Congratulations, you found more people talking about subpoenas. that subpoena was never valid as evidenced by this reply.
No, all that they had was a bunch of "opinion" which is meaningless. Of the only court case they tried to use, the ruling was because of the scope of congresses request and the court implied if they had narrowed it, they might have had a better case and won. As a result of stepping outside the bounds of what they were permitted, the Court decided that they violated the constitution in terms of free speech and press. This impeachment is a completely different beast and nothing about that case is applicable. No, its called "law" upon which all of your claims are dependent. What you have are opinions. None of those subpoenas were valid or enforceable. This whole issue of ambiguity was the entire intent for issuing them as I explained from the start. It was designed to give the impression of moving forward with impeachment while not actually doing so and giving the executive and the Republican party the authority to subpoena their own evidence and witnesses which would destroy the dems. Even after the vote here they are running a one sided sham excuse for due process. MORE: "Biden Blames Staff For Not Flagging Burisma Concerns; Says We Should Just Trust Hunter And Not Investigate" https://www.zerohedge.com/political/biden-blames-staff-not-flagging-burisma-concerns-says-we-should-just-trust-hunter-and-not |
|
|
|
I believe that in this case, bid stands (is not rejected), the winner just needs to choose another initials/word.
I get what you are saying here. IMO it's more like accepted or rejected words, rather than more/less preferred ones by the maker. However, BitcoinPenny is the "official" here to answer that Thank you for your completely ineffectual interjection. The same problem still applies, if the bidder can not get their preferred initials, then obviously that would effect the willingness to bid, as well as the amount. Are you a bidder? No, but seeing as an auction is an open offer to contract, I am an interested party regardless. |
|
|
|
I believe that in this case, bid stands (is not rejected), the winner just needs to choose another initials/word.
I get what you are saying here. IMO it's more like accepted or rejected words, rather than more/less preferred ones by the maker. However, BitcoinPenny is the "official" here to answer that Thank you for your completely ineffectual interjection. The same problem still applies, if the bidder can not get their preferred initials, then obviously that would effect the willingness to bid, as well as the amount. |
|
|
|
0.023BTC TRUMP
NOTE: We reserve the right to refuse any choice of initials which we deem to be morally offensive
 It might be a good idea to require a public statement of the initials/word with each bid and accept or reject them before the auction finishes, otherwise essentially one could just use those bids to drive the price up then reject them for a inscription more personally favorable to the manufacturer while still keeping the inflated price. I am not suggesting BitcoinPenny would do this, but there really would be no way to know for sure. Can you please confirm if you would accept or reject this submission? |
|
|
|
A historical note from Jet Cash
The reason that so many pirates wore eye patches during the day, was to preserve night vision in one eye. Shielding it from sunlight strengthens night vision, and this was valuable to them, as a lot of their action was nocturnal.
Actually it was so they could go below deck and fight in the dark with the night vision preserved in one eye, but close enough. |
|
|
|
|
Suddenly everyone is worried about due process and integrity when it is eddie13 making a claim, but when the usual goon squad so much as farts in the direction of a user you people are falling all over each other to burn reputations down. You wonder why no one takes the local bitstasi seriously.
|
|
|
|
A reply of yours, quoted below, was deleted by the starter of a self-moderated topic. There are no rules of self-moderation, so this deletion cannot be appealed. Do not continue posting in this topic if the topic-starter has requested that you leave.
You can create a new topic if you are unsatisfied with this one. If the topic-starter is scamming, post about it in Scam Accusations.
Quote
I got it!!!!
Trump was the second gunman on the Grassy Knoll!
Trump killed JFK!
Why do you even participate in those censorious threads when a free version is available? All you do is enable that kind of behavior by doing so. |
|
|
|
A warning that you are multi-posting like there is when new posts have been made while you are typing a reply, I think would be a great way to help reduce multi-posting but not inhibit use significantly.
Trust me nobody keeps the habit of multi-posting, after 1 / 2 interventions from the moderator, he's changing the way. Obviously, but the idea is to reduce the need for moderator intervention in the first place. Most of the multi-posts I see are often a result of people clicking quote reply to multiple replies and forgetting to combine them in to one post. This reminder might be useful as I think people often do this just spacing out and don't think to combine them. |
|
|
|
|
A warning that you are multi-posting like there is when new posts have been made while you are typing a reply, I think would be a great way to help reduce multi-posting but not inhibit use significantly.
|
|
|
|
|
You might want to clarify the media it is on as it doesn't appear standard. Nice painting though.
|
|
|
|
No I am calling you a moron because 7% weekly is in no way an unrealistic return, especially in those days.
If my math is right, 7% a week == ~3,300% APY and you would more than 100x your investment in 2 years. If I'm wrong, I'm pretty sure I'm low. 7% weekly is nuts though. Because math. We really need a new thread for this. Or maybe if TECSHARE asks nicely TMAN will unlock the Ponzi Fans thread. Who said anything about it lasing for 2 years? Convenient you just get to arbitrarily define a time frame again totally in hindsight to cast the situation in as totally as a negative light as possible and just hide behind "math" as if I disagree with you I am arguing against science. This is pathetic levels of slander and logical fallacy. Question...
Were ponzis, or advertising for ponzis, even red trusted, or "scammer tagged" back then?
How "Wild West" was the era of the time?
Exactly, none of these turds were there. People then and some now still consider all of cryptocurrency a ponzi. It is really easy to call all the shots when they are already passed. |
|
|
|
They probably already have such a database built, with all the face unlock on phones and facial recognition on social media. I understand the implications and it is indeed a slippery slope. The technology itself is harmless and can be used for things like finding missing people, etc.
I don't live in the US, do the public there have a way to stop this from being implemented or a way to reduce the risk of it being misused?
And currently you can still opt out of using such products. You can't really opt out of government and passively collected databases though like they do at the DMV and now airports. People can raise awareness of the endless negative implications of this technology and get legislation passed to protect against it like some states have done. No technology is harmless. You can build a house with a hammer or you can cave some one's head in with it. This gives the hammer no moral value. Technology is a tool and its use depends on the motives of those that control it. At least the face recog is not yet required there in the US and you have more chance of having laws passed against it. Do you think laws can be used to have them destroy passively collected data? Some states already have laws against it, but at the same time the DMV has been collecting high resolution photos usable for facial recognition for some time. Why do you think they put up those signs that say "don't smile please" it is because it throws off the metrics. See also the "REAL ID Act". |
|
|
|
doesn't typically have to provide information relating to subpoenas if they are to deem it executive privilege. (Which is obviously then tested in court, it is currently being tested)
The Supreme Court has already ruled in the past on this and executive privilege, what they can withhold, is narrowly limited to certain things in the case of impeachment (at least I think's that what it is. could be for oversight in general). Their main reasoning for withholding things seemed to do a side step around that and instead said the entire inquiry etc was invalid and talked about due process. And again. They turned over documents to citizens but not the same sort of stuff to congress. If you're referring to the case about the Mueler report, that's different. That's about whether private Grand Jury testimony can be made available for impeachment. There's also previous case law for that and it was in favor of congress getting it for impeachment. The impeachment trial is considered a judiciary proceeding. Since the investigation and articles of impeachment are required for the trial, all of what the congress does also falls into that. Some Rule 6e about grand jury testimony has an exception for judicial proceedings. So that case will only fail if the dems screw up in some way, or the appeals court etc somehow decides to completely overturn previous case law. If they don't, I doubt the supreme court will hear the case. If they do, then the supreme court probably would. Yeah those pesky step arounds. You mean like the "step around" where Pelosi refused to hold a vote on starting an impeachment inquiry until just recently, actually making all the "subpoenas" issued before this date legally invalid? Funny how the letter of the law is only important when the ends justify the means. |
|
|
|
the subpoenas issued to the executive
The DOD is part of the executive branch. The subpoena was issued to someone from the DOD, thus the "executive". The DOD also used "executive privilege" in their bitch letter. DOJ is part of the executive branch. Subpoenas were issued to them to get unredacted grand jury testimony from the Mueler report as part of the impeachment inquiry. The executive made the same sort of arguments and they've lost the case on multiple points. Course it's not going to be completely resolved until some time next year but it will most likely come down to the main point of whether or not the private information can be made available and nothing to do with whether the subpoena or request is legal or not. controlled by your emotions and are unable to rely on logic.
Says the person who will not admit he was wrong about there being no subpoenas issued at all or that there is a high degree of at least circumstantial proof that the the Rudy/Pompeo subpoenas exist given they've said they do. That's some awesome high level reasoning and logic coming from you. The response from the executive branch seems to be saying exactly what I have been. Funny how that all gets glossed over and dismissed as "bitching". "Dear Mr. Levin: I understand that you have been retained by Ms. Laura Cooper, the Departments Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Russia, Ukraine, and Eurasia, as her private counsel for a deposition to be conducted jointly by the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, the Committee on Foreign Affairs, and the Committee on Oversight and Reform, [P]ursuant to the House of Representatives 'impeachment inquiry. The Department's October 15, 2019 letter to the of the three House Committees [Tab A] expressed its belief that the customary process of oversight and accommodation has historically served the interests of congressional oversight committees and the Department well. The Committees' purported impeachment inquiry, however, presents at least two issues of great importance. The first issue is the Committees' continued, blanket refusal to allow Department Counsel to be present at depositions of Department employees. Department Counsel's participation protects against the improper release of privileged or classified information, particularly material covered by the executive privilege which is the President's alone to assert and to waive. Excluding Department Counsel places the witness in the untenable position of having to decide whether to answer the Committees' questions or to assert Executive Branch confidentiality interests without an attorney from the Executive Branch present to advise on those interests. It violates settled practice and may jeopardize future accommodation. Furthermore, the Department of Justice has concluded that "congressional subpoenas that purport to require agency employees to appear without agency counsel are legally invalid and are not subject to civil or criminal enforcement. See Attempted Exclusion of Congressional Depositions of Agency Employees, 43 Op. OL. C.(May23,2019) [Tab B].
The second issue is the absence of authority for the Committees to conduct an impeachment inquiry. In its October 15, 2019 letter, the Department conveyed concerns about the Committees' lack of authority to initiate an impeachment inquiry given the absence of a delegation of such authority by House Rule or Resolution. This correspondence echoed an October 8, 2019 letter from the White House Counsel [Tab C] expressing the President's view that the inquiry was to the Constitution of the United States and all past bipartisan precedent and “violates fundamental fairness and constitutionally mandated due process. "This letter informs you and Ms. Cooper of the Administration-wide direction that Executive Branch personnel can not participate in impeachment] inquiry under these circumstances [Tab C]. In the event that the Committees issue a subpoena to compel Ms. Cooper's appearance, you should be aware that the Supreme Court has held, in United States v.
Rumely, 345 U.S. 41 (1953), that a person can not be sanctioned for refusing to comply with a congressional subpoena unauthorized by House Rule or Resolution.To reiterate, the Department respects the oversight role of Congress and stands ready to work with the Committees should there be an appropriate resolution of outstanding legal issues. Any such resolution would have to consider the constitutional prerogatives and confidentiality interests of the co-equal Executive Branch, see [Tab D] and ensure fundamental fairness to any Executive Branch employees involved in this process, including Ms. Cooper." https://www.justsecurity.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/11/ukraine-clearinghouse-2019.10.22.WH-letter-to-Cooper.pdfCooper was never compelled, and that subpoena was never valid as evidenced by this reply. Just because she volunteered to testify (against orders BTW) has no bearing on the validity of the subpoena. |
|
|
|
Careful you don't trip over each other too hard in your unquenchable thirst to come at me bros. I really hope you take the bet just so I can laugh at you when you lose. You crazy kids don't suck each other off too hard or your lips will fall off.
Can you read? I've already taken the bet, it's just a matter of ironing out the details with eddie13. I had a good laugh at you when Republicans won the 2018 midterms so I'd be happy to return the favor. Not sure what your sexual fantasies have to do with the election but whatever floats your boat. Yeah that was pretty impressive how you lost the senate. Blue wave all the way. Stay thirsty. |
|
|
|
If Trump loses, he will say he won. Doesn't matter the reason he gives, TECSHARE will believe whatever Trump says and you won't be able to reason with him no matter how hard you try. If he were to pay you, that would be the same as him saying Trump is wrong and admitting he was wrong, because he will cling to whatever the first excuse Trump gives and defend it at all costs - he's not capable of admitting either of those things. You're in for a massive headache if you don't agree on an arbitrator before hand.
My bet offer is to eddie13 only. Not to TECSHARE or anyone else. At first glance I may have some objections like, why do I have to lose if Trump dies? The last thing I need to do is put another .1 BTC on his head.. Or, if them aliunz finally come for our rectums?
What if the rapture happens and Trump floats into the sky?
Well, you're the one betting on him winning  I don't even know who is running against him so why would I have to lose if Bernie croaks or Biden is outed as a kiddie fiddler? But I would admit that you would win if something like that happens. I'm an idiot.
I thought you were making the bet with TECSHARE.
Carry on and ignore me.
Yeah not in a million years without escrow, you'd be right about that one.On a second thought, I'd probably take it up just to be able to call TECSHARE a scammer  Careful you don't trip over each other too hard in your unquenchable thirst to come at me bros. I really hope you take the bet just so I can laugh at you when you lose. You crazy kids don't suck each other off too hard or your lips will fall off. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
