct jurisdiction but there are probably provisions in various treaties between countries and the US. There might even be some international laws that might apply in some cases.

Any security that will be sold/used/created/exchanged in the US would probably be subject to the regulations one way or another. That applies for every country that has something similar to the SEC or applicable laws etc.

Some religions believe that at conception the fetus has a soul and thus is a human. Others don't think the soul enters until after birth. And then we have agnostics and athiests who don't believe in souls. Until everyone can agree on what makes a human a human as opposed to, oh I don't know, an ape, or "when" they're effectively a human, then there can be no discussion really as to what's right and what isn't.

As far as I'm concerned, everyone should mind their own business and let those that think it's the right choice for them do it up until the fetus can be sentient which is around 18-25 weeks (I do still think that's a bit long but it at least has some science beyond it). Beyond that, once we've reached the point where the fetus can be removed at any time and implanted into a man or woman who can then carry it to term, then change the law and let all those people that think it's murder volunteer to be surrogates.. or better yet, maybe there should be a lottery and they have to be forced to carry it. Let's see if all the pro life people sing a different tune at that point.

OP, you missed the Activision/Blizzard stuff all the gamers are up in arms about.

SEC = Securities and Exchange Commission in the US.

"The SEC holds primary responsibility for enforcing the federal securities laws, proposing securities rules, and regulating the securities industry, the nation's stock and options exchanges, and other activities and organizations, including the electronic securities markets in the United States."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._Securities_and_Exchange_Commission

No I'm not making it up. There was some deadline and apparently the legal team dragged their feet and the judge dismissed it. What's it called? Summary judgment that he has to pay the legal fees or something or other. He can appeal.

Edit: So conflicting info and I suspect without seeing the real court documents it's hard to tell. What I see is that Mann did refuse which apparently in this sort of case is a legal ploy to have the court try and get the other party to negotiate with you to come up with a resolution. That dragged on for years. Then the court pressured him or something and Mann said he would produce the data but only had 21 days and it passed and so the case was dismissed. It's not all finalized yet as far as I can tell and it can be appealed in some way so who the hell knows.

He didn't lose it nor did he "refuse". It was dismissed cause they hadn't met some date. If you look into the other guy, you find someone that has been in several libel type cases against him. Where the heck do you get your information from.

That data had been given to other scientists to use and confirm/disprove his results so thinking he's "afraid" to let others look at it is just false.

Who and where? There have been many new graphs using the same data, modifying it, adding to it, using completely different sets of data, different techniques and they all end up showing basically the same thing. That's what I find so point me at your information.

He was "banned" after being warned to not disrupt things and yet he persisted.


We're all "stupid" a hell of a lot of the time and this forum just shows how many "adults" act like self absorbed entitled children.

Has nothing to do with "thinking" but him being a disruptive influence that adds nothing to many conversations.

Anyway, there's no point continuing this as you're just one of the many cry babies that throw out "censorship" when you don't get your way. Carry on and good luck to you.

Except in that case, if what he was saying was true, all these coins wouldn't work the way they do.

It's not censored. Follow the rules. Don't be a disruption. Don't think you have the right to infringe on others people rights cause you're somehow "special" cause you're not. Why is it that people get warnings over and over again and think they can ignore them. He was given a chance and decided he was above it all. He made his bed and now he can lay in it. Course now I suspect he'll play the martyr even though it was his actions that lead to the "ban".