Vid of Biden admit bribe of Ukrainian Pres. to fire prosecutor investigating son

[TECSHARE]

You were saying something about logic? You have the burden of proof to document the subpoena's existence. Since you can't, the only logical conclusion is it does not exist. If you knew where it was you would post it right? Of course you would! Right away. You can't of course because it doesn't exist.

No, that's not the only logical conclusion.

How about Mike Pompeo saying that he had received a subpoena -- does that carry any weight with you?

https://i.imgur.com/P53g4Nh.png

http://prod-upp-image-read.ft.com/74bfe2b8-e465-11e9-9743-db5a370481bc

How about the actual subpoena? Subpoenas are required to be filed in court to have any legal authority. That is the public record. Where is it? Seems the default premise is "oh it exists in some undefined place, just not on the internet." Why is it the burden of proof doesn't apply to you in a logical argument?

[1715620773]

1715620773

[1715620773]

1715620773

[TECSHARE]

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.

[nutildah]

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?

[TECSHARE]

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.png

It 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.

[TECSHARE]

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.png

Please answer the question.

I don't have to answer any questions.

https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/tu-quoque

Your favorite, the "NO U!!!1" argument.

You have the burden of proof, not me. Produce the subpoena.

[TwitchySeal]

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.png

Please answer the question.

I don't have to answer any questions.

https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/tu-quoque

Your favorite, the "NO U!!!1" argument.

You have the burden of proof, not me. Produce the subpoena.

 

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.

[Viper1]

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?

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.

[TwitchySeal]

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?

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.

The 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.

[TECSHARE]

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.

https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/bandwagon

https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/appeal-to-authority

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-authority

https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/tu-quoque

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-hominem

The 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-hominem

https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/bandwagon


Aren'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.

[Spendulus]

...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...

[TECSHARE]

...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.

[Spendulus]

...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.

Agreed.

[TECSHARE]

What is Pompeo referencing then when he says he received a subpoena? Something other than a subpoena?

https://i.imgur.com/P53g4Nh.png

He mentions it a couple of other times in his response letter to Engel:

http://prod-upp-image-read.ft.com/74bfe2b8-e465-11e9-9743-db5a370481bc

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.

[Viper1]

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-hominem

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.

[TwitchySeal]

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.

[TECSHARE]

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.

[Viper1]

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.

[TwitchySeal]

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/download

I still consider the "Russia didn't hack the DNC" a crazy and mostly debunked conspiracy theory.

[TECSHARE]

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/download

I 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.

[TwitchySeal]

Subpoena isn't on the internet TECSHARE.  We've been over this.  Nobody claimed it was.