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

[TECSHARE]

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.

[1715474788]

1715474788

[Viper1]

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.

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.

[Viper1]

Technically you are full of shit.

[TECSHARE]

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-hominem

Wasn'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.

[TwitchySeal]

Maybe consider taking a break from P&S TECSHARE?  You're getting triggered way too easily.

[TECSHARE]

Maybe consider taking a break from P&S TECSHARE?  You're getting triggered way too easily.

So where is the subpoena?

[TwitchySeal]

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.

[nutildah]

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.

[TwitchySeal]

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.

[TECSHARE]

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.png

Or 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.

[nutildah]

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.

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.

[TECSHARE]

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.

[TwitchySeal]

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.  I've proven that.  The burden has been proven unless you can give a rational explanation on why RUdy and Pompeo would confirm receiving a subpoena that doesn't exist.  You won't because you can't. 

[nutildah]

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?

[TECSHARE]

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.

[nutildah]

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?

[TwitchySeal]

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?

[TECSHARE]

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.

[TwitchySeal]

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.

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.

Are you really not taking the fact that they confirmed they received it into consideration when drawing your conclusion they don't exist?

[TECSHARE]

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.