You're the one who thinks the subpoena doesn't exist, that's why I'm asking you.
Obviously he did receive a subpoena. So did Pompeo. If they hadn't, they wouldn't have used the word "subpoena" in their letters to congress. You're the one that thinks the subpoena exists, that's why I am asking you. Obviously this is not evidence the subpoenas ever existed. Neither is Pompeo. Of course this is all court admissible documentation right? Oh yeah hearsay is not admissible. |
|
|
|
I told you five times already: I don't know. I answered your question. Now please answer my question: what is Giuliani's lawyer talking about if Giuiliani didn't receive a subpoena? https://i.imgur.com/DD4fN7I.pngI don't know Nutilduhh. I answered your question. Now tell me when you will have the subpoena. See what I did there? |
|
|
|
I also asked you how long it would take you to produce the subpoenas. What does Giuliani have to do with the existence of public court records? Either the record exists or it doesn't. You endlessly repeating people talked about it doesn't prove anything other than people talked about it. You will never produce them because they never existed. |
|
|
|
I did ask you about that subpoena. Why do you continue to believe it doesn't exist? No, you asked me about Mike Pompeo. If you had presented me the subpoena and asked me how could I deny it, you would have a point. Unfortunately you don't have a point, or any evidence it ever existed. |
|
|
|
If you had asked me that about the subpoena, you might have a point. Asking me that about anything else really is like asking how can you not believe in Bigfoot after looking at this:  |
|
|
|
After your brain substantiated that Game Protect is a scam / show, would not you withdraw your 7 pending enforcement cases? (September) My suspicion substantiated when he asked me to borrow him €10. For the second time. Or would you want Game Protect continue to enforce your 7 claims towards sportsbooks?
Creating or supporting a scammer flag is actively affirming a set of pretty clear fact-statements. If someone knowingly supports a flag containing incorrect fact-statements, then that is crystal-clear abuse, and I will seek to have such people removed from DT ASAP. People who are habitually wrong, even not knowingly, should also be removed. The below extremely mentally ill and or brain dead bitcointalk accounts persist to abuse the trust system with knowingly supporting the incorrect fact-statement that Game Protect violated a written contract, resulting in damages, around July 2019, but are not able to show the alleged written contract! h4ns alleges: game-protect violated a written contract, resulting in damages, in the specific act referenced here. game-protect did not make the victims of this act roughly whole, AND it is not the case that all of the victims forgave the act. It is not grossly inaccurate to say that the act occurred around July 2019. No previously-created flag covers this same act, unless the flag was created with inaccurate data preventing its acceptance.
Support: 1982dre, actmyname, addarmstrong, alexrossi, asphyxiate, asu, Astargath, Avirunes, babo, BayAreaCoins, BigBoy89, bL4nkcode, blurryeyed, bob123, bones261, cabalism, Captain Corporate, CASIO, ChiBitCTy, crwth, CryptopreneurBrainboss, DaveF, DiamondCardz, DireWolfM14, DreamerBT, eckmar, efialtis, examplens, Foxpup, Hakorede, HCP, Hhampuz, hopenotlate, iasenko, iluvbitcoins, Initscri, jimmyhate, JSRAW, Kalemder, Kevinn22, kruglikov, LeGaulois, LeonGhibli, LFC_Bitcoin, lighpulsar07, Lutpin, marlboroza, mindrust, Mirae, mocacinno, morvillz7z, mosprognoz, mu_enrico, NeuroticFish, nutildah, o_e_l_e_o, Pamoldar, pandukelana2712, PassThePopcorn, passwordnow, RHavar, rhomelmabini, robelneo, Rodeo02, Royse777, ScamViruS, sheenshane, Slow death, squatz1, stompix, subSTRATA, suchmoon, SyGambler, TECSHARE, The Parmasist, TheUltraElite, TMAN, TwitchySeal, whitcher_sense, WinRateCasino, xtraelv, yahoo62278, yazher, yogg, Zwei $38,000 now. You do abide by your agreements don't you? Also, who is "The Parmasist"? Is he like a superhero with the powerful smell of Parmesan cheese? I am demanding immediate payment for your licensing fees and penalties. I have the contract right here. |
|
|
|
|
So where are the subpoenas?
|
|
|
|
Just dawned on me.
The leak says 3 years ago.
2016 election.
That's the reason why it wasn't reported.
Well yeah, obviously. I mean at any point this leak is going to be shut down and silenced. This sort of leak is a major liability for the political elite. It's also a MAJOR liability for the two Pres candidates at the time of thee 2016 election - Clinton and Trump. I think it's pretty much confirmed that Clinton had been abroad his private jets and islands. I've read some conflicting info on Trump though -- as there is info that he's helped prosecutors involved in the Epstein prosecution, but there's also some info stating that he was aboard the planes and had parties with Epstein.... Who knows I guess. The only person with the info is dead now. He rode on his plane ONCE, but not to the island, just because they happened to be going the same direction. He also shortly attended ONE of his parties. Enough to see he didn't want to be involved. They has a business relationship of some kind in real-estate that was short lived and ended with conflict. That is about the sum of it. |
|
|
|
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. |
|
|
|
Why would I do that when Pompeo acknowledged receipt of said subpoena? If the subpoena doesn't exist, why would Pompeo acknowledge receiving it? https://i.imgur.com/P53g4Nh.pngWhy wouldn't you? Oh right, because you can't, because it never existed, and you have absolutely zero empirical evidence it ever existed. Why would Mike Pompeo shit in the woods? I don't know. Maybe he just had to go. 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? You have not answered the most important question of all. Where are The House issued subpoenas related to presidential impeachment issued before October 31st 2019? How long do you think is a reasonable amount of time to pass before we can affirmatively declare they never existed because there remains no evidence of their existence? It is a fact you are wrong, and you can not prove otherwise. This is very much on topic. 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. the Democrats are attempting to conduct an extralegal investigation outside the process established for impeachment in order to maintain their one sided investigation and prevent any defense from being presented. Why the fuck would Trump participate in this farce of an "investigation" completely outside of the law?
This is false. The constitution gives the House the sole power of impeachment. It doesn't specify how Impeachment proceedings should be initiated and it certainly does not give the president the right to decide whether or not his own impeachment hearings are valid. Trump took an oath to defend the constitution. By not complying with House oversight he is violating that oath and will rightfully get another impeachment article for doing so. Lindsey Graham was right:
“Article III of impeachment against Richard Nixon was based on the idea [he] failed to comply with subpoenas of Congress. Congress was going through its oversight function to provide oversight of the president. When asked for information, Richard Nixon chose not to comply and the Congress back at that time said, ‘You’re taking impeachment away from us. You’re becoming the judge and jury. It is not your job to tell us what we need. It is your job to comply with the things we need to provide oversight over you. The day Richard Nixon failed to answer that subpoena is the day that he was subject to impeachment because he took the power of Congress away from Congress and became the judge and jury.”
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. |
|
|
|
Stop being such a muskrat and admit the subpoenas don't exist. |
|
|
|
That would be the logical thing to do seeing as how Pompeo said he received the subpoena: https://i.imgur.com/P53g4Nh.pngOf course concluding these subpoenas never existed is an irrational response to the inability to produce these subpoenas right? Of course!
Given that Pompeo acknowledged receiving the subpoena, yes, saying it doesn't exist is an irrational response. Stop ferreting your way around my questions.
I have always answered all your questions. Now simply answer mine: why would Mike Pompeo say he received a subpoena if it didn't exist? https://i.imgur.com/P53g4Nh.pngSo Mike Pompeo is the official guy who decides of subpoenas are real now huh? Interesting. I thought that was what courts of public record did, but this is news to me. If Mike Pompeo acknowledged Bigfoot, would saying Bigfoot doesn't exist be an irrational response? You don't answer my questions, you answer the questions you wish I had asked. |
|
|
|
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. |
|
|
|
What makes you think Biden pressured Ukraine to fire prosecutor? What makes you think the subpoenas exist? 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? This is pretty stupid, even for you. I think this is the lowest point you've ever devolved to on the forum, which actually says quite a bit about the depths to which you've now sunk. Obviously your shitty shop job is a shop job: https://i.imgur.com/443RYBu.pngObviously Pompeo actually said this: https://i.imgur.com/P53g4Nh.pngComparing the two things as equally relevant renders you a dishonest coward, especially when you can't even answer the simple question as to why Pompeo would acknowledge receipt of a subpoena if it didn't exist. That is a quite damning condemnation Nutilduhh. Very impressive. You know what would be even more impressive? If you could make a logical argument, and fulfill the burden of proof for your premise, and prove the subpoenas existed by sourcing them, or even providing a date by with you might reasonably be able to find them. Dishonest AND a coward. I should be ashamed of myself! Obviously if I don't explain why Mike Pompeo said something, clearly the subpoenas existed, right Nutilduhh? You can't even answer the simple question, by what date will you be able to provide the subpoenas issued by The House regarding the presidential impeachment investigation before October 31st 2019. 2020? January? March? Whats a good enough amount of time for you to admit you have zero evidence? Why would you say a subpoena exists if you can't prove it? |
|
|
|
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? 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 "Some people" said there were subpoenas, including the man who received such a subpoena, Mike Pompeo. Stop weaseling your way around the question: why would Pompeo lie about receiving a subpoena? https://i.imgur.com/P53g4Nh.pngClearly you think the subpoena doesn't exist. Clearly Mike Pompeo stated it does. How do you reconcile this? Why would Mike Pompeo lie about Bigfoot? This is an image of Mike Pompeo with Bigfoot, therefore Bigfoot exists. How can you reconcile this?  Stop mongoosing your way around the question. Clearly you have no evidence they ever existed, because so far your best argument is "Mike Pompeo said so", which is equally substantial as the above included proof of Bigfoot. |
|
|
|
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? 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?
You are overlooking compelling evidence that the subpoena exists in order to continue hammering your one go-to line of "SHOW ME THE SUBPOENA!" This is quite similar to what flat earthers do when they shout "SHOW ME THE EARTH IS ROUND!" while ignoring a large body of evidence suggesting that it is. 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.
I will answer your question: I don't know. It may never appear online. Now please answer mine: is Mike Pompeo wrong or lying when he mentions receiving a subpoena in his letter to the house committee? If he is not wrong or lying, then what is he talking about when he uses the word "subpoena"? https://i.imgur.com/P53g4Nh.pngI am not overlooking any evidence of anything. Some people said there were subpoenas. And? That is not proof it exists or evidence of anything other than some one said it does. I am telling you the Earth is round. I am asking you to prove the Earth is flat. You just keep shouting back at me "You can't prove the Earth is not flat!" This is why I find the NO U!!!1 meme so appropriate for you because you think this constitutes a logical argument. https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/tu-quoquehttps://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/burden-of-proofhttps://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/appeal-to-authorityThis set of logical fallacies constitutes the whole of your entire so called argument. |
|
|
|
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. Prove something that doesn't exist, doesn't exist? Is that how you think logic works? You hold the premise the subpoenas exist. Why can't you produce them? |
|
|
|
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. |
|
|
|
Its not weird because it likely isn't on the internet. We don't know how long it will be before it will be available on the internet, if ever. There's not a single repository for every single piece of information that is "publicly available" and released by congress. However, what is weird is your refusal to accept that Mike Pompeo did say as part of public record that he received said subpoena. Your beef really is with him. After all, he's the one that said this, not me: https://i.imgur.com/P53g4Nh.pngStill waiting for your proof of Pompeo saying Bigfoot is real... No it is definitely weird, because if it existed I am sure the three of you would not be able to resist posting it here. You are the one holding the premise that the subpoenas exist. Mike Pompeo is irrelevant. The burden of proof is yours regardless of Mike Pompeo and Bigfoot. https://www.house.gov/That looks like a "repository for every single piece of information that is "publicly available" and released" by the house. Interesting. 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.  |
|
|
|
What a weasel. If I didn't know any better, I'd think he was just trolling us. Unfortunately he is still dead serious in maintaining this ridiculous masquerade of not being able to grasp simple concepts in logic. Every congressional subpoena in recent years is not on the internet.
Here, this meme is for you. https://i.imgur.com/v3oQNCt.jpgGuess TECSHARE wins you guys. The subpoena isn't on the internet, therefore it doesn't exist. Oh wait a minute, I forgot about this: https://i.imgur.com/P53g4Nh.pnghttp://prod-upp-image-read.ft.com/74bfe2b8-e465-11e9-9743-db5a370481bcWhy would Mike Pompeo say he received a subpoena that doesn't exist? Still waiting for your quote from Pompeo saying Bigfoot is real... You don't think it is at all weird none of you 3 stooges can produce a single copy of a single House issued subpoena related to impeachment issued before October 31st? Seriously, how much time do you need to track it down? A month? Three months? You give me a time frame and we can revisit it then. Just tell me what you think is a reasonable amount of time to be able to access a public court record related to a presidential impeachment over the internet. 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? 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. Every congressional subpoena is not on the internet therefore I have failed... at proving you can't prove... the subpoena ever existed? Is that what qualifies as logic in your dome? |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
