@ 1982dre, actmyname, addarmstrong, alexrossi, asphyxiate, Astargath, Avirunes, BigBoy89, bL4nkcode, 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 You publicly support that Game Protect violated a written contract, resulting in damages, around July 2019 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. Please show the written contract? Please tell at what day and how the scam happened? I am hereby declaring fees for use of my copyright, the name brand TECSHARE. This notice is to inform you of the licensing fee I will from now and perpetually be requiring to use my property "TECSHARE" in public. This fee for use shall only apply to the user known as "game-protect". Every time the user "game-protect" uses my copyright name "TECSHARE", they hereby consent to pay me $1000 in Bitcoin at current market prices, per instance of the use. This fee is to be paid upon demand. Further use of my copyright property "TECSHARE" constitutes acceptance of these terms. Usage of the copyright property "TECSHARE" more than 2 times in any 30 day period will also void all contractual consideration for "game-protect" to use the property and incur an additional fee of $5000 for every instance the copyright property is used after this threshold is breached. All rights reserved. |
|
|
|
I can not provide the subpoenas because they aren't on the internet. I never claimed that I could produce the subpoenas.
If you care about them so much call the state dept and file a FOIA request.
The FOIA exists because public documents are not usually posted on the internet. If every public record were on the internet, there would be no need for FOIA requests. But that's not the case. Most public documents are not on the internet. You claim they exist. Saying they aren't on the internet is not an argument, it is an excuse to free yourself of the burden of proof and instead demand I prove a negative. Enough with the pathetic FOIA excuse. Subpoenas are a matter of PUBLISHED PUBLIC court records. If it actually existed you could produce it. Since it doesn't you must excuse it. You are only interested in confirming your bias, not confirming facts. The subpoenas never existed and you can't prove they did. You are making claims supported by zero factual basis. |
|
|
|
Why do you think Mike Pompeo would confirm he received a subpoena if he didn't. You insist the subpoenas don't exist because they aren't on the internet, bu you can't explain why Pompeo and Rudy received their subpoenas. Mike Pompeo is irrelevant to the fact that you can not produce the subpoenas. You claim they exist. Subpoenas are public records. The burden of proof is yours. Produce the subpoenas or admit they never existed. |
|
|
|
At least you can admit it is just a belief. Mike Pompeo also never said he has 4 testicles. Does that mean Mike Pompeo doesn't have 4 testicles? Why don't you check while you are busy thinking of new distractions from the point. It doesn't matter why Mike Pompeo didn't say he had 4 testicles. It matters you cant prove the subpoena exists.
Why would Pompeo say he received a subpoena if it doesn't exist? Why does a dog lick his balls? What does this have to do with the fact that you can't produce the subpoena?
Admit:
You haven't read an actual subpoena.
You can't produce a copy of the actual subpoena.
Dude. I've already said I can't find the subpoena, probably 20 times. Jeez. I never claimed I could. I can't produce the actual subpoena for anyone in the impeachment hearings. You got it?
At least you can admit it is just a belief. Mike Pompeo also never said he has 4 testicles. Does that mean Mike Pompeo doesn't have 4 testicles? Why don't you check while you are busy thinking of new distractions from the point. It doesn't matter why Mike Pompeo didn't say he had 4 testicles. It matters you cant prove the subpoena exists.
Are you just not reading my posts. I've said this already at least twice. Can we say with absolute certainty that a subpoena was enclosed with all the letters? No.
Why did Rudy and Pompeo confirm they received the subpoenas? You admit you have never read the subpoena. You can't provide the subpoena, yet you insist the subpoena must exist because people talked about it. People talk about Bigfoot TwitchySeal. Is Bigfoot real? Your blurry photos are not proof of Bigfoot. The subpoena is proof of Bigfoot. Just like you can't prove the subpoenas ever existed, you can't prove Bigfoot exists no matter how many blurry photos you insist are proof. You are the one claiming Bigfoot exists. It is not my job to prove Bigfoot doesn't exist, it is your job to prove he does exist. Produce the subpoenas. |
|
|
|
The House didn't issue any subpoenas related to the impeachment investigation before October 31st. They don't exist.
Funny how you're unable to respond to all the evidence that's been presented that disproves your "the subpoenas don't exist" nonsense theory other than saying you're not discussing whether or they exist. No, you are discussing whether Pompeo received a subpoena or not. I am discussing the fact that you can't produce any actual subpoena
Pompeo confirmed he received the subpoena. How about explaining your theory on why he would confirm that he received the subpoena if he didn't. Same with Rudy. Calling it evidence isn't evidence of anything but your desire to accept information without verification. Admit: You haven't read an actual subpoena. You can't produce a copy of the actual subpoena. Everything else is irrelevant distraction. Its just one accusation after another always skipping over the facts and documentation. This time I am calling you out. Prove that a subpoena was issued by The House related to the impeachment proceedings prior to October 31st. Failure to do so is 100% proof you believe what you are told based on confirmation bias, not based on facts or documentation. Either it exists and you have read it, and it can be provided, or it doesn't and you can't. Since you can't provide it, you are now insisting a fiction existed simply because you declare it reality. That is not how logic or burden of proof works. Produce the subpoena. Pompeo says the subpoena exists. This is good enough evidence for anybody willing to be honest about using deductive reasoning. Its not about semantics. Its about you being unable to admit when you are wrong. Pompeo isn't the magic subpoena machine man. Subpoenas are public court documents. You swear this document exists yet you can not produce it. Admit you have never seen it and you can't prove it ever existed. The burden of proof is yours, and hearsay doesn't count. I admit I haven't seen it. I believe it exists because the man being subpoenaed referenced its existence several times. Mike Pompeo never said "the subpoena doesn't exist"; you did. Why would Pompeo say he received a subpoena if it doesn't exist? At least you can admit it is just a belief. Mike Pompeo also never said he has 4 testicles. Does that mean Mike Pompeo doesn't have 4 testicles? Why don't you check while you are busy thinking of new distractions from the point. It doesn't matter why Mike Pompeo didn't say he had 4 testicles. It matters you cant prove the subpoena exists. |
|
|
|
Pompeo says the subpoena exists. This is good enough evidence for anybody willing to be honest about using deductive reasoning. Its not about semantics. Its about you being unable to admit when you are wrong. Pompeo isn't the magic subpoena machine man. Subpoenas are public court documents. You swear this document exists yet you can not produce it. Admit you have never seen it and you can't prove it ever existed. The burden of proof is yours, and hearsay doesn't count. |
|
|
|
Maybe consider taking a break from P&S TECSHARE? You're getting triggered way too easily.
So where is the subpoena? Pompeos subpoena is probably in his office or home. I don't know.. Maybe his lawyer has it. Maybe Pompeo is in on the deep state conspiracy to get Trump and that's why he lied about receiving a subpoena. Probably paid off by Soros and the Lizard People. Makes perfect sense. https://i.imgur.com/P53g4Nh.pngOr maybe you can not produce the subpoenas, so you need to invent distractions from this fact. Maybe consider taking a break from P&S TECSHARE? You're getting triggered way too easily.
So where is the subpoena? Pompeos subpoena is probably in his office or home. I don't know.. Maybe his lawyer has it. Maybe Pompeo is in on the deep state conspiracy to get Trump and that's why he lied about receiving a subpoena. Probably paid off by Soros and the Lizard People. Makes perfect sense.  TECSHARE finally came to his senses and stopped arguing that the subpoena doesn't exist. He must just be curious where it is for some reason. The House didn't issue any subpoenas related to the impeachment investigation before October 31st. They don't exist. You argue they do exist. The burden of proof is on you to prove they exist. You can play semantic gymnastics all day none of it changes the fact you can't produce the subpoena. |
|
|
|
Maybe consider taking a break from P&S TECSHARE? You're getting triggered way too easily.
So where is the subpoena? |
|
|
|
Technically you are full of shit.
 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. ... I said you are full of shit, which is an observation of your level of veracity, not a judgement of character. Just because you are insulted by something I say doesn't make it an insult. You might be allergic to broccoli, and the mere sight of it might be offensive to you, that doesn't magically make broccoli an insult. What do you think, does "TECTARD" qualify as an insult? Oh I forgot... you weren't talking to me. |
|
|
|
Subpoena isn't on the internet TECSHARE. We've been over this. Nobody claimed it was. You claim it exists, yet is just not on the internet. That is not proof it ever existed, that is just you once again shifting the burden of proof away from your responsibility by reaffirming your baseless undocumented belief. You are claiming it exists. Prove it. You can't so your only option is just perpetually assuring me that it must exist, you just can't prove it. Produce the subpoena or admit you have zero evidence of its existence. |
|
|
|
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. Technically you are full of shit. You are the one making the claim that the subpoena ever existed. You can't prove it did by providing a copy. That is how burden of proof works. It is not a conspiracy theory that it is impossible for you produce the subpoena you so vociferously argue MUST exist, yet you mysteriously can't source. 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. You go ahead and talk about questions you wish I had asked instead of ones I actually did ask. I am asking you to produce the subpoena from The House related to impeachment issued before October 31st. You are telling me about Pompeo, which is a non-sequitur. Pompeo's statements don't prove the existence of the subpoena, the subpoena proves the existence of the subpoena. None of your other rambling in a sad attempt to distract from the fact that you can't produce this subpoena matters. Just admit you can't prove those subpoenas ever existed. You declaring over an over again it is obvious to you they did and calling me a conspiracy theorist is not an argument. |
|
|
|
The question wasn't directed to you. I'm not trying to talk to you anymore. I get it. Your head is made out of steel. Wasn'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. I am very proud of you both. I am talking to you. You. Have. The. Burden. of. Proof. PRODUCE THE SUBPOENA What is the air-speed velocity of an unladen swallow?
African or European? Seriously though. Were discussing whether Pompeo received a subpoena or not. So the fact that he confirmed he received it is relevant. Nobody is arguing that the subpoena is or is not posted on the house intelligence site. There's no need to keep trying to make it seem like that is what we have been debating. It's not. Multiple witnesses have confirmed they received subpoenas. Multiple subpoena letters have directly referred to an enclosed subpoena. Can we say with absolute certainty that a subpoena was enclosed with all the letters? No. A little common sense will lead a logical person to conclude that it's very likely that a subpoena was included with a letter sent by congress which references the "enclosed subpoena" to a witness that confirmed they received it. I think your hatred of democrats and love for trump is preventing you from thinking clearly. No, you are discussing whether Pompeo received a subpoena or not. I am discussing the fact that you can't produce any actual subpoena from The House relating to the impeachment before October 31st. You would think if you really believed I was wrong you would just bide your time until it was published right? Of course if it never existed that will be a long wait. Quite a risky bet I am taking that it will NEVER be published if I was actually wrong isn't it? No matter, you will find some other distraction from the baseless lies you believe soon enough. Hey look over there, a Russian Ukrainian squirrel! You can't produce the subpoena. |
|
|
|
What is the air-speed velocity of an unladen swallow? Right, that has nothing to do with the fact you can not produce the subpoena, which by definition is a public document commanding the production evidence with a penalty applied for non-compliance. What everyone and their mother says means nothing. Either the legal document existed or it didn't, and you can't produce it but are shifting the burden of proof to me to prove its non-existence. What? This is how you think logic works? I guess you take the ends justify the means approach to logic. |
|
|
|
...get it over with and prove me soooo wrong and produce a house subpoena related to impeachment issued before October 31st.
I agree, congress doesn't have subpoena rights, that's a court function. These various guys didn't understand that. But what was this about? I lost track... The media stunt Pelosi pulled issuing "subpoenas" that were never actual subpoenas, just carefully worded requests for information made to look like subpoenas with no legal authority. That is all before October 31st. They insist the subpoenas were real, but some how they can't find the actual subpoenas anywhere. |
|
|
|
 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. https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/appeal-to-authorityhttps://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/tu-quoqueOf 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-hominemThe 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. https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/ad-hominemhttps://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/bandwagonAren't you the one constantly crying about how mean I am and I use personal attacks and you don't like it? None of you has ANY logical argument. You have personal attacks, rhetorical distractions, projections, and accusations, but no logical arguments. You have no evidence to stand on so you all sit around reassuring each other "yeah we are the right ones, right guys??!? right??!!!" Yet no matter how much shit you talk YOU CAN NOT PRODUCE THE SUBPOENAS. DO IT YOU WEAK FUCKS. PRODUCE IT. I know you would love NOTHING MORE than to prove me wrong, everyone knows this. You are so sure it exists, FIND IT and show everyone how incredibly wrong I am. I know your tiny chuds tumesce just at the thought and you would love nothing more than to shut me up and make me look dumb, but for some unknown reason, you just can't can you? Some times when you doth protest too much, the lack of protesting itself gives you away. Come on you guys are so sure of yourselves and so correct! Just get it over with and prove me soooo wrong and produce a house subpoena related to impeachment issued before October 31st. |
|
|
|
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. |
|
|
|
Pompeo acknowledged receipt of a subpoena in a letter to the Committee on Foreign Affairs. Are you still claiming said subpoena is non-existent? Are you claiming you can prove it ever existed? Produce it. I can't produce it at the moment, however, Pompeo certainly thinks it exists. That should be good enough rationale for any honest, critically-thinking observer of the whole situation. Are you calling Pompeo a liar? Why would he use the word "subpoena" here if it never existed? https://i.imgur.com/P53g4Nh.pngIt is really simple. A subpoena is a public court document. Either it exists or it doesn't. Your 3rd party hearsay references of its existence are legally meaningless. 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. Please, PLEASE prove me wrong! Quite a bet I am taking that it will NEVER be published if it does exist in some ethereal realm just out side of the reach of the internet isn't it? Or just perhaps, you were lied to and it never existed to begin with. |
|
|
|
Pompeo acknowledged receipt of a subpoena in a letter to the Committee on Foreign Affairs. Are you still claiming said subpoena is non-existent? Are you claiming you can prove it ever existed? Produce it. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
