We really don't have the power to take down their posts but just to warn some who are planning to buy but at the end if their posts still exists and they have other modes of communication still a lot of people will be interested in this shit.
We could introduce honey pots. Make posts selling merits, then flag the ones who buy. You throw the little ones back with a warning and education on why buying merit is not a good idea. It is useless to flag sellers in a forum where they can make unlimited accounts. Sweet idea. Sounds fun. |
|
|
|
|
I suggest opening a scam accusation on yourself as well. Just to be fair.
|
|
|
|
Minority leader Kevin McCarthy announced that Jim Jordan is taking Devin Nunez' seat as ranking member of the intelligence committee. That means it will be Jim Jordan that gets the 45 minutes to question each witness at the beginning of each hearing. Jordan has definitely been one of the most aggressive/confrontational members of the intelligence committee during past hearings, and Nunez not so much, so it seems likely that the Republicans are probably planning on him actually questioning the witnesses. The Democrats will most likely be using a staff member with a lot of court room experience. |
|
|
|
Well just to start, unrelated to the topic, its nice to see the serious discussion tag present. I think if this is self moderated correctly you're going to be able to bring about some great conversation, I'll proably start using the same disclaimer on my post. So, thanks for that.
Yeah. I expect the hearings to be super interesting, figured it would be nice to have a thread that's not a complete train wreck. This isn't going to end by Christmas. Even if the information present isn't enough to convince the American people that Trump is guility of a crime -- it makes the most sense for them to keep this up for as long as possible to continue to throw shit at the wall relating to Trump and hope that something latches on.
And if they do find something -- They're going to continue to poke and prod at it to try to find more. Because we don't know if the American people want to see the removal of a President right now -- even if he is 'guilty'
Will continue to post here once I watch the public hearings. Can't wait for this.
I also doubt the will call the vote by Christmas. The last day the House is scheduled to be in Session is December 12th and they have the entire week of Thanksgiving off so there are only like 16 days left really. I don't think it would be smart to let it drag on as long as possible though. February is a huge month for Democratic primaries, and the closer they get to the next election the more valid the "lets just forget about it because the election is coming up" argument will be. I also think there are some strategical advantages to finishing before Christmas, mostly because there will be a 3-4 weeks gap between the House Investigation and the Senate Trial where Americans will just home from work and discussing current events. On the other hand, it seems like Bolton actually wants to testify, but is insisting on a judge ruling so that he is shielded from any liability in breaching executive privilege, which could take weeks to months? The House decided to drop the subpoena and not involve Bolton with the hearing so that it wouldn't drag on. Then Boltons lawyer sent the house this letter. ...we are dismayed that the Committees have chosen not to join us in seeking resolution from the Judicial Branch of this momentous Constitutional question as expeditiously as possible. It is important both to Dr. Kupperman and to Ambassador Bolton to get a definitive judgment from the Judicial Branch determining their Constitutional duty in the face of conflicting demands of the Legislative and Executive Branches. As I emphasized in my previous responses to letters from the House Chairs, Dr. Kupperman stands ready, as does Ambassador Bolton, to testify if the Judiciary resolves the conflict in favor of the Legislative Branch’s position respecting such testimony. Then he sent another letter that basically said "I know things that you guys don't know, and I think you'll want to hear them: [Bolton] was personally involved in many of the events, meetings, and conversations about which you have already received testimony, as well as many relevant meetings and conversations that have not yet been discussed in the testimonies thus far. It's already established that Bolton was against the whole Ukraine investigating Biden campaign from the beginning. “Giuliani’s a hand grenade who’s going to blow everybody up,” “I am not part of whatever drug deal Sondland and Mulvaney are cooking up,” So the question is, maybe let this drag on for several more weeks and likely (not definitely) have Bolton as a witness, or move more quickly without him. |
|
|
|
The public impeachment hearings start this week with one hearing on Wednesday and one on Friday. It's going to be covered in full on pretty much every network and should be pretty easy to find a live stream. They are hoping to wrap things up and call a vote to impeach by Christmas, but many expect it to take longer.
Wednesday, November 13William Taylor- West Point graduate, Vietnam Vet - First appointed as Ambassador to Ukraine by GW Bush in 2006 - Appointed Special Coordinator for Middle East Transitions by Obama in 2011 - Came out of retirement last Spring when Trump appointed him as Ambassador to Ukraine. (Currently Ambassador to Ukraine) - Transcript from closed hearingGeorge Kent- Appointed under Trump as Deputy Assistant Secretary for European and Eurasian Affairs on September 4, 2018 - Has worked for the State Department since 1992 - Transcript from closed hearingFriday, November 15Marie Yovanovitch- Appointed as US Ambassador to Ukraine by Obama in 2016 - Fired by Trump last Spring - Transcript from closed hearing(will update when more hearings are scheduled)
We don't know exactly what the Democrats plan to focus on or how the Republicans plan on defending them, but here are a few likely scenarios: Allegations- Trump leveraged foreign aid worth ~$450m (weapons), that Congress approved to provide to Ukraine as well as a White House visit to pressure Ukraine into publicly announcing they would be opening an investigation into Hunter Biden and Joe Biden (his most likely challenger in the 2020 election) as well as the role the Democrats played in meddling in the 2016 election.. Using the power of the President (federal foreign aid) to attack your political rivals is an impeachable offense. - Trump used his personal lawyer, Rudy Giulliani, to circumvent the Senate confirmed State Department Officials and speak on behalf of the President and Country. - Trump obstructed the Democrats investigation into the Ukraine/Biden/Trump investigation. Defense- Trump did not withhold foreign aid/White House visit in exchange for publicly announcing a Biden investigation . (There was no "quid pro quo"). The withholding of funds were not related to his request for Ukraine to investigate the Bidens. - Trump did withhold foreign aid, but it was justified because he wanted to make sure that the US Government wasn't sending foreign aid to a corrupt country. It had nothing to do with the fact the Biden was in position to be his most likely general election challenger in 2020. Asking Ukraine to investigate the Democrats involvement in the 2016 election was also not politically motivated, his only motivation was to secure future elections. - Trump did withhold foreign aid for political reasons and was wrong for doing so, but that's not an impeachable offense.
The House voted on a resolution that laid out the rules for these hearings on Oct. 31. It passed 232 - 196, (232 democrats voted yes, 2 democrats and 194 republicans voted no). - The hearings will be conducted by the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence led by Chairman Adam Schiff (d) and ranking member Devin Nunez. - Schiff will be able to question each witness for 45 minutes straight, and then Nunez will do the same for another 45 minutes. - All other members of the committee will then have 5 minutes to question the witness, alternating by Party. - Each representative will be allowed to have a staff member question the witness instead of doing it themself. - The Republicans can subpoena or request witnesses only if the chairman approves. The Republicans have had two witnesses rejected so far, Hunter Biden and the Anonymous whistle blower.
Local Rules:- When you post, you must have a clear point. If you ramble on about nothing, then your post will be deleted. - You must stay fairly close to the topic, the Public Impeachment Hearings. - Don't be an asshole. No personal attacks, name calling, tantrums, circular arguments. |
|
|
|
^^^ Odd, I don't recall him mentioning NASA during the interview. Can you provide a timestamp for when he talks about them? Speaking of NASA check it out "the handmaiden of Satan" herself:  Michelle Thaller - NASA's High Priestess of Scientism -- https://youtu.be/AoulNfxTcXcYou should go back and watch it again since you don't seem to remember anything he said. Perhaps you were distracted by all the memes. |
|
|
|
|
Start the BBBJ much higher and then drop it down one rank every week. Every once in a while it will get real low and real big.
|
|
|
|
^^^ So if it's documented that you can see Chicago at 50 miles and, it goes against the calculated predictions the globe model makes, what about it is a ridiculous assertion?
I still don't recall him directly asserting that the earth was flat.
He was there to argue that the Earth is flat and that we shouldn't believe all the evidence that NASA has documented is real... with an astrophysicist that works for NASA. Ridiculous. |
|
|
|
Yeah, I definitely could. But this thread is about the video of Biden bribing the president of Ukraine (which did not happen since a bribe implies it was illegal) and you are derailing the shit out of it with your nonsense tantrum. If you could provide the subpoena, why not provide it? How many months do you need to find a public record? You don't think that the fact that the Democrats and media are lying about the existence of subpoenas that never existed is a relevant piece of information considering they are trying to remove a duly elected sitting president based on this information? Information which, by the way is directly related to Biden's long history of illegal pay for play schemes. Cool. Take my post and make it look like I'm saying something I'm not.
Looks like you are wrong again. This is the first mention of the subpoenas on this forum I could find. I suppose you will tell me now there is an earlier mention, but you just can't find it, but trust me, it really exists, super serial. Mike Pompeo said so. Yeah, I definitely could. But this thread is about the video of Biden bribing the president of Ukraine (which did not happen since a bribe implies it was illegal) and you are derailing the shit out of it with your nonsense tantrum. Your questions have been answered countless times. Stop derailing the thread. |
|
|
|
^^^ Can you give an example of a ridiculous assertion that he made? What exactly do you feel annoyed you the most?
He asserted that the earth was flat. can you back that claim with a video timestamp? I'm curious as I don't recall him directly making that assertion. It was when he was blabbering on about how he knew some guys that could see chicago from 50 miles away and could not detect that the earth was round over a big lake even after all their calculations. |
|
|
|
^^^ Can you give an example of a ridiculous assertion that he made? What exactly do you feel annoyed you the most?
He asserted that the earth was flat. |
|
|
|
Looks like you are wrong again. This is the first mention of the subpoenas on this forum I could find. I suppose you will tell me now there is an earlier mention, but you just can't find it, but trust me, it really exists, super serial. Mike Pompeo said so. Yeah, I definitely could. But this thread is about the video of Biden bribing the president of Ukraine (which did not happen since a bribe implies it was illegal) and you are derailing the shit out of it with your nonsense tantrum. |
|
|
|
I already answered your question. The answer is I don't know. It may never be on the internet. I say the subpoena exists because Mike Pompeo said he received it: https://i.imgur.com/P53g4Nh.pngAnd you squirreled your way out of answering my question yet again. How honest and brave. So you don't have the burden of proof to support your premise because "it may never be on the internet". So of course we must assume they exist for this indefinite amount of time right? Of course concluding these subpoenas never existed is an irrational response to the inability to produce these subpoenas right? Of course! Stop ferreting your way around my questions. How stunning, beautiful, and brave. I've already answered this question directly multiple times, but here you go:
These are the reasons I believe the subpoena exists:
- Congress announces that they subpoenad Pompeo.
- They posted a detailed letter that explained the scope and reason for the subpoena.
- Pompeo confirmed he received the subpoena.
- Other witnesses that the House claimed they subpoenad around the same time for the same investigation also confirmed they received their subpoenas.
I understand that you don't think the subpoena exists because the subpoena it isn't posted the internet, you don't consider the fact that Pompeo said he received it relevant, and we aren't able to find empirical evidence proving it exists. I disagree with you, it's nothing personal.
Lets get back to the topic of this thread now. What makes you think Biden pressured Ukrainian to fire the prosecutor? I am very confident that he did in fact pressure Ukraine to fire the prosecutor, but the main reason is because he said he did, and I don't have empirical evidence, so I'm just wondering what you think about the whole thing. 1. Congress said 2. Congress said 3. Mike Pompeo said 4. Other people said What does the public record say? You would think that would be an important reference for a legal court document of public record now wouldn't you? There is nothing to disagree with. It is a fact you have no empirical evidence the subpoenas ever existed. You still insist your premise is correct in spite of this fact, and of course give your self an indefinite and perpetual amount of time to then never ever have to prove your premise correct. This is all very relevant to the topic because the mythical subpoenas are regarding Ukraine, which is central to the accusation against Biden. You keep asking the same questions and I've answered them all directly many times. I understand you think I'm wrong. How about we get back on topic? |
|
|
|
What makes you think Biden pressured Ukraine to fire prosecutor? What makes you think the subpoenas exist? I've already answered this question directly multiple times, but here you go: These are the reasons I believe the subpoena exists: - Congress announces that they subpoenad Pompeo. - They posted a detailed letter that explained the scope and reason for the subpoena. - Pompeo confirmed he received the subpoena. - Other witnesses that the House claimed they subpoenad around the same time for the same investigation also confirmed they received their subpoenas. I understand that you don't think the subpoena exists because the subpoena it isn't posted the internet, you don't consider the fact that Pompeo said he received it relevant, and we aren't able to find empirical evidence proving it exists. I disagree with you, it's nothing personal. Lets get back to the topic of this thread now. What makes you think Biden pressured Ukrainian to fire the prosecutor? I am very confident that he did in fact pressure Ukraine to fire the prosecutor, but the main reason is because he said he did, and I don't have empirical evidence, so I'm just wondering what you think about the whole thing. |
|
|
|
|
What makes you think Biden pressured Ukraine to fire prosecutor?
|
|
|
|
That's not what I said. I said one was fictional, in reference to your claim about Mike Pompeo saying Bigfoot is real. This on the other hand is not fictional: https://i.imgur.com/P53g4Nh.pngIt is Mike Pompeo going on record saying he received a subpoena. That's why your false equivalence is doubly false. This is some pretty sad slinking you are resorting to in an attempt to worm your way out of admitting you were wrong about the subpoena not being real. Wrong. Before anyone said anything else, you claimed it doesn't exist and you can prove your statement by requesting it and showing you can't get it. It's a public document as you've said so either they have it or they don't. So backup your claim and request it. It's your burden to prove your original statement.
Every congressional subpoena in recent years is not on the internet.
Unless you disagree with this statement ^^^, your entire theory has been debunked. TL;DR 1. Mike Pompeo 2. I claimed the subpoenas didn't exist before you claimed they did exist. 3. All Congressional subpoenas are not on the internet therefore you will never, ever, EVER be able to provide a copy of any House subpoena related to impeachment issued before October 31st 2019. Does this about sum up your "debunking"? I think I summarized it pretty well: Every congressional subpoena in recent years is not on the internet. Unless you disagree with this statement ^^^, your entire theory has been debunked. |
|
|
|
|
The 'lets make fun of stupid hoaxes thread' has one guy trying to argue that the world is flat and another insisting that the Bible is based on Science. They aren't trolling, they are serious. lol
|
|
|
|
We aren't talking about a list of 8 other subjects. We are talking about the fact that you believed a lie, you refuse to admit it was a lie, and you continue to defend those that lied to you. You have no empirical evidence to prove otherwise. Mike Pompeo isn't going to help you. Just admit it was a lie, you know I am never going to let this go until you do right? Unless you admit the subpoenas never existed I am going to forever taunt you and Nutilduhh to produce the subpoenas knowing full well you will never be able to produce them, a constant reminder for you and all around you of the lie you live every day.
Every congressional subpoena in recent years is not on the internet. Unless you disagree with this statement ^^^, your entire theory has been debunked. |
|
|
|
Ukraine interfered with our election. The DNC colluded with Ukraine to interfere in our election. The Clintons had Epstein murdered. Seth Rich was involved in the DNC hack. Seth Rich was murdered because he was involved in the DNC hack. Hunter Biden was doing something illegal in Ukraine. Biden bribed Ukraine to fire the prosecutor Biden bribed Ukraine to protect his son In your opinion, all of these things are true, right? You don't have proof, but you believe they are true. If you apply the same logic to any of these issues that you've applied to the subpoena, you should know for a fact that they are all false. In reality, neither of us can conclude that any of them are true or false. All we can do is consider all the evidence that's available, and then decide how likely true or not true each issue is. |
|
|
|
Why on earth would I say the subpoena doesn't exist when Mike Pompeo (the man receiving said subpoena) says it does? That would be madness. https://i.imgur.com/P53g4Nh.pngMaybe never? If you can prove that every other subpoena that congress has issued from 5 years ago is on the internet, then that would definitely change my opinion though.
Or if you could find some rule that says the house must put suboenas on the internet within X days, and X days have passed, that would change my opinion.
Or if someone who the house claims to have subpoenad said they didn't receive a subpoena, that would also change my opinion.
Whether or not it's published on the internet matters very little, in my opinion, unless someone is claiming they never received one. So in summary, "Mike Pompeo says...™", the subpoenas exist, superserial guys, but I can never prove it ever and oh yeah did I mention Mike Pompeo? Basically yeah. House: We sent subpoena to Mike, here's the letter that explains the reasons we sent it and the scope of the subpoena. Mike: I received the subpoena. That's pretty solid. I understand that you think both the house and mike are lying because nobody put a copy of the actual subpoena on the internet because it's a public document. But public document doesn't mean it has to be on the internet. Not every congressional subpoena goes on the internet, at least not anywhere I've looked. So, I don't know what else to tell you except that If you can prove that every subpoena congress issues goes on the internet somewhere, and Pompeos subpoena isn't there, then things would be different. But you can't because that's just not the case. I'm also really curious. Why do you think Pompeo and Rudy would lie about receiving the subpoena from the House when he didn't? |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
