Topic: Vid of Biden admit bribe of Ukrainian Pres. to fire prosecutor investigating son - page 4. (Read 4095 times)

Yes, there is. However if they were to simply call it what it was, they would then have to battle all of the MSM and toadies like here in this thread, and some how make them understand something that they don't want to understand, that there were only carefully worded requests for information sent, and not valid subpoenas. It is much easier to just play along with their stupid games and not cooperate, because they have no authority to compel them.

Some people received requests that weren't subpoenas.  I believe there were 5 of them in the state department.

But Pompeo received a Subpoena.  So did Rudy.  If they simply received a request, why would they say they received a subpoena?

Pompeo : "The department also acknowledges receipt of the subpoena"
Rudy : "I have received a subpoena"

Well, then this endless tirade makes sense sort of.

Regardless, there is a huge difference between "I received a request from (Someone/something very powerful who you wouldn't want to not obey)" and "I received a legal subpoena."

Guiliani and Pompeo have both acknowledged receiving a subpoena.  It's not a matter of what 'reporters and/or other people consider'.  Just Pompeo and Rudy.

Pompeo letter to congress: "The department also acknowledges receipt of the subpoena"
Rudy tweet: "I have received a subpoena"

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.

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.

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.

 

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.

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.

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.

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?

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?

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?

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.

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



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

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




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."

What, he likes Trump? And Fox News?

Why, that obviously immediately discredits him.

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.

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."

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.




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?