trump did nothing wrong, he held back funds to ukraine if they dont investigate and punish the corruption of joe biden's son.
Trump has denied this over and over. What I don't understand is, why not let the man finish out his term? I mean, there is exactly a year left till it's time to vote again. Is he really so savage that they need him out of there A.S.A.P? Never really understood politics myself, but it seems like society is becoming extremely more feminine in nature.
All I see is whiners and complainers every day on the news, I know he's not the best president but damn, the lynch mob is really out for blood this time.
They think he tried to use congress approved foreign aid to help him win the next election (which is clearly not ok). If he did, then it wouldn't make sense to just let the next election happen without doing anything about it. They can't really find solid evidence against him so they'll just do these media circuses where they can plant doubt into people's head. Most adult (hopefully) would already be familiar with this.
They have a bunch of credible, non-partisan witnesses and the "I need you to do me a favor though" transcript. The question isn't whether or not they have enough evidence, it's whether or not the thing they are accusing him of doing is worthy of removing a sitting president. |
|
|
|
OK, so does anybody else on the forum reading this think that Mike Pompeo's letter to the house infer that he did not receive a subpoena?
Of course he got a subpoena. If he hadn't of the WH lawyers would have been all over that and they would have made statements to the press etc. TECTARD is nothing more than a conspiracy nut troll who can't even keep his argument straight half the time and pulls in bullshit "proof" that has nothing to do with what's being discussed half the time. He's fun for some entertainment sometimes and that's about it. The funny thing is I don't think there are any other right wing conspiracy nut jobs pushing the "they only sent the letter, not the subpoena" theory. I could be wrong, but it seems likely TECSHARE came up with this one all on his own. Impressive. |
|
|
|
You in fact can not produce any actual documentation containing an actual house issued subpoena relating to the impeachment investigation prior to October 31st. Until you can (which will be never because it never existed), the only logical and rational conclusion is that it never existed.
If it never existed, then what is Pompeo talking about when he uses the word "subpoena"? https://i.imgur.com/P53g4Nh.pngPlease answer the question. I don't have to answer any questions. https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/tu-quoqueYour favorite, the "NO U!!!1" argument. You have the burden of proof, not me. Produce the subpoena.  OK, so does anybody else on the forum reading this think that Mike Pompeo's letter to the house infer that he did not receive a subpoena? Its OK -- I promise I won't rip into you TECHSHARE-style if you agree that a subpoena had not been received by Mike Pompeo after he wrote this in a letter to the house:  I just want to know what your rationale is. Thanks for your participation. Maybe Pompeo just doesn't know as much as TECSHARE when it comes to congressional subpoenas. He probably didn't have to deal with many while he was Director of the CIA or a Congressman on the Select Committee on Benghazi. |
|
|
|
You've been arguing that Schiff never sent the actual subpoena document. The one that looks like this: https://oversight.house.gov/sites/democrats.oversight.house.gov/files/documents/(70)%20Chaffetz%20Subpoena%20to%20Pagliano%2009-16-2016.pdfWhether it's a legal enforceable subpoena or not is a different argument from whether or not they filled out the subpoena document and included it with the subpoena letter. You keep getting hung up on these nonsense arguments (it's not a criminal investigation, they never actually filled out the form) when there are valid ones you could be making. You were totally convinced that the Subpoena letter was sent in place of the Subpoena until I explained to you that it's standard practice to include a letter explaining the subpoena with the subpoena when it's served. You were wrong on the criminal investigation assumption and you're wrong on the suboena letter assumption. It's ok, nobody is always right, just move on. There are way more interesting things to discuss. |
|
|
|
I don't think Steven A. Engel would agree with you that Schiff was only sending subpoena letters and not including the actual subpoena document. You're quoting him saying the subpoenas aren't legitimate, not that they were never served. Use your brain. Even if the subpoena was on the internet it wouldn't disprove any argument that they weren't legitimate, other than your silly "they only sent a letter, not the actual subpoena" argument. That is exactly what he is saying. In order for the subpoenas to have been legitimate, they would have had to be served, or in this case, also "ratified" as he describes it. Since they were not, the subpoenas legally NEVER EXISTED. I would LOVE for you to prove me wrong on this. I am closing my eyes and sticking out my chin giving you a free shot. Prove me wrong. Find the subpoena you swear exists up and down in spite of having zero evidence of it ever being written. No, that's not what he's saying lol. He's saying they sent a subpoena that wasn't properly authorized. You're saying they didn't send a subpoena at all. |
|
|
|
Great, then you should have no trouble PRODUCING THE SUBPOENA FROM BEFORE THE OFFICIAL VOTE. The subpoena isn't online. You think this means it doesn't exist. I disagree. No need to keep having same argument over and over. The only problem is you have the burden of proof. I also disagree with your baseless and undocumented conclusion. You should prove it exists with documentation, but, of course you can't. A subpoena is a public record. You cant produce it because IT NEVER EXISTED. Your red herrings about FISA filings and it not being online are just excuses in a lame attempt to distract from the fact you CAN'T PRODUCE THE ACTUAL SUBPOENA. You claim it exists all you want, you can't prove it, and seeing as the burden of proof is on you, well then I guess your argument has no basis now does it? Look who agrees with me: "As we have previously advised you, prior to October 31, 2019, the House had not vested any committee in the current Congress with the authority to issue subpoenas in connection with an impeachment inquiry. As a result, subpoenas issued before that date purporting to be “pursuant to” an impeachment inquiry were not properly authorized. Although House Resolution 660 “direct(s)” HPSCI and other committees to “con-tinue their ongoing investigations,” it does not purport to ratify any previously issued subpoena. Accordingly, while the Executive Branch may, and regularly does, accommodate congressional requests for information in the absence of a subpoena, the relevant committees would have to issue new subpoenas to impose any compulsory effect on recipients. STEVEN A. ENGEL Assistant Attorney General Office of Legal Counsel " (p5 https://www.scribd.com/document/433572872/Exclusion-of-Agency-Counsel-From-Congressional-Depositions-in-the-Impeachment-Context#from_embed ) A subpoena is literally defined as having a compulsory affect, that is what it is named for (Latin for under penalty). A subpoena without compulsory effect is called a request for information/testimony/evidence. You know better than me clearly! Prove me wrong, produce that subpoena you claim existed before October 31st! You can do it! Shut my ass up, and show me good! It just has to exist, doesn't it? You can do it! I don't think Steven A. Engel would agree with you that Schiff was only sending subpoena letters and not including the actual subpoena document. You're quoting him saying the subpoenas aren't legitimate, not that they were never served. Use your brain. Even if the subpoena was on the internet it wouldn't disprove any argument that they weren't legitimate, other than your silly "they only sent a letter, not the actual subpoena" argument. |
|
|
|
So I went through the github for Earths. It's a fork of Waves. https://github.com/wavesplatform/Waveshttps://github.com/earthspay/EarthsPretty much all the commits since they forked it, except 1, are just replacing any mention of "Wave" with "Earths". Every variable, filename, directory, documentation etc. There was one commit called "fix" that caught my eye: https://github.com/earthspay/Earths/commit/4aaca912c9da5424b76499e8f957baec4e76c6fd So the only real technical change they made to the project was in this file: src/main/scala/com/earthspay/settings/Constants.scala The original file looked like this: package com.wavesplatform.settings
import com.wavesplatform.Version
import com.wavesplatform.utils.ScorexLogging
/**
* System constants here.
*/
object Constants extends ScorexLogging {
val ApplicationName = "waves"
val AgentName = s"Waves v${Version.VersionString}"
val UnitsInWave = 100000000L
val TotalWaves = 100000000L
} They deleted that file, and replaced it with this one (notice the change in TotalEarths goes way up):
package com.earthspay.settings
import com.earthspay.Version
import com.earthspay.utils.ScorexLogging
/**
* System constants here.
*/
object Constants extends ScorexLogging {
val ApplicationName = "earths"
val AgentName = s"Earths v${Version.VersionString}"
val UnitsInEarth = 100000000L
val TotalEarths = 9223300000000000000L
} Then they changed only the TotalEarths, deleting a few zeros:
package com.earthspay.settings
import com.earthspay.Version
import com.earthspay.utils.ScorexLogging
/**
* System constants here.
*/
object Constants extends ScorexLogging {
val ApplicationName = "earths"
val AgentName = s"Earths v${Version.VersionString}"
val UnitsInEarth = 100000000L
val TotalEarths = 92233000000L
} So it looks like the only thing they were interested in changing was TotalEarths. My guess is that first they added too many zeroes and got an error, so they reduced it a bit with a new commit. I'm not familiar with the waves platform so I'll let someone else determine if this actually could be part of a scam. OP, could you just let your users know what's up with the totalEarths please? And let me know if I missed anything. Excellent work, good sir. Have my last merit. (They are harder to come by these days for me -- I have to do something "extraordinary" "again," I suppose.) Yes I suppose having more than 9 sextillion EARTHS was just too many, so they scaled it down to a mean 92.233 billion. That way, everybody on the planet can have 12.25 EARTHS. If that's the only change then I would say the software in itself isn't scammy, but the ploy to collect passport data is. I think WAVES is a great platform, as far as they go. Duplicating it is a bit unnecessary. They could have just created a token within WAVES itself. Unfortunately, we do not support scammers like you. In other words, you don't have any explanation for changing TotalEarths from 100000000L to 92233000000L after forking it from Waves that doesn't make you look bad, right? |
|
|
|
Great, then you should have no trouble PRODUCING THE SUBPOENA FROM BEFORE THE OFFICIAL VOTE. The subpoena isn't online. You think this means it doesn't exist. I disagree. No need to keep having same argument over and over. |
|
|
|
Do you have the proof that the letter was sent? That is, there must be 'proof of service' in some way, and the proof of service would include whether or not the actual subpoena went along with the letter. I realize that if they sent the letter without the subpoena, that it would look very bad for them, except if everyone they sent the letter to was involved in a cover-up. So, just curious, is there any proof of service?  Some of them have said they responded to their subpoena and some of them have explicitly confirmed that they received it. Like Rudy for example:  |
|
|
|
It's not called a subpoena. It's called a subpoena letter. The subpoena letter is in reference to the enclosed subpoena. Then... PRODUCE THE SUBPOENA FROM BEFORE THE OFFICIAL VOTE You claim it exists. Produce it. Why? There wouldn't be anything in the actual subpoena that isn't in the subpoena letter, except maybe an address. FOIA requests take a couple months and cost like $50. Subpoenas are published, public court documents. You don't need a FOIA request. Stop making excuses. It is a matter of public record. It never existed and you CAN'T PROVE it did. Just because some one wrote a note saying yeah we totally had that subpoena doesn't make it an actionable, filed, and processed court document. PRODUCE THE SUBPOENA FROM BEFORE THE OFFICIAL VOTE I see lots of presumptions, assumptions, and beliefs, but just because the Subpoena isn't on the internet is not proof that it doesn't exist. |
|
|
|
It's not called a subpoena. It's called a subpoena letter. The subpoena letter is in reference to the enclosed subpoena. Then... PRODUCE THE SUBPOENA FROM BEFORE THE OFFICIAL VOTE You claim it exists. Produce it. Why? There wouldn't be anything in the actual subpoena that isn't in the subpoena letter, except maybe an address. FOIA requests take a couple months and cost like $50. |
|
|
|
For your level of expertise on subpoenas it's surprising you still think that the dems were using a cover letter as the actual subpoena. They aren't. Those letters are included with the actual subpoena to define scope.
Just because it's public record doesn't mean it's on the internet. You could request a copy of the subpoena by making a FOIA request with the state department which takes a couple months. I don't really see the point though, it won't say anything that's not included in the letter that was sent with the subpoena. Cover letters include a description of contents, usually including page numbers, that is the purpose of a cover letter. Also they are usually labeled as such. Now your strategy is to downgrade this from a subpoena to a cover letter? Just admit it was a lie and you believed it. If you are so sure I am wrong produce the subpoena. A FOIA is not required for published, public documents, as the vast majority of court records are. How many more excuses can you think up to justify the fact you cant produce the actual subpoena? You're confusing a cover letter with a table of contents. The letter you keep saying isn't a subpoena is the letter that was sent along with the subpoena. You're right about it not being a subpoena, but your wrong to conclude that it's existence is evidence that there is no subpoena. There's nothing to gain by sending a subpoena letter without a subpoena, but if that were to happen, the person who received the subpoena letter wouldn't argue that the subpoena was unlawful (which is what's happening). If it's a letter without a subpoena, but it is called a subpoena, they would certainly state that it is not a lawful subpoena. It's not called a subpoena. It's called a subpoena letter. The subpoena letter is in reference to the enclosed subpoena. |
|
|
|
For your level of expertise on subpoenas it's surprising you still think that the dems were using a cover letter as the actual subpoena. They aren't. Those letters are included with the actual subpoena to define scope.
Just because it's public record doesn't mean it's on the internet. You could request a copy of the subpoena by making a FOIA request with the state department which takes a couple months. I don't really see the point though, it won't say anything that's not included in the letter that was sent with the subpoena. Cover letters include a description of contents, usually including page numbers, that is the purpose of a cover letter. Also they are usually labeled as such. Now your strategy is to downgrade this from a subpoena to a cover letter? Just admit it was a lie and you believed it. If you are so sure I am wrong produce the subpoena. A FOIA is not required for published, public documents, as the vast majority of court records are. How many more excuses can you think up to justify the fact you cant produce the actual subpoena? You're confusing a cover letter with a table of contents. The letter you keep saying isn't a subpoena is the letter that was sent along with the subpoena. You're right about it not being a subpoena, but your wrong to conclude that it's existence is evidence that there is no subpoena. There's nothing to gain by sending a subpoena letter without a subpoena, but if that were to happen, the person who received the subpoena letter wouldn't argue that the subpoena was unlawful (which is what's happening). |
|
|
|
How likely do you think it is that congress sent a letter that references "the enclosed subpoena" without enclosing a subpoena?
Will you assume that a subpoena was enclosed with the letter if a federal judge rules on it without any mention of whether or not the actual document was served? I don't care about your totally arbitrary statistical projections. A subpoena is a legal document, and a matter of public record. I maintain it does not exist, and have not reviewed any document that would have force of law. Your premise seems to be that the subpoena exists, you just can't find it, or refuse to look for it. I am not sure how I am supposed to prove the non-existence of something to you, but you can certainly prove the existence of the subpoena to me (if it actually existed). You have the burden of proof. Just keep looking, you are sure of yourself, you will find it eventually.... right? For your level of expertise on subpoenas it's surprising you still think that the dems were using a cover letter as the actual subpoena. They aren't. Those letters are included with the actual subpoena to define scope. Just because it's public record doesn't mean it's on the internet. You could request a copy of the subpoena by making a FOIA request with the state department which takes a couple months. I don't really see the point though, it won't say anything that's not included in the letter that was sent with the subpoena. |
|
|
|
How likely do you think it is that congress sent a letter that references "the enclosed subpoena" without enclosing a subpoena? Will you assume that a subpoena was enclosed with the letter if a federal judge rules on it without any mention of whether or not the actual document was served? |
|
|
|
ps that is because the subpoena doesn't even exist? I guess we will never know because you can't produce it, and you are fine with just believing whatever you are told by people with a history of lying to the American people. It is a public record, a court document. If it exists you should have no trouble finding it.
Even if I could find the subpoena, how would you know it was real unless you were able to hold the physical document?. I guess you really will never know. |
|
|
|
You really going to go with the "if the subpoena isn't on the internet then it must not exist" theory?
Who got it into your head that the cover letter for the subpoena was proof the subpoena wasn't an actual subpoena? No I am going to go with it is a public document and if it exists you should have no problem producing it theory. Where are all the Congressional subpoenas located? If you know of a repository for all of them let me know please. Not going to go file a FOIA. Every committee has a website link to the work and work in progress. They only post subpoena letters though, not the actual subpoenas. https://intelligence.house.gov/news/documentsingle.aspx?DocumentID=710Click here to read the subpoena letter.
Click here to read the deposition letter. |
|
|
|
You really going to go with the "if the subpoena isn't on the internet then it must not exist" theory?
Who got it into your head that the cover letter for the subpoena was proof the subpoena wasn't an actual subpoena? No I am going to go with it is a public document and if it exists you should have no problem producing it theory. Where are all the Congressional subpoenas located? If you know of a repository for all of them let me know please. Not going to go file a FOIA. |
|
|
|
Looks like Ocala, FL is #1. Pretty sure they are very, very red. Most big cities are blue, so it would make sense that most gun violence in cities with 250k+ people would be blue.  |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
