Pages:
Author

Topic: Vid of Biden admit bribe of Ukrainian Pres. to fire prosecutor investigating son - page 11. (Read 4095 times)

sr. member
Activity: 686
Merit: 320
So you think I should prove that subpoenas that I don't think exist, don't exist? Also, what does a clerk do?
Burden of proof is yours even more so since you can prove it. Please don't try and throw out your phony "logic" argument. As someone with an actual scientific background I know you're just full of shit and that since you can prove it, the burden is even more so yours. So put up or shut up.

Also, what does a clerk do?
Why don't you provide the government documents that show who the clerk is, what they do and the rules etc associated with it. Oh yeah. You refused to do that.
legendary
Activity: 3318
Merit: 2008
First Exclusion Ever
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?
I have said on multiple occasions I'm not going to hold your hand. I asked you to prove your points by providing information from actual government documents and you said you wouldn't. And now you're trying to get me to do it for you. No. I spent hours pouring over documents. Do your own research. I can only assume based on your refusal to take action and prove your points that you have zero interest in the truth about any of this.

Your concept of burden of proof is so twisted I am not sure what the point is.
I'm going to say this one more time. The burden of proof is yours. So prove it.

Quote
Burden of Proof
A fallacy is when someone makes an argument based on unsound reasoning. Burden of proof is one type of fallacy in which someone makes a claim, but puts the burden of proof onto the other side. For example, a person makes a claim. Another person refutes the claim, and the first person asks them to prove that the claim is not true. In a logical argument, if someone states a claim, it is up to that person to prove the truth of his or her claim.

Quote
A negative claim is a colloquialism for an affirmative claim that asserts the non-existence or exclusion of something. The difference with a positive claim is that it takes only a single example to demonstrate such a positive assertion ("there is a chair in this room," requires pointing to a single chair), while the inability to give examples demonstrates that the speaker has not yet found or noticed examples rather than demonstrates that no examples exist (the negative claim that a species is extinct may be disproved by a single surviving example or proven with omniscience). The argument from ignorance is a logical fallacy. There can be multiple claims within a debate. Nevertheless, it has been said whoever makes a claim carries the burden of proof regardless of positive or negative content in the claim.
All your dancing around is nothing more than that. The burden of proof is yours as you can provide it but refuse to.

So you think I should prove that subpoenas that I don't think exist, don't exist? Also, what does a clerk do?
sr. member
Activity: 686
Merit: 320
Your concept of burden of proof is so twisted I am not sure what the point is.
I'm going to say this one more time. The burden of proof is yours. So prove it.

Quote
Burden of Proof
A fallacy is when someone makes an argument based on unsound reasoning. Burden of proof is one type of fallacy in which someone makes a claim, but puts the burden of proof onto the other side. For example, a person makes a claim. Another person refutes the claim, and the first person asks them to prove that the claim is not true. In a logical argument, if someone states a claim, it is up to that person to prove the truth of his or her claim.

Quote
A negative claim is a colloquialism for an affirmative claim that asserts the non-existence or exclusion of something. The difference with a positive claim is that it takes only a single example to demonstrate such a positive assertion ("there is a chair in this room," requires pointing to a single chair), while the inability to give examples demonstrates that the speaker has not yet found or noticed examples rather than demonstrates that no examples exist (the negative claim that a species is extinct may be disproved by a single surviving example or proven with omniscience). The argument from ignorance is a logical fallacy. There can be multiple claims within a debate. Nevertheless, it has been said whoever makes a claim carries the burden of proof regardless of positive or negative content in the claim.
All your dancing around is nothing more than that. The burden of proof is yours as you can provide it but refuse to.
sr. member
Activity: 686
Merit: 320
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?
I have said on multiple occasions I'm not going to hold your hand. I asked you to prove your points by providing information from actual government documents and you said you wouldn't. And now you're trying to get me to do it for you. No. I spent hours pouring over documents. Do your own research. I can only assume based on your refusal to take action and prove your points that you have zero interest in the truth about any of this.
legendary
Activity: 3318
Merit: 2008
First Exclusion Ever
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?
sr. member
Activity: 686
Merit: 320
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.
legendary
Activity: 3318
Merit: 2008
First Exclusion Ever
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?
sr. member
Activity: 686
Merit: 320
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?
legendary
Activity: 2674
Merit: 2071
Join the world-leading crypto sportsbook NOW!
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.
legendary
Activity: 3318
Merit: 2008
First Exclusion Ever
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.
legendary
Activity: 2674
Merit: 2071
Join the world-leading crypto sportsbook NOW!
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.

legendary
Activity: 3318
Merit: 2008
First Exclusion Ever
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.
legendary
Activity: 2674
Merit: 2071
Join the world-leading crypto sportsbook NOW!
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.
legendary
Activity: 3318
Merit: 2008
First Exclusion Ever
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?
legendary
Activity: 2674
Merit: 2071
Join the world-leading crypto sportsbook NOW!
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.
legendary
Activity: 3318
Merit: 2008
First Exclusion Ever
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.
legendary
Activity: 2674
Merit: 2071
Join the world-leading crypto sportsbook NOW!
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.



Quote
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. 
legendary
Activity: 3318
Merit: 2008
First Exclusion Ever
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.



Quote
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?
legendary
Activity: 2674
Merit: 2071
Join the world-leading crypto sportsbook NOW!
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.



Quote
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.
legendary
Activity: 3318
Merit: 2008
First Exclusion Ever
Are you sure congressional subpoenas require courts and aren't issued under their own authority?

Quote
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.
Pages:
Jump to: