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

[TwitchySeal]

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.

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.

[1713890904]

1713890904

[1713890904]

1713890904

[1713890904]

1713890904

[1713890904]

1713890904

[TECSHARE]

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.

[TwitchySeal]

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.

Would you be able to produce any subpoena I name, say, within the past 5 years?  No.  You couldn't. And you also made up the PUBLISHED part. Sad!

[TECSHARE]

Would you be able to produce any subpoena I name, say, within the past 5 years?  No.  You couldn't. And you also made up the PUBLISHED part. Sad!

This isn't just any subpoena. This is a House subpoena allegedly issued in regards to the impeachment process issued before October 31st 2019. It is not a top secret document. It is a public court record of a very important and extremely publicized matter. What about you being unable to produce this document makes any sense other than it never existed? P.S. Courts of public record are published by default. What is sad is you pretend to not know that and make excuses to perpetuate what you know is a lie at this point.

The subpoenas never existed and you can't prove they did.

If the subpoena never existed, why would Pompeo say he received it?

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

If a bear shits in the woods, why does Gary Busey shave half his ass every Thursday? I don't know, but I do know you can't produce this legal document you swear exists.

[TECSHARE]

OK, so after much silliness finally we have an answer. The answer is you don't know.

Pompeo's acknowledgement of receipt of the subpoena is enough evidence for me to believe it exists. You obviously don't have to take his word for it if you don't want to, though I really don't understand why you wouldn't, other than because you have a pathological need to uphold your winning streak of being right all the time.

The answer is it is irrelevant to the fact that you can not provide the subpoena document. This isn't about a "winning streak", it is about showing you as every bit of everything you accuse me of being. You make endless claims that I never admit when I am wrong, but here you are refusing to admit you are wrong, and unable to prove you are not. You make claims all I do is make personal attacks with no logic, here you are refusing to accept the burden of proof of your claims as logic dictates, and as you work in character attacks. Everyone knows you would love nothing more than to prove me wrong on this, so the fact you can't is pretty good evidence it never existed compared with your non-evidence. Come on cupcake. Prove me wrong. Produce the subpoenas.

[TECSHARE]

You've already been proven wrong to everybody who can look at the issue honestly.

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

Pompeo says the subpoena exists. We don't need for it to be uploaded to the House of Representatives official website in order to know that it exists. Well I mean, I don't - most critically-thinking people don't - maybe you do.

Speaking as some one claiming a public court document exists and can't produce them, you should be careful about talking about proof. It is always the same thing, lose an argument and shift to a new topic. How about no. How about you prove your claim. Produce the subpoena.

[TECSHARE]

How am I "shifting the argument"? You have about 5 different phrases that you re-use ad nauseam, and this is one of them. What is being shifted? My argument is that Pompeo acknowledging he received a subpoena is compelling evidence that it exists. Yours is its not evidence at all. Nothing has been "shifted."

Speaking about "shifting the argument," this whole thread is supposedly about Biden admitting to bribery to fire a prosecutor investigation his son -- that whole premise has now been thoroughly debunked, and nothing has come of it. You were wrong about that, and now you are wrong about the subpoena not existing.

I think you secretly enjoy being wrong about things. You claim to have a deep understanding of many things but when the surface is scratched it is revealed you don't actually understand much of anything at all.

You claim the subpoena exists. You can not document the existence of the subpoena. The burden of proof is not met. Everything else is shifting the argument. The happenings in Ukraine are very closely related with the Biden accusation seeing as the claim is Trump abused his executive authority for personal political gain. The fact that those subpoenas never existed is proof you were lied to by the media and the Democrat party, and you still cover for them even though you can't prove it. This is all very relevant to the op. All I claim is you can not produce the subpoenas. Nothing has been debunked, except for your ability to produce these subpoenas you swear exist. Just admit they don't exist. Come on, you know its true buttercup. Just say it.

[nutildah]

Nothing has been debunked, except for your ability to produce these subpoenas you swear exist. Just admit they don't exist. Come on, you know its true buttercup. Just say it.

I never said I could produce the subpoena. Why would I say the subpoena doesn't exist when Pompeo (the man receiving said subpoena) admits it exists? That would be ludicrous. I'm not like you. I value reality.

[TECSHARE]

Nothing has been debunked, except for your ability to produce these subpoenas you swear exist. Just admit they don't exist. Come on, you know its true buttercup. Just say it.

I never said I could produce the subpoena. Why would I say the subpoena doesn't exist when Pompeo (the man receiving said subpoena) admits it exists? That would be ludicrous. I'm not like you. I value reality.

Mike Pompeo also talked about Bigfoot. Does Bigfoot exists as a result? I never said you said you could produce the subpoena. I said exactly the opposite. The subpoena doesn't exist, you have no evidence of its existence. You are making the claim it exists, you can't prove it does, thus your argument is baseless. That is reality.

[nutildah]

Here's the thing: you're not really arguing with me. You're arguing with Mike Pompeo. You are saying that his claims he received a subpoena are bullshit. You should really take it up with him, not me.

[TECSHARE]

Here's the thing: you're not really arguing with me. You're arguing with Mike Pompeo. You are saying that his claims he received a subpoena are bullshit. You should really take it up with him, not me.

Is this what qualifies as clever in your mind? You aren't really talking to me Nutilduhh, you are talking to your own anus because your head is up your ass. I am saying you can not produce the subpoena. You can't prove it exists. The fact that people said a magic word doesn't make a legal document exist. Subpoenas are public legal documents. You have no substantiation to your claims and are using various logical fallacies to shift from your burden of proof. Come on Nutilduhhh, beat me at my own game. Prove me wrong. Produce the subpoena that you are so totally absolutely sure exists because reasons. You can't do it because it never existed. Admit you have no evidence it ever existed. Why is it you can't find a public court record that absolutely positively and totally does actually exist?

Assuming of course it totally really does exist seriously guys, how long do you think it would take for such a document to be published in such a contentious public government function? Days? Weeks? Months? What is an acceptable deadline for you to admit the subpoena never existed if it doesn't appear in your lap as if by magic? Come on Nutilduhhh, prove me so wrong. ALL you have to do is find one public court record. Come on goat lover you can do it.

[TwitchySeal]

TECSHARE, you're trying to prove the subpoena doesn't exist by ignoring all the evidence that suggests it might, and only focusing on the evidence that suggests it might not.

If Pompeo would've said "they didn't give me a subpoena" this would absolutely be relevant and you'd  be using it to support your argument.  But he didn't say that.  He confirmed that he received the subpoena....and you claim it's irrelevant.  

This kind of thought process is what leads to people becoming flat Earthers and anti-vaxxers.

[TECSHARE]

TECSHARE, you're trying to prove the subpoena doesn't exist by ignoring all the evidence that suggests it might, and only focusing on the evidence that suggests it might not.

If Pompeo would've said "they didn't give me a subpoena" this would absolutely be relevant and you'd  be using it to support your argument.  But he didn't say that.  He confirmed that he received the subpoena....and you claim it's irrelevant.  

This kind of thought process is what leads to people becoming flat Earthers and anti-vaxxers.

You are mistaken. I don't have to prove anything. YOU claim the subpoenas exist. The burden of proof is YOURS. YOU PROVE it exists. Produce the subpoenas. You cry about flat Earthers and anti-vaxxers while you swear up and down Bigfoot is real, and that the blurry still photo you have is proof of Bigfoot, not Bigfoot's body. Produce the subpoenas. You can't therefore you are wrong.

[TwitchySeal]

TECSHARE, you're trying to prove the subpoena doesn't exist by ignoring all the evidence that suggests it might, and only focusing on the evidence that suggests it might not.

If Pompeo would've said "they didn't give me a subpoena" this would absolutely be relevant and you'd  be using it to support your argument.  But he didn't say that.  He confirmed that he received the subpoena....and you claim it's irrelevant.  

This kind of thought process is what leads to people becoming flat Earthers and anti-vaxxers.

You are mistaken. I don't have to prove anything. YOU claim the subpoenas exist. The burden of proof is YOURS. YOU PROVE it exists. Produce the subpoenas. You cry about flat Earthers and anti-vaxxers while you swear up and down Bigfoot is real, and that the blurry still photo you have is proof of Bigfoot, not Bigfoot's body. Produce the subpoenas. You can't therefore you are wrong.

You are mistaken.  I don't have to prove anything.  This isn't a court, it's an internet forum, were people discuss things.  I already said multiple times that we don't have conclusive evidence exists.  i never claimed I had access to it.  I just think that, considering all the evidence, it's extremely likely that it exists.  I also think that the fact you consider evidence that suggests your opinion is wrong irrelevant shows that your thought process is very flawed.

TECSHARE: This letter isn't a subpoena therefore the subpoena doesn't exist.
TECSHARE: This letter isn't a subpoena therefore the subpoena doesn't exist.
TECSHARE: This letter isn't a subpoena therefore the subpoena doesn't exist.
TECSHARE: This letter isn't a subpoena therefore the subpoena doesn't exist.
TECSHARE: This letter isn't a subpoena therefore the subpoena doesn't exist.
Twitchyseal: Nobody claimed that was the subpoena.  The subpoena would be a separate document enclosed with the letter.
TECSHARE: SHOW ME THE SUBPOENA THEN
Twitchyseal: I can't find it.  It's not on the internet.
TECSHARE: SHOW ME THE SUBPOENA
TECSHARE: SHOW ME THE SUBPOENA
TECSHARE: SHOW ME THE SUBPOENA
TECSHARE: SHOW ME THE SUBPOENA
Twitchyseal: It's not on the internet, I can't.
TECSHARE: SHOW ME THE SUBPOENA
TECSHARE: SHOW ME THE SUBPOENA
TECSHARE: SHOW ME THE SUBPOENA
Twitchyseal: it's not on the internet, but that doesn't mean it doesn't exist.  I think it does exist because the House said they sent it, the letter we have references a subpoena and the subject of the subpoena confirmed they received it.
TECSHARE: THATS IRRELEVANT
TECSHARE: SHOW ME THE SUBPOENA
TECSHARE: THE BURDON OF PROOF IS ON YOU
TECSHARE: SHOW ME THE SUBPOENA
TECSHARE: SHOW ME THE SUBPOENA
TECSHARE: SHOW ME THE SUBPOENA
TECSHARE: SHOW ME THE SUBPOENA
TECSHARE: SHOW ME THE SUBPOENA
TECSHARE: SHOW ME THE SUBPOENA
TECSHARE: SHOW ME THE SUBPOENA




See how stupid you look?

[TECSHARE]

You are mistaken.  I don't have to prove anything.  This isn't a court, it's an internet forum, were people discuss things.  I already said multiple times that we don't have conclusive evidence exists.  i never claimed I had access to it.  I just think that, considering all the evidence, it's extremely likely that it exists.  I also think that the fact you consider evidence that suggests your opinion is wrong irrelevant shows that your thought process is very flawed.

TECSHARE: This letter isn't a subpoena therefore the subpoena doesn't exist.
TECSHARE: This letter isn't a subpoena therefore the subpoena doesn't exist.
TECSHARE: This letter isn't a subpoena therefore the subpoena doesn't exist.
TECSHARE: This letter isn't a subpoena therefore the subpoena doesn't exist.
TECSHARE: This letter isn't a subpoena therefore the subpoena doesn't exist.
Twitchyseal: Nobody claimed that was the subpoena.  The subpoena would be a separate document enclosed with the letter.
TECSHARE: SHOW ME THE SUBPOENA THEN
Twitchyseal: I can't find it.  It's not on the internet.
TECSHARE: SHOW ME THE SUBPOENA
TECSHARE: SHOW ME THE SUBPOENA
TECSHARE: SHOW ME THE SUBPOENA
TECSHARE: SHOW ME THE SUBPOENA
Twitchyseal: It's not on the internet, I can't.
TECSHARE: SHOW ME THE SUBPOENA
TECSHARE: SHOW ME THE SUBPOENA
TECSHARE: SHOW ME THE SUBPOENA
Twitchyseal: it's not on the internet, but that doesn't mean it doesn't exist.  I think it does exist because the House said they sent it, the letter we have references a subpoena and the subject of the subpoena confirmed they received it.
TECSHARE: THATS IRRELEVANT
TECSHARE: SHOW ME THE SUBPOENA
TECSHARE: THE BURDON OF PROOF IS ON YOU
TECSHARE: SHOW ME THE SUBPOENA
TECSHARE: SHOW ME THE SUBPOENA
TECSHARE: SHOW ME THE SUBPOENA
TECSHARE: SHOW ME THE SUBPOENA
TECSHARE: SHOW ME THE SUBPOENA
TECSHARE: SHOW ME THE SUBPOENA
TECSHARE: SHOW ME THE SUBPOENA




See how stupid you look?

You mean demanding you abide by the rules of logic and you bear the burden of proof in your claims? Yeah logic and proof are dumb aren't they? It would be much better if we just believed whatever we are told and defended it regardless of a total lack of supporting evidence like you wouldn't it?

I will ask you the same question I asked Nutilduhhhh...

How long do you think it would take for such a document to be published in such a contentious public government function? Days? Weeks? Months? What is an acceptable deadline for you to admit the subpoena never existed if it doesn't appear in your lap as if by magic? Come on, prove me so wrong. ALL you have to do is find one public court record. Come on seal lover you can do it.

[TwitchySeal]

You mean demanding you abide by the rules of logic and you bear the burden of proof in your claims?

My claim is that I think it's extremely likely the subpoena exists.  I've already provided all the reasons on why I think what I do. Would you like me to sign a message with an old address to confirm it's really me telling you what I think?  

It's near impossible to prove something like this is 100% true.  We have to work with the evidence that is available and consider it all objectively.

[TECSHARE]

You mean demanding you abide by the rules of logic and you bear the burden of proof in your claims? Yeah logic and proof are dumb aren't they?

Logic dictates the subpoena exists.

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

It would be much better if we just believed whatever we are told and defended it regardless of a total lack of supporting evidence like you wouldn't it?

Supporting evidence suggests the subpoena exists.

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

How long do you think it would take for such a document to be published in such a contentious public government function? Days? Weeks? Months? What is an acceptable deadline for you to admit the subpoena never existed if it doesn't appear in your lap as if by magic?

I already told you pages ago: like the example you posted earlier, it could take several months, up to a year. In the meantime its illogical to believe it doesn't exist when the man receiving it said that it does.

No, logic dictates you are affirming the premise that the subpoenas exist, therefore you have the burden of proof to logically demonstrate it using plainly observable empirical data. Some one talking about it is not empirical data. The actual document itself is empirical data. The fact some one said the word "subpoena" is your ONLY "evidence" there is no supporting anything, that is it.

Give me a date Nutilduhh. When is the date you are willing to admit you were wrong and the subpoena issued by the House relating to the presidential impeachment investigation before October 31st never existed? How long is long enough to rest on your excuse that a public court record is just mysteriously unpublished and unavailable to ANYONE? Give me a hard date here. What is a reasonable end life for your dumb excuse for being unable to prove your premise?

You mean demanding you abide by the rules of logic and you bear the burden of proof in your claims?

My claim is that I think it's extremely likely the subpoena exists.  I've already provided all the reasons on why I think what I do. Would you like me to sign a message with an old address to confirm it's really me telling you what I think?  

It's near impossible to prove something like this is 100% true.  We have to work with the evidence that is available and consider it all objectively.

Your reasons consist entirely of the fact some one said the word "subpoena". You claim it is "extremely likely" only because some one told you so. Not because you have read the document, not that you know it exists, no nothing at all other than hearsay. I say it is extremely unlikely it ever existed because you nor anyone else here can produce a subpoena which is a matter of public court record in one of the most closely watched and contentious government processes ever. I would say the preponderance of evidence rests on my premise, but you keep telling me about what some one told you.

What is a hard date TwitchySeal? When is the date you are willing to admit you are wrong if it passes and you still can't produce a subpoena issued from The House regarding the presidential impeachment investigation prior to October 31st? What is a reasonable end life for your dumb excuse for being unable to prove your premise?

[TwitchySeal]

Your reasons consist entirely of the fact some one said the word "subpoena".

No. Please read what I have to say if you want to have a discussion with me.

What is a hard date TwitchySeal? When is the date you are willing to admit you are wrong if it passes and you still can't produce a subpoena issued from The House regarding the presidential impeachment investigation prior to October 31st? What is a reasonable end life for your dumb excuse for being unable to prove your premise?

Maybe never?  If you can prove that every other subpoena that congress has issued from 5 years ago is on the internet, then that would definitely change my opinion though.  

Or if you could find some rule that says the house must put suboenas on the internet within X days, and X days have passed, that would change my opinion.  

Or if someone who the house claims to have subpoenad said they didn't receive a subpoena, that would also change my opinion.  

Whether or not it's published on the internet matters very little, in my opinion, unless someone is claiming they never received one.

[TECSHARE]

Why on earth would I say the subpoena doesn't exist when Mike Pompeo (the man receiving said subpoena) says it does? That would be madness.

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

Maybe never?  If you can prove that every other subpoena that congress has issued from 5 years ago is on the internet, then that would definitely change my opinion though.  

Or if you could find some rule that says the house must put suboenas on the internet within X days, and X days have passed, that would change my opinion.  

Or if someone who the house claims to have subpoenad said they didn't receive a subpoena, that would also change my opinion.  

Whether or not it's published on the internet matters very little, in my opinion, unless someone is claiming they never received one.

So in summary, "Mike Pompeo says...™", the subpoenas exist, superserial guys, but I can never prove it ever and oh yeah did I mention Mike Pompeo?

[TwitchySeal]

Why on earth would I say the subpoena doesn't exist when Mike Pompeo (the man receiving said subpoena) says it does? That would be madness.

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

Maybe never?  If you can prove that every other subpoena that congress has issued from 5 years ago is on the internet, then that would definitely change my opinion though.  

Or if you could find some rule that says the house must put suboenas on the internet within X days, and X days have passed, that would change my opinion.  

Or if someone who the house claims to have subpoenad said they didn't receive a subpoena, that would also change my opinion.  

Whether or not it's published on the internet matters very little, in my opinion, unless someone is claiming they never received one.

So in summary, "Mike Pompeo says...™", the subpoenas exist, superserial guys, but I can never prove it ever and oh yeah did I mention Mike Pompeo?

Basically yeah.

House: We sent subpoena to Mike, here's the letter that explains the reasons we sent it and the scope of the subpoena.
Mike: I received the subpoena.

That's pretty solid.

I understand that you think both the house and mike are lying because nobody put a copy of the actual subpoena on the internet because it's a public document.  But public document doesn't mean it has to be on the internet.  Not every congressional subpoena goes on the internet, at least not anywhere I've looked.  So, I don't know what else to tell you except that If you can prove that every subpoena congress issues goes on the internet somewhere, and Pompeos subpoena isn't there, then things would be different.  But you can't because that's just not the case.

I'm also really curious.  Why do you think Pompeo and Rudy would lie about receiving the subpoena from the House when he didn't?