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

[Spendulus]

....

Trump didn't do anything immoral or illicit. The point of all of this, and the subject of the thread for that matter is the accusations against Trump are being used to draw attention away from the fact that The Democrat party is using D.A.R.V.O. tactics ad-nauseam to try to protect themselves from prosecution for their own crimes. See they never expected Trump to get in and were counting on a pass from Killery. Now they have to remove Trump or face justice themselves. ...

I think a way to understand this pro-Biten-as-VICTIM posturing and latest round of Orange Man Bad is to reflect on the fact that its the same people that were reflexively arguing Hillary Good now saying Biden Good Orange Man Bad.

Of course they won't admit they were Hillary devotees.

After Biden's gone they won't admit they were Biden bumblefucks either.

It's just whoever they are told to follow at the moment.

Well, that didn't take long.

Biden's going...going...gone.

[TECSHARE]

"SBI opens case on Biden's pressure on Shokin – lawyer"
https://en.interfax.com.ua/news/general/643674.html

"Treaty with Ukraine on Mutual Legal Assistance in Criminal Matters"
https://www.congress.gov/treaty-document/106th-congress/16/document-text

"Former Ukraine Prosecutor DEMANDS Criminal Charges Against Joe Biden, Evidence SUPPORTS Trump's Case"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q-plQi6NbkA&feature=emb_logo

[TwitchySeal]

"Treaty with Ukraine on Mutual Legal Assistance in Criminal Matters"
https://www.congress.gov/treaty-document/106th-congress/16/document-text

Treaties like that just mean our law enforcement are willing to cooperate with their law enforcment in some situations (mostly violent/drug/terrorism related crimes).

We have them with most countries, including Russia (but not China):

Antigua & Barbuda, Argentina, Australia, Austria, the Bahamas, Barbados, Belgium, Belize, Brazil, Canada, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Dominica, Egypt, Estonia, France, Germany, Greece, Grenada, Hong Kong, Hungary, India, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Jamaica, Japan, Latvia, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malaysia, Mexico, Morocco, the Kingdom of the Netherlands (including Aruba, Bonaire, Curacao, Saba, St. Eustatius and St. Maarten), Nigeria, Panama, Philippines, Poland, Romania, Russia, St. Lucia, St. Kitts & Nevis, St. Vincent & the Grenadines, South Africa, South Korea, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Thailand, Trinidad & Tobago, Turkey, Ukraine, United Kingdom (including the Isle of Man, Cayman Islands, Anguilla, British Virgin Islands, Montserrat and Turks and Caicos), Uruguay, and Venezuela


It doesn't mean much.

Look at Assange for example.  The US wants him so bad and the UK is one of our closest allies, but their laws prohibit them from extraditing him.

Do you really think the reason Biden (or Hillary/Comey etc) hasn't been indicted is due to lack of investigation effort?

DOJ, CIA, FBI, NSA have all been reporting to Trump for over 3 years now...you know that right?

[Viper1]

DOJ, CIA, FBI, NSA have all been reporting to Trump for over 3 years now...you know that right?

Yeah.. but you know.. Deep State... Despite, again, having 3+ years to "drain the swamp"... That's gone well. Couldn't be just campaign rhetoric or incompetence in draining that swamp.. Gotta be that pesky deep state... always have to have some excuse cause the buck stops with everyone else and not with the stable genius.

[TECSHARE]

Treaties like that just mean our law enforcement are willing to cooperate with their law enforcment in some situations (mostly violent/drug/terrorism related crimes).

Yeah you're right, it doesn't mean much because you ignored the parts of the post that do. Of course, it kind of does mean something because Trump was accused of politically motivated actions for asking for information to be shared about already conducted investigations, which is exactly what that treaty is for, but lets not focus on that too much.

Oh plenty will come of this, don't worry cupcake. Biden's legacy is over, and many other high level officials are going to face prosecution. You argue about meaningless peripheral issues all you like. The truth is coming out, and your butt is going to be so hurt you are going to suffer a prolapse from the sheer force of your head being yanked out of your ass when the news breaks.

Meanwhile, more than 5 months later...

[img  width=500]https://www.westernexterminator.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2019/02/six-crickets-featured-image-final.jpg[/img]

Biden is no longer a candidate, he is a joke and his legacy is in fact over, and even more family ties with Biden's handouts have been exposed since then. As far as the rest of it, real criminal prosecutions (as opposed to politically motivated fluff) take time. Don't worry, I know you are eager to have your rectum prolapse, but soon enough.


Well looky here:

"Appeals court rules House can't sue to enforce McGahn subpoena"

https://thehill.com/regulation/court-battles/485218-appeals-court-rules-house-cant-sue-to-enforce-mcgahn-subpoena


A nice video for those with reading comprehension issues:

"Trump Just Won MAJOR Court Victories Proving Impeachment Was BUNK, Trump's Nearing Vindication"

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xi6e070bo60


I guess I was right, and those subpoenas were totally invalid, along with any basis for obstruction charges made in the impeachment. Are any of you going to admit you were wrong, or are you just going to continue to try to assassinate my character using forum politics, baseless accusations, and abuse of the trust system because you don't like losing a debate?

[TwitchySeal]

I wonder if this has anything to do with the fact that Bidens chances at winning the nomination just shot up.

Senate Republicans plan first subpoena in Burisma, Biden probe

Na, probably just a coincidence.




"If approved, Johnson’s move would mark the first subpoena Senate Republicans have issued in their probe into Biden and Burisma."
"Telizhenko is a 29-year-old Ukrainian national who has fueled the widely debunked theory embraced by Trump that Ukraine assisted former secretary of state Hillary Clinton in the 2016 election with help from the Democratic National Committee."

[TwitchySeal]

I wonder if this has anything to do with the fact that Bidens chances at winning the nomination just shot up.

Na, probably just a coincidence.

Senate Republicans plan first subpoena in Burisma, Biden probe

"If approved, Johnson’s move would mark the first subpoena Senate Republicans have issued in their probe into Biden and Burisma."
"Telizhenko is a 29-year-old Ukrainian national who has fueled the widely debunked theory embraced by Trump that Ukraine assisted former secretary of state Hillary Clinton in the 2016 election with help from the Democratic National Committee."

Of course, remember its not actually a subpoena until we can see a copy of the actual subpoena. Until then, its just a baseless witch hunt.

The guy they're subpoenaing is a Ukrainian national/Trump super fan.

Pretty sure that's a subpoena that can not be enforced, and he'd be happy to come in with a simple phone call.
Check out this guys twitter feed: https://twitter.com/AndriyUkraineTe
For a foerign National he sure seems to love Fox News/Oann and literally every single word Trump sayas.

[Spendulus]

I wonder if this has anything to do with the fact that Bidens chances at winning the nomination just shot up.

Na, probably just a coincidence.

Senate Republicans plan first subpoena in Burisma, Biden probe

"If approved, Johnson’s move would mark the first subpoena Senate Republicans have issued in their probe into Biden and Burisma."
"Telizhenko is a 29-year-old Ukrainian national who has fueled the widely debunked theory embraced by Trump that Ukraine assisted former secretary of state Hillary Clinton in the 2016 election with help from the Democratic National Committee."

Of course, remember its not actually a subpoena until we can see a copy of the actual subpoena. Until then, its just a baseless witch hunt.

The guy they're subpoenaing is a Ukrainian national/Trump super fan.

Pretty sure that's a subpoena that can not be enforced, and he'd be happy to come in with a simple phone call.
Check out this guys twitter feed: https://twitter.com/AndriyUkraineTe
For a foerign National he sure seems to love Fox News/Oann and literally every single word Trump sayas.

What, he likes Trump? And Fox News?

Why, that obviously immediately discredits him.

[TECSHARE]

I wonder if this has anything to do with the fact that Bidens chances at winning the nomination just shot up.

Senate Republicans plan first subpoena in Burisma, Biden probe

Na, probably just a coincidence.




"If approved, Johnson’s move would mark the first subpoena Senate Republicans have issued in their probe into Biden and Burisma."
"Telizhenko is a 29-year-old Ukrainian national who has fueled the widely debunked theory embraced by Trump that Ukraine assisted former secretary of state Hillary Clinton in the 2016 election with help from the Democratic National Committee."

Give me a break, Biden has ZERO chance. This has been an ongoing investigation. This decision was made on the 24th of February. Funny, you don't consider any of this impeachment bullshit election interference now that it has been absolutely proven to be based on nothing. No, what is bullshit is a legitimate ongoing investigation based on factual evidence. Sounds familiar.

"Republicans FINALLY Plan To Subpoena Democrat Firm Over Biden Dealings, Journalists Push Fake News"

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=15xcLfdMMpI

I wonder if this has anything to do with the fact that Bidens chances at winning the nomination just shot up.

Na, probably just a coincidence.

Senate Republicans plan first subpoena in Burisma, Biden probe

"If approved, Johnson’s move would mark the first subpoena Senate Republicans have issued in their probe into Biden and Burisma."
"Telizhenko is a 29-year-old Ukrainian national who has fueled the widely debunked theory embraced by Trump that Ukraine assisted former secretary of state Hillary Clinton in the 2016 election with help from the Democratic National Committee."

Of course, remember its not actually a subpoena until we can see a copy of the actual subpoena. Until then, its just a baseless witch hunt.

What subpoena Nutilduhhh? The court ruled the only subpoena you could even produce invalid. You often like telling me that I can never admit I was wrong, now its your turn. Repeat after me "I was wrong TECSHARE."

[TwitchySeal]

I'm not sure if they can enforce a subpoena for someone from another country.  Did a little research and can't find anything definitive, but there are a couple cases about subpoenaing a US citizen living in another country - that's ok, but the language makes me think that you have to be a US citizen to be obligated to comply with a Subpoena from the US government.

I guess it's really just semantics though, it's pretty clear the guy would be more than willing to show up.  He's already done a bunch of interviews and is friends with Rudy.

Found some random stuff out about him -

• Worked at Ukrainian Embassy and Prosecutors office.
• He's been accused of taking bribes (he denies it)
• Drank a lot at work
• He claims he was forced out of the job for supporting Trump, they say it was because he 'blacked out' and hit 4 cars.
• He set up a consultancy firm with the guy who is well-known for failed attempt at getting Trump Tower Moscow done, and another guy who has been charged with Treason for meeting with Trump officials to push them to give Crimea to Russia.

https://www.infowars.com/ukrainian-whistleblower-dem-ukraine-collusion-in-2016-the-buildup-to-war-now/
https://www.kyivpost.com/ukraine-politics/the-strange-and-meteoric-rise-of-giulianis-favorite-ukrainian-whistleblower.html
https://www.thedailybeast.com/andrii-telizhenko-source-for-ukraine-collusion-allegations-met-rep-devin-nunes

What, he likes Trump? And Fox News?

Why, that obviously immediately discredits him.

The republicans attacked pretty much every federal employee that testified during impeachment hearings accusing them of being never trumpers/democrats, and the only real reason was the things they said made Trump look bad.  Can you imagine the outrage if they had made the same types of tweets this guy did except pro-Obama?

The guy really does look like he just got picked out of Trump rally lol

[TECSHARE]

What subpoena Nutilduhhh?

The subpoena by senate Republicans into the Burisma "case." It doesn't exist until you can provide me with a copy of it. Until then REEEEE WITCH HUNT.

The court ruled the only subpoena you could even produce invalid.

The subpoena for Laura Cooper? That's news to me. Mind sharing a source for that?

Repeat after me "I was wrong TECSHARE."

Okay, I can do that. "You were wrong TECSHARE."

Remind me, when did I claim this subpoena even existed? Oh right never. That was Twittyseal that brought it up. Furthermore if you could read you would see they announced the plan to issue the subpoena.

"Senate Homeland Security Committee chairman Ron Johnson (R-WI) plans to force a vote to issue the first subpoena linked to his probe involving Hunter Biden and Ukrainian energy firm, Burisma Holdings."

https://www.zerohedge.com/political/senate-homeland-committee-issue-first-subpoena-biden-burisma-probe


Laura Cooper volunteered to testify. This is not proof of the validity of the so called "subpoena" as she was not compelled to testify, but volunteered to do so.

Speaking of being wrong, when is it you think you will be able to produce all those subpoenas you swore up and down for pages and pages that really existed? You should start practicing now so it stings less when the inevitable realization you were wrong occurs.

"I was wrong TECSHARE."

Say it a few times, eventually you will get it right. You try too Twittyseal. Maybe Suchgoon will show up and I can provide a full 3 course meal of crow for you all.

[nutildah]

Remind me, when did I claim this subpoena even existed? Oh right never. That was Twittyseal that brought it up.

This is a weird way around answering my question. You said "the court" ruled the Laura Cooper subpoena was invalid. Can you provide a source for that?

[TECSHARE]

Remind me, when did I claim this subpoena even existed? Oh right never. That was Twittyseal that brought it up.

This is a weird way around answering my question. You said "the court" ruled the Laura Cooper subpoena was invalid. Can you provide a source for that?

Is that what I said? Please quote.

So when are you going to produce the subpoenas Nutilduuuuh? What is a appropriate amount of time to pass before you admit you were wrong? It has been 4 months now, you still can't find the subpoenas. Will it be at 6 months? A year? Perhaps after Donald Trump's next term is finished?

[nutildah]

Remind me, when did I claim this subpoena even existed? Oh right never. That was Twittyseal that brought it up.

This is a weird way around answering my question. You said "the court" ruled the Laura Cooper subpoena was invalid. Can you provide a source for that?

Is that what I said? Please quote.

The court ruled the only subpoena you could even produce invalid.

The only subpoena I could produce was for Laura Cooper, because that's the only one that was made available as part of the public record. So, which court are you talking about, and where is that court's ruling? Unlike congressional subpoena files, court rulings are all made public, so it should be easy for you to find. If you're not talking about Laura Cooper, then what were you talking about?

[TECSHARE]

Remind me, when did I claim this subpoena even existed? Oh right never. That was Twittyseal that brought it up.

This is a weird way around answering my question. You said "the court" ruled the Laura Cooper subpoena was invalid. Can you provide a source for that?

Is that what I said? Please quote.

The court ruled the only subpoena you could even produce invalid.

The only subpoena I could produce was for Laura Cooper, because that's the only one that was made available as part of the public record. So, which court are you talking about, and where is that court's ruling? Unlike congressional subpoena files, court rulings are all made public, so it should be easy for you to find. If you're not talking about Laura Cooper, then what were you talking about?

Sure, no problem. Real records are easily found.

https://www.cadc.uscourts.gov/internet/opinions.nsf/29F7900862BA6CD68525851C00784758/$file/19-5331-1831001.pdf

Real subpoenas are public records. Perhaps you will be able to produce them in 2024.

[TECSHARE]

The only subpoena I could produce was for Laura Cooper, because that's the only one that was made available as part of the public record. So, which court are you talking about, and where is that court's ruling? Unlike congressional subpoena files, court rulings are all made public, so it should be easy for you to find. If you're not talking about Laura Cooper, then what were you talking about?

Sure, no problem. Real records are easily found.

https://www.cadc.uscourts.gov/internet/opinions.nsf/29F7900862BA6CD68525851C00784758/$file/19-5331-1831001.pdf

 

The court didn't rule that any subpoena was "invalid" in the court opinion you just linked.

The Department of Justice (DOJ), on behalf of McGahn, responds that Article III of the Constitution forbids federal courts from resolving this kind of interbranch information dispute. We agree and dismiss this case.

Other relevant quotes:

The current statutory regime for enforcement of congressional subpoenas reflects Congress’s judgment that information disputes between the political branches do not belong in federal court. Under this regime, only the Senate—and not the House—has statutory authority to enforce a subpoena in federal court.

...federal courts also have considered the permissibility of congressional subpoenas, but such cases arose in three discrete procedural contexts different from this one... Like subpoenas issued in the context of a criminal prosecution, and unlike this litigation, all three of these settings directly implicate the “rights of individuals,” Marbury, 5 U.S. at 170, and thus fall within the heartland of federal jurisdiction.

Real subpoenas are public records. Perhaps you will be able to produce them in 2024.

You don't get to decide what is a real subpoena and what is not. This whole time we've been talking about congressional subpoenas. The 3 judges who gave their opinions certainly don't consider congressional subpoenas to be "invalid," as there are instances where they feel they should be recognized. 2 of the 3 judges feel it is not within their scope of duty to make a ruling on their enforcement, and the 3rd does. Regardless, congressional subpoenas are not privy to the FOIA (we established this months ago), so you'll have to keep holding your breath, unfortunately.

You don't need a FOIA to get access to public records such as subpoenas. This is just an excuse to deflect from the fact that you can not, and will never be able to produce those subpoenas, because they never existed.

A subpoena is an act of legal compulsion. If there is no ability for legal compulsion, the subpoena is invalid because it holds no force. You said it in your quote "no statutory authority". That means it is the legal equivalent of a request for information.

You know why they ruled it was not within their jurisdiction? Because, as I said from the beginning, the legislative and the executive branches have equal authority under The Constitution, and for one to order the other one into compliance unilaterally violates the separation of powers. The office of the president has the authority to use executive privilege to deny subpoenas issued under the legislative branch.

The legislative branch does not have the power to issue a subpoena, unilaterally declare it valid, then use it as a claim of obstruction. The president is well within his rights to use this executive privilege, meaning the subpoena is invalid, and obstruction charges are invalid, and thus that article of impeachment was proven invalid.

[nutildah]

You don't need a FOIA to get access to public records such as subpoenas. This is just an excuse to deflect from the fact that you can not, and will never be able to produce those subpoenas, because they never existed.

 

Giuliani and Pompeo have both acknowledged receiving subpoenas. You're saying you know better than them and that they didn't. That makes you an idiot. Its not worth wasting my time with you any further.

[TECSHARE]

You don't need a FOIA to get access to public records such as subpoenas. This is just an excuse to deflect from the fact that you can not, and will never be able to produce those subpoenas, because they never existed.

 

Giuliani and Pompeo have both acknowledged receiving subpoenas. You're saying you know better than them and that they didn't. That makes you an idiot. Its not worth wasting my time with you any further.

And back to defaulting to the "Mike Pompeo says" argument. When are you going to produce those subpoenas you swear exist Nutilduuuuuuuuh? Oh right, you can't because they never existed, now you have to run away so you never have to admit you were wrong.

[Spendulus]

You don't need a FOIA to get access to public records such as subpoenas. This is just an excuse to deflect from the fact that you can not, and will never be able to produce those subpoenas, because they never existed.

 

Giuliani and Pompeo have both acknowledged receiving subpoenas. You're saying you know better than them and that they didn't. That makes you an idiot. Its not worth wasting my time with you any further.

I disagree with the premises of this argument. Isn't it possible that reporters, and/or many people, consider virtually any kind of document that demands or requests, from an official entity a "subpoena?" EG, they may have a broader definition of the word than you/Techshare/I have.

[TECSHARE]

You don't need a FOIA to get access to public records such as subpoenas. This is just an excuse to deflect from the fact that you can not, and will never be able to produce those subpoenas, because they never existed.

 

Giuliani and Pompeo have both acknowledged receiving subpoenas. You're saying you know better than them and that they didn't. That makes you an idiot. Its not worth wasting my time with you any further.

I disagree with the premises of this argument. Isn't it possible that reporters, and/or many people, consider virtually any kind of document that demands or requests, from an official entity a "subpoena?" EG, they may have a broader definition of the word than you/Techshare/I have.

Exactly, and this was the whole game from the beginning. They issued carefully worded requests for information/testimony and simply CLAIMED they sent a subpoena, then told the media they actually did, and like the lapdogs they are they repeated it, and people like Nutilduuuuuh, TwittySeal, and Suchgoon sucked it down like the thirsty bias confirming TDS sufferers they are. Now that this is all over with, they can't produce any of the documents and are reduced to trying to distract with stories about "Mike Pompeo says" and FOIA requests rather than just admitting they are chumps that parrot whatever the idiot box tells them without ever checking for themselves.