Vid of Biden admit bribe of Ukrainian Pres. to fire prosecutor investigating son

[TECSHARE]

I don't know how you could read this page and the documents linked therein and still say "the subpoena never existed".

https://intelligence.house.gov/news/documentsingle.aspx?DocumentID=711

I especially don't know how you could ignore Giuliani's lawyer's letter to congress saying he had received said subpoena, even if the house had fabricated the existence of the subpoena.

https://i.imgur.com/DD4fN7I.png

It could only be due either to intellectual dishonesty or lack of intellect.

I don't know how you could never have read the subpoena and still insist it exists.

[1715242393]

1715242393

[1715242393]

1715242393

[TECSHARE]

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.

[TECSHARE]

I'm sure Pompeo, Giuliani and everyone else who has been served a subpoena over the Trump impeachment can prove their subpoenas exist. Why else would they bother going on public record to talk about them?

https://i.imgur.com/P53g4Nh.png

https://i.imgur.com/DD4fN7I.png

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?

[TwitchySeal]

Trump's conspiracy theories thrive in Ukraine, where a young democracy battles corruption and distrust
We talked with two dozen leaders and investigators in Ukraine. They all agree the claims against Joe and Hunter Biden are baseless. Yet they persist.

https://www.usatoday.com/in-https://www.usatoday.com/in-depth/news/world/2019/10/10/trumps-biden-ukraine-natural-gas-conspiracy-theory-false-but-alive/3851728002/

[TECSHARE]

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.pdf

Here'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.pdf

It 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.png

Rudy Giuliani:

https://i.imgur.com/DD4fN7I.png

Are 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.

[TwitchySeal]

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.

[TECSHARE]

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?

[TwitchySeal]

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.

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. 

[TECSHARE]

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.

[TwitchySeal]

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?

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.

[TECSHARE]

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?

[TwitchySeal]

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.

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.

[TECSHARE]

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.

[TwitchySeal]

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.

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.

To assume that Biden "bribed the Ukrainian President with $1 billion dollars to fire lead prosecutor investigating his corrupt son in 2018" while there was no investigation seems pretty illogical to me.  It just doesn't make sense.

[TECSHARE]

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.

[TwitchySeal]

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!

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.

[Viper1]

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?

[TECSHARE]

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?

[Viper1]

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?

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.

[TECSHARE]

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?