Your concept of burden of proof is so twisted I am not sure what the point is.
I'm going to say this one more time. The burden of proof is yours. So prove it. Burden of Proof
A fallacy is when someone makes an argument based on unsound reasoning. Burden of proof is one type of fallacy in which someone makes a claim, but puts the burden of proof onto the other side. For example, a person makes a claim. Another person refutes the claim, and the first person asks them to prove that the claim is not true. In a logical argument, if someone states a claim, it is up to that person to prove the truth of his or her claim.
A negative claim is a colloquialism for an affirmative claim that asserts the non-existence or exclusion of something. The difference with a positive claim is that it takes only a single example to demonstrate such a positive assertion ("there is a chair in this room," requires pointing to a single chair), while the inability to give examples demonstrates that the speaker has not yet found or noticed examples rather than demonstrates that no examples exist (the negative claim that a species is extinct may be disproved by a single surviving example or proven with omniscience). The argument from ignorance is a logical fallacy. There can be multiple claims within a debate. Nevertheless, it has been said whoever makes a claim carries the burden of proof regardless of positive or negative content in the claim.
All your dancing around is nothing more than that. The burden of proof is yours as you can provide it but refuse to. |
|
|
|
What do you think Viper1, what does "clerk" mean?
I know exactly who it is. You don't as you didn't do the research which was clear from you throwing out court of law references for congressional subpoenas. Then tell me, what is "clerk", and what is their job? I have said on multiple occasions I'm not going to hold your hand. I asked you to prove your points by providing information from actual government documents and you said you wouldn't. And now you're trying to get me to do it for you. No. I spent hours pouring over documents. Do your own research. I can only assume based on your refusal to take action and prove your points that you have zero interest in the truth about any of this. |
|
|
|
One question Nutilduhhh... what is a "clerk"? Both of these documents are signed by "clerk" What do you think that means Nutilduhhhhhhhhh.
If you had read all the government documents as I had, you would know what it means and know the exceptions as well. But you failed to do that and said you wouldn't when pressed. Here's a hint. It's not the same as what happens in terms of a court of law subpoena as it's a congressional subpoena. So have you requested the subpoenas you claim don't exist in order to prove your point? Where's your proof that Pompeo said bigfoot exists? What do you think Viper1, what does "clerk" mean? I know exactly who it is. You don't as you didn't do the research which was clear from you throwing out court of law references for congressional subpoenas. |
|
|
|
One question Nutilduhhh... what is a "clerk"? Both of these documents are signed by "clerk" What do you think that means Nutilduhhhhhhhhh.
If you had read all the government documents as I had, you would know what it means and know the exceptions as well. But you failed to do that and said you wouldn't when pressed. Here's a hint. It's not the same as what happens in terms of a court of law subpoena as it's a congressional subpoena. So have you requested the subpoenas you claim don't exist in order to prove your point? Where's your proof that Pompeo said bigfoot exists? |
|
|
|
Oh yeah hearsay is not admissible.
Yes it is in some instances. Including things like "self authenticating" documents of which there is a long list. Regardless, Pompeo and Rudy's documents can be considered circumstantial evidence. |
|
|
|
This is not the same as proving the toothfairy doesn't exist so stop trying to use that sort of bullshit argument. You can prove it doesn't exist by requesting it. So get off your ass and do it. Prove your claim by showing you can't get it. Mike Pompeo says Bigfoot is real.
You claim he said bigfoot is real. Prove it by providing the statement. So you are saying I can prove the tooth fairy doesn't exist by requesting it? Ok then. You are the one claiming the tooth fairy exists. It is your job to prove it, not my job to prove there is no tooth fairy. Would sock puppets help explain this or? Nice attempt to change what I said to suit your purposes. You can actually prove your claim by requesting the document. So go ahead and prove it to all of us. You're the one that has made a definitive claim, I don't believe any of us have. And again... You claim Pompeo said bigfoot is real. Prove it by providing the statement. |
|
|
|
Stop for a moment. Think step by step. According to you step one is I claimed the subpoenas don't exist.
1. I claim subpoenas don't exist.
Why would I do this? Is it not a requirement for me to claim something does NOT exist that some one at some previous point in time claimed it DID exist? Or is your suggestion that one day I was sitting alone and wanted to talk about subpoenas not existing randomly? You are doing the logical equivalent of standing on your head and pissing.
Step two
2. I have the burden of proof to prove the subpoenas didn't exist.
You insist, based on "logic" that I must prove the negative.
Reality:
1. Some one claimed to issue subpoenas
2. You and your friends repeated it blindly as fact here
3. I asked for proof they ever existed
4. Seemingly endless excuses and gnashing of teeth trying to avoid the fact that no one can find the actual public court documents anywhere
This is not the same as proving the toothfairy doesn't exist so stop trying to use that sort of bullshit argument. You can prove it doesn't exist by requesting it. So get off your ass and do it. Prove your claim by showing you can't get it. Mike Pompeo says Bigfoot is real.
You claim he said bigfoot is real. Prove it by providing the statement. |
|
|
|
Prove something that doesn't exist, doesn't exist? Is that how you think logic works?
You keep saying that but in this case your argument is bullshit. You can certainly prove the subpoenas exists or doesn't by requesting them. If they don't exist, they'll tell you that.. So backup your baseless claim and do it. You made the original claim and you can prove it so stop trying to deflect to some false logic argument. Where's your proof that Pompeo said bigfoot exists? I made the original claim... that the subpoenas didn't exist before the claim was made... that they did exist? Is that what you are telling me? You claimed they don't exist. You can prove your claim by requesting them. If they don't exists, they'll tell you. As far as I know, you're the only one that has made a definitive statement as to them existing or not existing. You can prove your claim so do it. Where's your proof that Pompeo said bigfoot exists? |
|
|
|
Prove something that doesn't exist, doesn't exist? Is that how you think logic works?
You keep saying that but in this case your argument is bullshit. You can certainly prove the subpoenas exists or doesn't by requesting them. If they don't exist, they'll tell you that.. So backup your baseless claim and do it. You made the original claim and you can prove it so stop trying to deflect to some false logic argument. Where's your proof that Pompeo said bigfoot exists? |
|
|
|
If it existed on the internet, then yes, we would have. Just because something doesn't exist on the internet doesn't mean it doesn't exist. You really have completely fallen into a flat earther type argument where if somebody can't prove something to your liking then the earth must be flat. Mike Pompeo can't be irrelevant because he is the one who received said subpoena, as acknowledged in his letter to the house committee: https://i.imgur.com/P53g4Nh.pngThat looks like a "repository for every single piece of information that is "publicly available" and released" by the house. Interesting.
Surprise: its not. So expecting you to prove your premise that these subpoenas were real makes me a flat Earther? Is that what we are going with now? The non-existence of the subpoena is independent of Mike Pompeo. How many months do you need to find it? Just give me a number. You're so dense. You could have simply said that all along you were referring to the letter implying there were subpoenas for depositions when there wasn't but that it's most likely the document request one exists as the WH and Pompeo acknowledge it exists. You could have had your "win". Instead you've doubled down that NONE exist and now just look like a total fool. Carry on though. You just keep showing everyone that nothing you say can be taken seriously. Prove none exists by requesting them. Where's the proof Pompeo said bigfoot exists. A picture is not a statement by him. |
|
|
|
The WH letter also acknowledged the subpoena but argued that it wasn't for legislative purposes and that the inquiry was illegitimate so it didn't have to be honored. They're all liars apparently.
Should also be noted that the court ruled in favor of the impeachment inquiry in terms of handing over the unredacted Muelar report so they could fulfill their oversight/impeachment responsibilities. Mike Pompeo said, The White House said, Pelosi said. What does the public record say? We are talking about a public document that is required to be filed in a court of public record in order to be a valid subpoena. What people say is irrelevant. What is relevant is the public record. You can not produce it and you refuse to give a reasonable time frame for producing it, and you insist this is a reasonable logic based argument. Unless I can prove the negative of the premise you have the burden of proof of proving, but can not, then clearly you must be right? What? You made the statement that it doesn't exist so prove it by requesting it. I provided you the link where you can do it. It's your responsibility to prove it doesn't exist by trying to request it and then you can prove everyone that has said it exists is a liar. In this case, not being able to prove something doesn't exists simply doesn't apply since you can prove it by requesting it. As for when, nutildah already showed that some can take a year or more to just show up on the internet and even then it's not guaranteed. It's a public record. They have no obligation to stick it on the internet when it can be requested. And where's your proof that Pompeo said bigfoot is real. Backup it up. |
|
|
|
|
The WH letter also acknowledged the subpoena but argued that it wasn't for legislative purposes and that the inquiry was illegitimate so it didn't have to be honored. They're all liars apparently.
Should also be noted that the court ruled in favor of the impeachment inquiry in terms of handing over the unredacted Muelar report so they could fulfill their oversight/impeachment responsibilities.
|
|
|
|
a public court record is just mysteriously unpublished and unavailable to ANYONE?
I'll say it again. You made the initial claim it does not exist. The burden of proof is yours. So here you go. Prove to us you can't get it cause it doesn't exist. https://www.foia.gov/That's not how burden of proof works. Your premise is the subpoenas existed. You have the burden to prove they existed. I don't have the burden to prove a negative, that they never existed. Don't ever lecture me about logic again if this is the kind of tripe you are trying to sell. 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. |
|
|
|
a public court record is just mysteriously unpublished and unavailable to ANYONE?
I'll say it again. You made the initial claim it does not exist. The burden of proof is yours. So here you go. Prove to us you can't get it cause it doesn't exist. https://www.foia.gov/ |
|
|
|
Mike Pompeo says Bigfoot is real.
Prove it. Burden of proof is on you to backup your claim. |
|
|
|
So it Pompeo lying or wrong?
He refuses to answer the question because he would have to admit he might be wrong which would burst the alternate reality bubble he lives in. According to him, everyone is lying and misleading. Schiff. The WH, Pompeo, the media. Everyone except him. Delusion at it's best. |
|
|
|
Technically you are full of shit.
 |
|
|
|
No, you are discussing whether Pompeo received a subpoena or not.
Good. I'm glad you finally dropped it.
Report breaking down why the "Guccifer 2" DNC "hack" was actually a local leak and could not have been a remote hack. “The metadata established several facts in this regard with granular precision: On the evening of July 5, 2016, 1,976 megabytes of data were downloaded from the DNC’s server. The operation took 87 seconds. This yields a transfer rate of 22.7 megabytes per second. These statistics are matters of record and essential to disproving the hack theory. No Internet service provider, such as a hacker would have had to use in mid-2016, was capable of downloading data at this speed.” https://www.thenation.com/article/a-new-report-raises-big-questions-about-last-years-dnc-hack/I'll read that article later. I read the article, and also this one https://consortiumnews.com/2017/07/24/intel-vets-challenge-russia-hack-evidence/ and also the original write up the guy who did all the leg work wrote: https://theforensicator.wordpress.com/guccifer-2-ngp-van-metadata-analysis/So the entire claim is based on someone downloading 1.9 gigs of data from a DNC server in 87 seconds on July 5, 2016. The speed of the download was faster than isps provided at the time, so it must have been done by someone physically at the same place as the server. The original report says: it is unlikely that this initial data transfer could have been done remotely over the Internet. And the articles say it was physically impossible. Let's just assume it's physically impossible though and the transfer was done in person. Since the report and article were written, we have the indictment of the hackers, which spells out in great detail how the Russians obtained access to the emails as well as info on who exactly the hackers were, the hackers servers, VPNs, the bitcoin transactions they used to pay for them, where they got the bitcoins from, all the fake names the used, the google searches they made, the email addresses they used and how they went about disguising the data dump to appear to come from a non-Russian hacker. I just don't see how the fact that someone downloaded 1.9 gigs in person from the DNC servers on July 5th is proof that the Russians didn't hack the DNC and DCCC. We have an extremely detailed FBI indictment, based on hundreds of domestic and international experts, search warrants, subpoenas showing tons of different aspects of how and when the hacks took place. And 2 anonymous guys who figured out that 1.9 g of data that was eventually leaked was also downloaded in person. Obviously your mind will never be changed, but seriously read the entire indictment, you'll at least see that the scope of the hacks is a hell of a lot bigger than a single 1.9g download: https://www.justice.gov/file/1080281/downloadI still consider the "Russia didn't hack the DNC" a crazy and mostly debunked conspiracy theory. The problem with all these things is that unless you know exactly how it was performed, all you end up with is theories to feed into bias. For example, you can sure as hell transfer a file that size to say an amazon server in 87 seconds. When going serve to server I certainly haven't used slow downloads/transfers methods. I've copied things from "root" level access to regular access areas prior to transferring. They keep talking about how the servers are "most likely" on the east coast. I've had west coast and european server I set to be east coast time as it made things consistent and easier to work with. zip and rar utilities are available on Linux systems and on and on it goes and I'm not even all that knowledgeable in these things. So again, unless there is actual information about HOW it was performed, it's all just conjecture which feeds in perfectly for the conspiracy people since they don't know any better. |
|
|
|
You. Have. The. Burden. of. Proof.
PRODUCE THE SUBPOENA
Technically no. You made the initial claim and are required to provide proof of your claim. Just because you made a claim you couldn't back up based on something currently not available doesn't change that. Can you guess which fallacy you committed from the start? But carry on with your conspiracy theory. |
|
|
|
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.
https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/ad-hominemWasn't talking to you. As a side note, as you constantly use logical fallacies in your insane rantings, pointing out them in others is just meaningless. I know it's exciting when you find something new to use in your trolling but in reality, it's just pathetic. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
