Great. Document the ACTUAL subpoena then if it exists. Enjoy your snipe hunt. 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? |
|
|
|
It says "we are hereby transmitting a subpoena". When he says "this subpoena" in the next paragraph, he's referring to the subpoena that is being transmitted, not the actual document you're reading. The same language "this subpoena" is used in the letter to Epser, which is clearly not a subpoena since it concludes with "the enclosed subpoena".
It's totally standard to include a letter explaining what the subpoena is all about since the actual subpoena doesn't have much detail.
I've been subpoenaed.
Oh good lord. So are you telling me that his reams and reams of posting about this thing can be summed up by as him deflecting to the cover letter as opposed to the other piece of paper which is the enclosed subpoena? He could have simply said that and ended the entire topic? I do note that the other letter also had enclosures. So much wasted time. I imagine TECSHARE really believed that Schiff decided to send a 'fake subpoena' because he knew that the whole thing was an illegal witch hunt but maybe they'd think the fake subpoena was a real subpoena. In reality he probably could've just sent a letter saying THIS IS YOUR SUBPOENA and it would still be binding. That letter used the same terminology and some enclosures. I'm still waiting for TECH to provide proof of what the subpoena is supposed to contain/look like. Not going to hold his hand though. It was entertaining for awhile to play his game but I'm over it. Oh I'm sure he'll just admit he was wrong, learn from his mistake and move on like the man he is. |
|
|
|
FBI & DOJ Statistics > claims about a post on 8chan
Funny how all the gun crime seems to happen in Democrat controlled districts if all the crazy right wingers are the violent ones.
Do the FBI and DOJ have a statistic on where all the gun crime seems to happen? |
|
|
|
It says "we are hereby transmitting a subpoena". When he says "this subpoena" in the next paragraph, he's referring to the subpoena that is being transmitted, not the actual document you're reading. The same language "this subpoena" is used in the letter to Epser, which is clearly not a subpoena since it concludes with "the enclosed subpoena".
It's totally standard to include a letter explaining what the subpoena is all about since the actual subpoena doesn't have much detail.
I've been subpoenaed.
Oh good lord. So are you telling me that his reams and reams of posting about this thing can be summed up by as him deflecting to the cover letter as opposed to the other piece of paper which is the enclosed subpoena? He could have simply said that and ended the entire topic? I do note that the other letter also had enclosures. So much wasted time. I imagine TECSHARE really believed that Schiff decided to send a 'fake subpoena' because he knew that the whole thing was an illegal witch hunt but maybe they'd think the fake subpoena was a real subpoena. In reality he probably could've just sent a letter saying THIS IS YOUR SUBPOENA and it would still be binding. |
|
|
|
Don't know what you're saying. The "letter" he claims is not a subpoena says it's a subpoena and is authorized by the committee via all those sorts of signatures. It says "we are hereby transmitting a subpoena". When he says "this subpoena" in the next paragraph, he's referring to the subpoena that is being transmitted, not the actual document you're reading. The same language "this subpoena" is used in the letter to Epser, which is clearly not a subpoena since it concludes with "the enclosed subpoena". It's totally standard to include a letter explaining what the subpoena is all about since the actual subpoena doesn't have much detail. I've been subpoenaed. |
|
|
|
You're right, that's a letter not a subpoena. The subpoena would've been sent along with the letter explaining everything. (idiot  ) The document he provided is for a court of law, not for oversight/impeachment. The "letter" states it's a subpoena and has all the information required in it. The government form he provided as "proof" was just the form. On the page itself it states it is only meant as a sample for the information required for a hearing. I provided the senate handbook which has an impeachment subpoena in the form of a letter. He has yet to provide any government documents that states exactly what is required for a subpoena and has said he won't. So basically, he refused to back up his claim and dances around it instead. So now there's no point continuing. Na, the subpoena would be enclosed with that letter. It's like a cover letter. They come in a big envelope with a bunch of other legal stuff about your rights and reference material. |
|
|
|
I'll read that article later. You're right, that's a letter not a subpoena. The subpoena would've been sent along with the letter explaining everything. (idiot ) |
|
|
|
What the fuck are you even rambling on about "digital evidence". No one is talking about "digital evidence" but you. What is important is the FBI has FIRST HAND KNOWLEDGE by PERSONALLY INSPECTING the servers, not simply taking the report of a private Democrat party affiliated security company with incentive to provide false information. One more time, it is a FACT that the FBI was never allowed to inspect the DNC's servers that were so called hacked by Russia.
You should really read the indictment of the 19 Russian hackers. The only way that Russia was not involved in hacking the DNC is if the FBI literally just made a ton of shit up. It's only 30 pages: https://www.justice.gov/file/1080281/download . It's really pretty interesting all the different ways they tracked them down - Mueller def had some Bitcoin sleuths on his team. Also, the email dumps are pretty solid evidence that the DNC servers were hacked. Unless you're suggesting the DNC dumped their own emails in 2016 before the election? Why would they do that? They obviously have shit loads of evidence that go beyond just the DNC servers, btw. I'm sure a decent chunk of the 2800 subpoenas, 500 search warrants and 500 witnesses were related to the Russians (they did a lot of business in the country). Speaking of "digital evidence" the files in question were copied at rates indicating they were copied via a USB thumb drive, not via the internet, of course that kind of "digital evidence" doesn't matter when it contradicts your story of course.
I'd like to see that. Honestly I'm totally open read whatever evidence is out there and if it seems strong enough I will absolutely change my opinion on what I think probably happened. No one said anything about Crowdstrike being run by a Russian oligarch, that is a non-sequitur and a straw man.
You quoted it yourself dude . he said "Crowdstrike owner = Ukrainian oligarch, for example.". How does Ukraine come into the story in your opinion? We did discuss the non-subpoena subpoenas issued before the official vote, and I proved conclusively they were not subpoenas but requests for information, and showed actually legally enforceable subpoenas for comparison, then you went quiet and refused to discuss the issue.
We must have went back and forth on the subpoenas 30+ times. I absolutely disagree with your logic and I'm fairly confident the subpoenas are enforceable. This is a unique situation and it's not that simple. I'm not a lawyer or a judge though, and neither are you, but I think if you were you'd understand that issues like this aren't black and white. There are far smarter and experienced people than both of us on either side of this argument. The only person that can decide conclusively is a judge. By the way, you could save yourself a lot of typing by knocking it off with all the personal attacks. Everyone already knows you think I'm less intelligent and informed than you. |
|
|
|
Crowdstrike owner = Ukrainian oligarch, for example.
I highly suggest you do some research. I'm not saying that to be a smart ass. Go try to prove yourself wrong to yourself, just start googling and clicking links and judging each source on it's own. IF you seriously think Crowdstrike is owned by a Russian Oligarch then you've been reading too many conspiracy blogs or something. |
|
|
|
Ukraine meddling with the 2016 elections.
Can you explain the "Ukraine meddled in the 2016 election" conspiracy theory for me? Do people think that it was Ukraine, not Russia that was responsible for Hillarys emails being released? I've been looking for evidence or a clear explanation but can't find anything other than the Crowdstrike stuff that has been debunked. If "debunked," why did Trump ask the Pres of Ukraine to look into it? I guess what I'm asking is this. Do you know better and more than Trump? It's basically just Trump saying "No U" to all the proof that Russia meddled in the election to help Trump get elected. Also, he could use the fact that Ukraine is investigating the DNC to legitimize the conspiracy theory and use it as ammo to attack Democrats. The whole theory really is pretty nuts. I did some more research, the theory really is that Russia was not involved, it was the DNC and Ukraine that hacked the DNC and then leaked all those DNC emails. I mean, come on. Also, Crowdstrike isn't a Ukranian company. It's located in California and publicly traded. There's no evidence that the servers are in Ukraine or were ever in Ukraine. The FBI did have access to the data from the servers. They used it as evidence to indict 12 Russian hacker for hacking the DNC and other Democrats. The indictment explains in detail exactly how they hacked the DNC. https://www.justice.gov/file/1080281/downloadThere are a ton of examples like this one: For example, on or about March 19, 2016, LUKASHEV and his co-conspirators
created and sent a spearphishing email to the chairman of the Clinton Campaign.
LUKASHEV used the account “john356gh” at an online service that abbreviated
lengthy website addresses (referred to as a “URL-shortening service”).
LUKASHEV used the account to mask a link contained in the spearphishing email,
which directed the recipient to a GRU-created website. LUKASHEV altered the
appearance of the sender email address in order to make it look like the email was
a security notification from Google (a technique known as “spoofing”), instructing
the user to change his password by clicking the embedded link. Those instructions
were followed. On or about March 21, 2016, LUKASHEV, YERMAKOV, and
their co-conspirators stole the contents of the chairman’s email account, which
consisted of over 50,000 emails. What proof? The Russia investigations are over. There never was any proof. It has been 3 years, how much more time do you need to produce it? Some one who has a story about how they think it happened is not the same thing as physical evidence, such as the hardware itself. One is a theory, the other is physical evidence. Evidence now points to a coverup within the DNC of their own crimes. The fact that they never released the server to the FBI is a significant factor. Crowdstrike has the raw data. That is why Trump mentioned it in his phone call to the Ukrainian president, because he knew this would be a good opportunity to use the countless, endless, and baseless accusations against him to draw attention to some real election meddling in 2016, including physical evidence. Now millions of people are looking into Crowdstrike as Biden's long history of pay for play deals get exposed in the process. By the way, still no comment on those non-subpoena subpoenas? Digital evidence in a computer related crime is just as valuable (and admissible in court) in a computer related crime as physical evidence in a murder. Unless you're dusting for fingerprints or checking for DNA, an image of a hard drive or server is the exact same thing as having the actual hardware. It's not like when you take a picture of a picture, where you lose a little bit of quality each time. When you image a drive it's a byte for byte exact digital duplicate. There is no way to hide anything from being digitally imaged, including data that may have been deleted but recoverable. For these reason, it's standard practice to image a drive when practical rather than physically seize it. Also, I'm pretty sure when they actually seize computers or servers, they just image the hard drive and any ram and then investigate the images. Not 100% sure how the FBI does it, but many other LE agencies do it that way. It also seems incredibly unlikely that anyone could trick the FBI digital forensics team (world class) into thinking all those hacks happened at those exact times and dates by those exact Russians. We've already discussed the subpoenas. I think they're legal, you think they're not actually subpoenas. I think a judge is going to rule on a couple soon (McGhan and Bolton I think), so we'll get to find out for sure. If I'm wrong I will definitely let you know I was wrong and you were right. |
|
|
|
Ukraine meddling with the 2016 elections.
Can you explain the "Ukraine meddled in the 2016 election" conspiracy theory for me? Do people think that it was Ukraine, not Russia that was responsible for Hillarys emails being released? I've been looking for evidence or a clear explanation but can't find anything other than the Crowdstrike stuff that has been debunked. If "debunked," why did Trump ask the Pres of Ukraine to look into it? I guess what I'm asking is this. Do you know better and more than Trump? It's basically just Trump saying "No U" to all the proof that Russia meddled in the election to help Trump get elected. Also, he could use the fact that Ukraine is investigating the DNC to legitimize the conspiracy theory and use it as ammo to attack Democrats. The whole theory really is pretty nuts. I did some more research, the theory really is that Russia was not involved, it was the DNC and Ukraine that hacked the DNC and then leaked all those DNC emails. I mean, come on. Also, Crowdstrike isn't a Ukranian company. It's located in California and publicly traded. There's no evidence that the servers are in Ukraine or were ever in Ukraine. The FBI did have access to the data from the servers. They used it as evidence to indict 12 Russian hacker for hacking the DNC and other Democrats. The indictment explains in detail exactly how they hacked the DNC. https://www.justice.gov/file/1080281/downloadThere are a ton of examples like this one: For example, on or about March 19, 2016, LUKASHEV and his co-conspirators
created and sent a spearphishing email to the chairman of the Clinton Campaign.
LUKASHEV used the account “john356gh” at an online service that abbreviated
lengthy website addresses (referred to as a “URL-shortening service”).
LUKASHEV used the account to mask a link contained in the spearphishing email,
which directed the recipient to a GRU-created website. LUKASHEV altered the
appearance of the sender email address in order to make it look like the email was
a security notification from Google (a technique known as “spoofing”), instructing
the user to change his password by clicking the embedded link. Those instructions
were followed. On or about March 21, 2016, LUKASHEV, YERMAKOV, and
their co-conspirators stole the contents of the chairman’s email account, which
consisted of over 50,000 emails. |
|
|
|
Ukraine meddling with the 2016 elections.
Can you explain the "Ukraine meddled in the 2016 election" conspiracy theory for me? Do people think that it was Ukraine, not Russia that was responsible for Hillarys emails being released? I've been looking for evidence or a clear explanation but can't find anything other than the Crowdstrike stuff that has been debunked. Yeah, just slap the word "debunked" on any problematic cognitive dissonance you encounter along the way. It makes life much easier. The FBI was never allowed access to the DNC server "The Russians" supposedly hacked. The only entity who had actually examined it an implicated the Russians based on their "analysis", that's right your "debunked" Crowd-strike. The same Crowdstrike that also has access to files deleted by the Clintons against a court order to preserve them, on a server.... in Ukraine. No connections whatsoever. Ok my bad. I guess the reason so many people consider it debunked is because the FBI indictment was incredibly detailed on exactly how and who hacked all the DNC officials and having the physical servers wouldn't be necessary to prove all of that. So you think Ukraine and the democrats were responsible for the emails getting hacked and made public before the election? Or was it someone else and they were just trying to frame Russia? |
|
|
|
Ukraine meddling with the 2016 elections.
Can you explain the "Ukraine meddled in the 2016 election" conspiracy theory for me? Do people think that it was Ukraine, not Russia that was responsible for Hillarys emails being released? I've been looking for evidence or a clear explanation but can't find anything other than the Crowdstrike stuff that has been debunked. |
|
|
|
Sorry for making the thread such a pain in the ass to read with all those screen shots. I edited the post. The reason I went through and added all those img tags is because I think they paint a pretty clear picture: Lollypop is a pretty decent person and OP is a massive douchebag that is just fucking with Lollypop. (Also seems very likely that Bastonet is alt account of OP) I encourage everyone to read through at least some of the screenshots Lollypop posted before coming to any conclusion. link to screenshots (Lollypop, you should link this in your defense thread, A long list of imgur links are a huge pain to read through. Might also be a good idea to provide an edited list of the most relevant screen shots.) Thanks for the support man. The investor found out that you were a scammer, because you developed extensivecoin and scammed investors and ran away and declared bankrupt. So the investor decided not to invest anymore. That does not warrant you swapping to another chain. If you believed in your project you should work and raise your own money and continue marketing. That you don’t invest your own money means you wanted to scam the investor by asking for and blackmailing the investor for 0.3BTC. Let me assure you that you will not scam another investor. If you like open 1000 new threads for a project, you will be exposed. Because you are a fraudster. I have told you: pack your scammy shit and go back to your Indian village. You are better off working at macdonalds or a mortuary! No need to pretend that you aren't 'the investor'. |
|
|
|
But those on the right are more like cult followers who just blindly follow along and aren't objective about anything. No wonder the US is so fucked up.
It think it would be more accurate to say Trump supporters. |
|
|
|
I actually suggested half-jokingly in some other thread that we should create a conspiracy sub-board for P&S. There is a bit of a problem with that though. Who gets to decide what is a conspiracy?
That's a trivial problem. Anything not agreeable to the mainstream media is a 'conspiracy theory'. Anything they report as the truth is not. Now shut up, get your booster vaccinations on schedule, and pay your carbon taxes to save the earth. Perhaps it needs to go the other way. Maybe P&S needs to be left as is and the more serious discussions need to move into their namesake board. This is a good idea. A " No Personal Attacks" rule would eliminate most of the nonsense. Maybe get rid of signatures also. Ah, fuck off snowflake  Seriously, that's such a nebulous concept that it is certain to cause no end of grief. Completely unnecessary as well. Just disengage and ignore if you something bothers you. Seriously! Humans are just being humans here. One of the problems with our society is that people are trying to impose norms which are not normal and inject other sources of tension like 'impossible equality' into society. My belief is that it is often a very deliberate strategy to destabilize society promoted by fairly clever people who know exactly what they are doing. Most people just accept the explaination that 'they' are just bringing ' peace'. Nothing could be farther form the truth. Personal attacks are just off topic rants without substance that make threads harder to keep up with. |
|
|
|
Like I said, this is nothing new. Just more spectacles in a long parade of individuals making claims that never pan out, and you pretend it never happened as you line up the next one.
This is all stuff that has come out today and yesterday in the transcripts they just released from last weeks hearings. Sondland is a Trump appointee that clearly had Trumps back till today. btw, wtf is up with Kentucky electing a Dem Governor? Just because it came out today doesn't mean it reveals anything new. Just more "NO U!!!1" tactics in a perpetual assembly line of accusations never amounting to anything substantive. I'm confused, you knew Sondland was lying when he said there was no quid pro quo the whole time? Or you think he's lying now? Did you also know they were focusing on the press conference more than the investigation also? That was news to me. (Or do you just not believe any of them?) |
|
|
|
Like I said, this is nothing new. Just more spectacles in a long parade of individuals making claims that never pan out, and you pretend it never happened as you line up the next one.
This is all stuff that has come out today and yesterday in the transcripts they just released from last weeks hearings. Sondland is a Trump appointee that clearly had Trumps back till today. btw, wtf is up with Kentucky electing a Dem Governor? |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
