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

[BADecker]

the subpoenas issued to the executive

The DOD is part of the executive branch. The subpoena was issued to someone from the DOD, thus the "executive". The DOD also used "executive privilege" in their bitch letter.

DOJ is part of the executive branch. Subpoenas were issued to them to get unredacted grand jury testimony from the Mueler report as part of the impeachment inquiry. The executive made the same sort of arguments and they've lost the case on multiple points. Course it's not going to be completely resolved until some time next year but it will most likely come down to the main point of whether or not the private information can be made available and nothing to do with whether the subpoena or request is legal or not.

controlled by your emotions and are unable to rely on logic.

Says the person who will not admit he was wrong about there being no subpoenas issued at all or that there is a high degree of at least circumstantial proof that the the Rudy/Pompeo subpoenas exist given they've said they do. That's some awesome high level reasoning and logic coming from you.

There's an acronym for "circumstantial proof." It's "BS." Anybody can agree to say anything... like the moon is made of green cheese. It's circumstantial proof.

Get them on the stand, with a verified copy of the subpoena, and under oath or affirmation, that it was served. Include the a copy of the Service affidavit, with the affidavit-maker attesting to it "viva voce" on the stand.

All the BS that these subpoena people are doing is to get Trump or some of his people to be scared and cave in.

[1713962723]

1713962723

[1713962723]

1713962723

[1713962723]

1713962723

[TwitchySeal]

There's an acronym for "circumstantial proof." It's "BS." Anybody can agree to say anything... like the moon is made of green cheese. It's circumstantial proof.

Circumstantial evidence is often weighed equally as direct evidence.  Judges often tell jurys this, otherwise nobody would ever be convicted.

The common example is "If you walk outside and there's snow everywhere, do you ask yourself 'hmmm, maybe it snowed, but I didn't actually see it snow, so I can't be sure, maybe a bunch of guys came and spread snow all over my yard while I was sleeping...'

It snowed.  But you only have circumstantial proof of it.

Insisting on direct evidence to prove you wrong is that flat earthers do.

There's an acronym for "circumstantial proof." It's "BS." Anybody can agree to say anything... like the moon is made of green cheese. It's circumstantial proof.

Get them on the stand, with a verified copy of the subpoena, and under oath or affirmation, that it was served. Include the a copy of the Service affidavit, with the affidavit-maker attesting to it "viva voce" on the stand.

All the BS that these subpoena people are doing is to get Trump or some of his people to be scared and cave in.

This would all be circumstantial evidence.

 

[BADecker]

There's an acronym for "circumstantial proof." It's "BS." Anybody can agree to say anything... like the moon is made of green cheese. It's circumstantial proof.

Circumstantial evidence is often weighed equally as direct evidence.  Judges often tell jurys this, otherwise nobody would ever be convicted.

The common example is "If you walk outside and there's snow everywhere, do you ask yourself 'hmmm, maybe it snowed, but I didn't actually see it snow, so I can't be sure, maybe a bunch of guys came and spread snow all over my yard while I was sleeping...'

It snowed.  But you only have circumstantial proof of it.

Insisting on direct evidence to prove you wrong is that flat earthers do.

There's an acronym for "circumstantial proof." It's "BS." Anybody can agree to say anything... like the moon is made of green cheese. It's circumstantial proof.

Get them on the stand, with a verified copy of the subpoena, and under oath or affirmation, that it was served. Include the a copy of the Service affidavit, with the affidavit-maker attesting to it "viva voce" on the stand.

All the BS that these subpoena people are doing is to get Trump or some of his people to be scared and cave in.

This would all be circumstantial evidence.

 

As it is, people get convicted for nothing all over the place. Minor usage of drugs is an example of this, simply because people don't know how to require to face their accuser.

A few, like O.J. Simpson at his first trial, know how to require proof. That's why he won at first.

The witness of a man under oath, with evidence to back him up, is not circumstantial. It's fact until someone contests it with better fact. Then it's perjury.

Without the evidence and the speaking under oath, all we have is hearsay.

[TwitchySeal]

There's an acronym for "circumstantial proof." It's "BS." Anybody can agree to say anything... like the moon is made of green cheese. It's circumstantial proof.

Circumstantial evidence is often weighed equally as direct evidence.  Judges often tell jurys this, otherwise nobody would ever be convicted.

The common example is "If you walk outside and there's snow everywhere, do you ask yourself 'hmmm, maybe it snowed, but I didn't actually see it snow, so I can't be sure, maybe a bunch of guys came and spread snow all over my yard while I was sleeping...'

It snowed.  But you only have circumstantial proof of it.

Insisting on direct evidence to prove you wrong is that flat earthers do.

There's an acronym for "circumstantial proof." It's "BS." Anybody can agree to say anything... like the moon is made of green cheese. It's circumstantial proof.

Get them on the stand, with a verified copy of the subpoena, and under oath or affirmation, that it was served. Include the a copy of the Service affidavit, with the affidavit-maker attesting to it "viva voce" on the stand.

All the BS that these subpoena people are doing is to get Trump or some of his people to be scared and cave in.

This would all be circumstantial evidence.

 

As it is, people get convicted for nothing all over the place. Minor usage of drugs is an example of this, simply because people don't know how to require to face their accuser.

A few, like O.J. Simpson at his first trial, know how to require proof. That's why he won at first.

The witness of a man under oath, with evidence to back him up, is not circumstantial. It's fact until someone contests it with better fact. Then it's perjury.

Without the evidence and the speaking under oath, all we have is hearsay.

You're right.  I was wrong about that.  A direct witness is considered direct evidence in court.

Still though, circumstantial evidence can be weighted equally.  "I saw him shoot the girl" and "I heard the gun shot, and turned around and saw him holding the gun and she was on the ground across the room, and there was nobody else in the building" are equally strong.  You can't just dismiss is because it's 'circumstantial'.

And apparently you can't just accept it because it's direct, since you have to take the credibility of the witness into account.

[BADecker]

There's an acronym for "circumstantial proof." It's "BS." Anybody can agree to say anything... like the moon is made of green cheese. It's circumstantial proof.

Circumstantial evidence is often weighed equally as direct evidence.  Judges often tell jurys this, otherwise nobody would ever be convicted.

The common example is "If you walk outside and there's snow everywhere, do you ask yourself 'hmmm, maybe it snowed, but I didn't actually see it snow, so I can't be sure, maybe a bunch of guys came and spread snow all over my yard while I was sleeping...'

It snowed.  But you only have circumstantial proof of it.

Insisting on direct evidence to prove you wrong is that flat earthers do.

There's an acronym for "circumstantial proof." It's "BS." Anybody can agree to say anything... like the moon is made of green cheese. It's circumstantial proof.

Get them on the stand, with a verified copy of the subpoena, and under oath or affirmation, that it was served. Include the a copy of the Service affidavit, with the affidavit-maker attesting to it "viva voce" on the stand.

All the BS that these subpoena people are doing is to get Trump or some of his people to be scared and cave in.

This would all be circumstantial evidence.

 

As it is, people get convicted for nothing all over the place. Minor usage of drugs is an example of this, simply because people don't know how to require to face their accuser.

A few, like O.J. Simpson at his first trial, know how to require proof. That's why he won at first.

The witness of a man under oath, with evidence to back him up, is not circumstantial. It's fact until someone contests it with better fact. Then it's perjury.

Without the evidence and the speaking under oath, all we have is hearsay.

You're right.  I was wrong about that.  A direct witness is considered direct evidence in court.

Still though, circumstantial evidence can be weighted equally.  "I saw him shoot the girl" and "I heard the gun shot, and turned around and saw him holding the gun and she was on the ground across the room, and there was nobody else in the building" are equally strong.  You can't just dismiss is because it's 'circumstantial'.

And apparently you can't just accept it because it's direct, since you have to take the credibility of the witness into account.

Oh, but you CAN dismiss it. The jury might not, though.     

[TECSHARE]

the subpoenas issued to the executive

The DOD is part of the executive branch. The subpoena was issued to someone from the DOD, thus the "executive". The DOD also used "executive privilege" in their bitch letter.

DOJ is part of the executive branch. Subpoenas were issued to them to get unredacted grand jury testimony from the Mueler report as part of the impeachment inquiry. The executive made the same sort of arguments and they've lost the case on multiple points. Course it's not going to be completely resolved until some time next year but it will most likely come down to the main point of whether or not the private information can be made available and nothing to do with whether the subpoena or request is legal or not.

controlled by your emotions and are unable to rely on logic.

Says the person who will not admit he was wrong about there being no subpoenas issued at all or that there is a high degree of at least circumstantial proof that the the Rudy/Pompeo subpoenas exist given they've said they do. That's some awesome high level reasoning and logic coming from you.

The response from the executive branch seems to be saying exactly what I have been. Funny how that all gets glossed over and dismissed as "bitching".

"Dear Mr. Levin:

I understand that you have been retained by Ms. Laura Cooper, the Departments Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Russia, Ukraine, and Eurasia, as her private counsel for a deposition to be conducted jointly by the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, the Committee on Foreign Affairs, and the Committee on Oversight and Reform, [P]ursuant to the House of Representatives 'impeachment inquiry. The Department's October 15, 2019 letter to the of the three House Committees [Tab A] expressed its belief that the customary process of oversight and accommodation has historically served the interests of congressional oversight committees and the Department well. The Committees' purported impeachment inquiry, however, presents at least two issues of great importance.

The first issue is the Committees' continued, blanket refusal to allow Department Counsel to be present at depositions of Department employees. Department Counsel's participation protects against the improper release of privileged or classified information, particularly material covered by the executive privilege which is the President's alone to assert and to waive. Excluding Department Counsel places the witness in the untenable position of having to decide whether to answer the Committees' questions or to assert Executive Branch confidentiality interests without an attorney from the Executive Branch present to advise on those interests. It violates settled practice and may jeopardize future accommodation. Furthermore, the Department of Justice has concluded that "congressional subpoenas that purport to require agency employees to appear without agency counsel are legally invalid and are not subject to civil or criminal enforcement. See Attempted Exclusion of Congressional Depositions of Agency Employees, 43 Op. OL. C.(May23,2019) [Tab B].

 The second issue is the absence of authority for the Committees to conduct an impeachment inquiry. In its October 15, 2019 letter, the Department conveyed concerns about the Committees' lack of authority to initiate an impeachment inquiry given the absence of a delegation of such authority by House Rule or Resolution. This correspondence echoed an October 8, 2019 letter from the White House Counsel [Tab C] expressing the President's view that the inquiry was to the Constitution of the United States and all past bipartisan precedent and “violates fundamental fairness and constitutionally mandated due process.

"This letter informs you and Ms. Cooper of the Administration-wide direction that Executive Branch personnel can not participate in impeachment] inquiry under these circumstances [Tab C]. In the event that the Committees issue a subpoena to compel Ms. Cooper's appearance, you should be aware that the Supreme Court has held, in United States v.
Rumely, 345 U.S. 41 (1953), that a person can not be sanctioned for refusing to comply with a congressional subpoena unauthorized by House Rule or Resolution.

To reiterate, the Department respects the oversight role of Congress and stands ready to work with the Committees should there be an appropriate resolution of outstanding legal issues. Any such resolution would have to consider the constitutional prerogatives and confidentiality interests of the co-equal Executive Branch, see [Tab D] and ensure fundamental fairness to any Executive Branch employees involved in this process, including Ms. Cooper."

https://www.justsecurity.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/11/ukraine-clearinghouse-2019.10.22.WH-letter-to-Cooper.pdf

Cooper was never compelled, and that subpoena was never valid as evidenced by this reply. Just because she volunteered to testify (against orders BTW) has no bearing on the validity of the subpoena.

[TwitchySeal]

Hey guys, I found one more person that confirmed they received a subpoena along with a letter before October 31.

https://www.justsecurity.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/11/ukraine-clearinghouse-2019.10.22.WH-letter-to-Cooper.pdf

[Viper1]

that subpoena was never valid as evidenced by this reply.

No, all that they had was a bunch of "opinion" which is meaningless.

Of the only court case they tried to use, the ruling was because of the scope of congresses request and the court implied if they had narrowed it, they might have had a better case and won. As a result of stepping outside the bounds of what they were permitted, the Court decided that they violated the constitution in terms of free speech and press. This impeachment is a completely different beast and nothing about that case is applicable.

[TECSHARE]

Hey guys, I found one more person that confirmed they received a subpoena along with a letter before October 31.

https://www.justsecurity.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/11/ukraine-clearinghouse-2019.10.22.WH-letter-to-Cooper.pdf

Congratulations, you found more people talking about subpoenas.

that subpoena was never valid as evidenced by this reply.

No, all that they had was a bunch of "opinion" which is meaningless.

Of the only court case they tried to use, the ruling was because of the scope of congresses request and the court implied if they had narrowed it, they might have had a better case and won. As a result of stepping outside the bounds of what they were permitted, the Court decided that they violated the constitution in terms of free speech and press. This impeachment is a completely different beast and nothing about that case is applicable.

No, its called "law" upon which all of your claims are dependent. What you have are opinions. None of those subpoenas were valid or enforceable. This whole issue of ambiguity was the entire intent for issuing them as I explained from the start. It was designed to give the impression of moving forward with impeachment while not actually doing so and giving the executive and the Republican party the authority to subpoena their own evidence and witnesses which would destroy the dems. Even after the vote here they are running a one sided sham excuse for due process.


MORE:
"Biden Blames Staff For Not Flagging Burisma Concerns; Says We Should Just Trust Hunter And Not Investigate"
https://www.zerohedge.com/political/biden-blames-staff-not-flagging-burisma-concerns-says-we-should-just-trust-hunter-and-not

[TECSHARE]

"“Much More to Come” – Giuliani Says Impeachment is Intended to Obstruct Investigations of Obama-Era Corruption – ‘Billions of Dollars Laundered, Extortion and Bribery’ "

http://www.stationgossip.com/2019/12/much-more-to-come-giuliani-says.html

[Spendulus]

"“Much More to Come” – Giuliani Says Impeachment is Intended to Obstruct Investigations of Obama-Era Corruption – ‘Billions of Dollars Laundered, Extortion and Bribery’ "

http://www.stationgossip.com/2019/12/much-more-to-come-giuliani-says.html

I understand all of that but wonder how the Dems do not see how this all will backfire on them.

Sorry, I forgot...

Yes they really are that stupid...

[TECSHARE]

Looks like Killery made an oopsey...

https://creativedestructionmedia.com/investigations/2019/11/18/this-is-why-they-must-impeach-burisma-financed-clinton-campaign-with-10m-unmarked-cash-biden-personally-prevented-money-laundering-witness-from-entering-usa/

[DireWolfM14]

"“Much More to Come” – Giuliani Says Impeachment is Intended to Obstruct Investigations of Obama-Era Corruption – ‘Billions of Dollars Laundered, Extortion and Bribery’ "

http://www.stationgossip.com/2019/12/much-more-to-come-giuliani-says.html

I understand all of that but wonder how the Dems do not see how this all will backfire on them.

Sorry, I forgot...

Yes they really are that stupid...

The only way this could back-fire on them if the MSM started to report real news.  That's not going to happen, since they are also culpable as accomplices in the corruption that has plagued our country.

Think about all the blatant lies you heard during the impeachment inquiry.  Democrats can misinterpret and misquote Trump, and no one will correct them.  No one will hold them accountable for spreading falsehoods.

Imagine if a Republican misquoted one word of an Obama statement.  The 24-hour news cycle would have a field day running it over and over on just about every cable news station, in an effort to discredit and completely delegitimize that persons entire existence. 

[TECSHARE]

The only way this could back-fire on them if the MSM started to report real news.  That's not going to happen, since they are also culpable as accomplices in the corruption that has plagued our country.

Think about all the blatant lies you heard during the impeachment inquiry.  Democrats can misinterpret and misquote Trump, and no one will correct them.  No one will hold them accountable for spreading falsehoods.

Imagine if a Republican misquoted one word of an Obama statement.  The 24-hour news cycle would have a field day running it over and over on just about every cable news station, in an effort to discredit and completely delegitimize that persons entire existence. 

It doesn't matter. The media will have to report on it once the indictments start coming out.

[DireWolfM14]

Sure, they'll report the indictments, but how they report them is equally important.  They'll give the reports a few seconds of air time, dance around some facts, completely omit others, and word their reports in such a way that makes it seem like political infighting.  They'll use every trick in the book to convince their already biased base that Trump is abusing his power yet again. 

An impeachable offence?  Of course it is.  Anytime this president attempts to accomplish his mission of draining the swamp, the swamp recruits the media to spread their lies and undermine his efforts.  Why should the swamp-rats get their hands dirty when the media is more than eager to do all the dirty work?

[BADecker]

Well no wonder Pelosi is fighting so hard. Her son is in the same pickle if Biden loses.


Luongo: Pelosi's Coup Attempt Is Now Open Warfare, "There Will Be Casualties"

The Democrats declared war this week. Not on Donald Trump but on the United States and the Constitution.

What started as a coup to overturn the 2016 election has now morphed into a Civil War as Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-San Fran-feces) presided over the passage of a bill which creates a clear Constitutional Crisis.

And that means we have multiple factions vying for control of our government, the definition of a Civil War.

In passing these articles of impeachment against President Trump Congress has arrogated to itself powers it does not have.

The first article asserts a motive to Trump's actions to invalidate his role as chief law enforcement officer for the country. It doesn't matter if you like him or any President having this power, he does have it.

[Spendulus]

Well no wonder Pelosi is fighting so hard. Her son is in the same pickle if Biden loses.


Luongo: Pelosi's Coup Attempt Is Now Open Warfare, "There Will Be Casualties"

The Democrats declared war this week. Not on Donald Trump but on the United States and the Constitution.

What started as a coup to overturn the 2016 election has now morphed into a Civil War ...

nonsense. There's nothing more constitutional than impeachment.

[TECSHARE]

https://www.zerohedge.com/political/hunter-biden-accused-156m-ukraine-money-laundering-scheme-court-filing-linking-debunked

[TECSHARE]

"Trump Exposes Pelosi And Son's Ties To Ukraine-Linked Energy Group"

https://www.zerohedge.com/political/trump-exposes-pelosi-and-sons-ties-ukraine-linked-energy-group

[dupeddonk]

"Trump Exposes Pelosi And Son's Ties To Ukraine-Linked Energy Group"

https://www.zerohedge.com/political/trump-exposes-pelosi-and-sons-ties-ukraine-linked-energy-group

This was debunked in October. (Mitt Romney and John Kerry were also accused of having sons working for Ukrainian energy companies around the same time, also debunked)
Pretty lame how zerohedge is making it seem like this is some sort of breaking news. It's just Trump giving new life to old fake news.

I realize snopes and politifact are both left leaning, but their explanations make sense when you watch the videos that started the whole thing and are generally very well sourced.

ZH has some good content, but that article you posted is trash.  Their conclusion is a cartoon ffs.


https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/pelosi-jr-ukraine/
https://www.politifact.com/facebook-fact-checks/statements/2019/oct/10/facebook-posts/pelosi-romney-and-kerry-dont-have-sons-working-com/