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

[TECSHARE]

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?

I don't think anything. I know you can't now or ever produce the subpoena. The fact people discussed the potential of said mythical subpoena is not empirical data supporting its existence. You refuse to define a reasonable time frame to produce said mythical subpoena, but it totally really exists serious cause Mike Pompeo said so. By the way, speaking of the fact that I can't prove this subpoena ever existed, did I mention Mike Pompeo? Mike Pompeo says all of your distractions are irrelevant to the fact that you can not now, nor ever will be able to prove those subpoenas ever existed. TV told me so, and Nancy Pelosi and Mike Pompeso said so, therefore it has to be true, no verification of public documents is required whatsoever, move along to the next distraction please. Did I mention Mike Pompeo?

[TECSHARE]

I don't think anything.

Yeah we know that already.

Its absurd to continue to believe a subpoena doesn't exist after Pompeo said that he received it.

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

Perhaps you should be asking him to produce the subpoena since he's the one you have a disagreement with.

What is absurd is you claim to have the preponderance of evidence when in fact you have zero evidence. All this is just absolute proof facts are irrelevant to you, and you believe what you are told, and that is that. Who needs public court documents when you have Mike Pompeo?

[TECSHARE]

This is not "zero evidence":

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

Its zero evidence to you because you are unwilling to be honest as it would mean you might have to admit you were wrong about something. He's making the claim the subpoena exists. Is he lying or is he just wrong?

Mike Pompeo says Bigfoot is real. Bigfoot is real and you are a liar for not admitting Bigfoot is real because it would mean you would have to admit you were wrong about Bigfoot not existing.  He is making the claim that Bigfoot exists. Is he lying or who gives a fuck because either way it doesn't prove the subpoena ever existed. This is absolute rock solid proof that the culture of the Democrat party is one of facts being irrelevant, the ends justifying the means, and just flat out absolute bullshit. Come on butterball, make me look real dumb, produce the subpoena! Subpoenas are public record, how long could it possibly take?

[TwitchySeal]

Ukraine interfered with our election.
The DNC colluded with Ukraine to interfere in our election.
The Clintons had Epstein murdered.
Seth Rich was involved in the DNC hack.
Seth Rich was murdered because he was involved in the DNC hack.
Hunter Biden was doing something illegal in Ukraine.
Biden bribed Ukraine to fire the prosecutor
Biden bribed Ukraine to protect his son





In your opinion, all of these things are true, right?  You don't have proof, but you believe they are true.  

If you apply the same logic to any of these issues that you've applied to the subpoena, you should know for a fact that they are all false.

In reality, neither of us can conclude that any of them are true or false.  All we can do is consider all the evidence that's available, and then decide how likely true or not true each issue is.

[TECSHARE]

This is a false equivalence in one of its lowest forms. We're not talking about bigfoot, we're talking about Pompeo's letter to a house committee:

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

So it Pompeo lying or wrong? You insist that you have a better understanding of the situation than he does, so tell us what he actually received if not a subpoena.

No, it is a valid equivalence. You insist the subpoenas exist. You can not prove they exist. You claim Mike Pompeo saying they exist is proof. I say Mike Pompeo said Bigfoot was real is proof Bigfoot is real. You bringing up Mike Pompeo is to the subpoena as me bringing up Mike Pompeo is to Bigfoot. This is an exact valid equivalence. The only false equivalence is your claim "Mike Pompeo said" is proof of anything.

You believed lies. You refuse to admit they were lies, and you continue to defend those that lied to you. You can't prove otherwise, now you are trapped in this perpetual loop of making excuses why you can not now or forever more produce the subpoena.

Ukraine interfered with our election.
The DNC colluded with Ukraine to interfere in our election.
The Clintons had Epstein murdered.
Seth Rich was involved in the DNC hack.
Seth Rich was murdered because he was involved in the DNC hack.
Hunter Biden was doing something illegal in Ukraine.
Biden bribed Ukraine to fire the prosecutor
Biden bribed Ukraine to protect his son



In your opinion, all of these things are true, right?  You don't have proof, but you believe they are true.  

If you apply the same logic to any of these issues that you've applied to the subpoena, you should know for a fact that they are all false.

In reality, neither of us can conclude that any of them are true or false.  All we can do is consider all the evidence that's available, and then decide how likely true or not true each issue is.

We aren't talking about a list of 8 other subjects. We are talking about the fact that you believed a lie, you refuse to admit it was a lie, and you continue to defend those that lied to you. You have no empirical evidence to prove otherwise. Mike Pompeo isn't going to help you. Just admit it was a lie, you know I am never going to let this go until you do right? Unless you admit the subpoenas never existed I am going to forever taunt you and Nutilduhh to produce the subpoenas knowing full well you will never be able to produce them, a constant reminder for you and all around you of the lie you live every day.

[TECSHARE]

This is a false equivalence in one of its lowest forms. We're not talking about bigfoot, we're talking about Pompeo's letter to a house committee:

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

So it Pompeo lying or wrong? You insist that you have a better understanding of the situation than he does, so tell us what he actually received if not a subpoena.

No, it is a valid equivalence. You insist the subpoenas exist. You can not prove they exist. You claim Mike Pompeo saying they exist is proof. I say Mike Pompeo said Bigfoot was real is proof Bigfoot is real. You bringing up Mike Pompeo is to the subpoena as me bringing up Mike Pompeo is to Bigfoot. This is an exact valid equivalence. The only false equivalence is your claim "Mike Pompeo said" is proof of anything.

When did Mike Pompeo say Bigfoot is real? I can't seem to find that anywhere.

If he did that would be proof of Bigfoot's existence?

[Viper1]

So it Pompeo lying or wrong?

He refuses to answer the question because he would have to admit he might be wrong which would burst the alternate reality bubble he lives in. According to him, everyone is lying and misleading. Schiff. The WH, Pompeo, the media. Everyone except him. Delusion at it's best.

[Viper1]

Mike Pompeo says Bigfoot is real.

Prove it. Burden of proof is on you to backup your claim.

[Viper1]

a public court record is just mysteriously unpublished and unavailable to ANYONE?

I'll say it again. You made the initial claim it does not exist. The burden of proof is yours. So here you go. Prove to us you can't get it cause it doesn't exist.
https://www.foia.gov/

[TECSHARE]

a public court record is just mysteriously unpublished and unavailable to ANYONE?

I'll say it again. You made the initial claim it does not exist. The burden of proof is yours. So here you go. Prove to us you can't get it cause it doesn't exist.
https://www.foia.gov/

That's not how burden of proof works. Your premise is the subpoenas existed. You have the burden to prove they existed. I don't have the burden to prove a negative, that they never existed. Don't ever lecture me about logic again if this is the kind of tripe you are trying to sell.

No -- you are equating a fictional event with something that actually happened. Not only do the two things have nothing to do with each other, one of them never happened. That's the lowest form of false equivalence.

Exactly, both are fictional! I am glad you are finally with me! Even if I had video of Mike Pompeo saying Bigfoot is real and he's "seent it", that is equally as much proof of Bigfoot existing as when Mike Pompeo says there was a subpoena, that a subpoena existed. That amount of proof being zero of course. What you have here is called a non-sequiter. You can't and won't ever prove the subpoenas ever existed. Admit it.

[nutildah]

Exactly, both are fictional! I am glad you are finally with me! Even if I had video of Mike Pompeo saying Bigfoot is real and he's "seent it", that is equally as much proof of Bigfoot existing as when Mike Pompeo says there was a subpoena, that a subpoena existed. That amount of proof being zero of course. What you have here is called a non-sequiter. You can't and won't ever prove the subpoenas ever existed. Admit it.

That's not what I said. I said one was fictional, in reference to your claim about Mike Pompeo saying Bigfoot is real. This on the other hand is not fictional:



It is Mike Pompeo going on record saying he received a subpoena. That's why your false equivalence is doubly false.

This is some pretty sad slinking you are resorting to in an attempt to worm your way out of admitting you were wrong about the subpoena not being real.

[Viper1]

a public court record is just mysteriously unpublished and unavailable to ANYONE?

I'll say it again. You made the initial claim it does not exist. The burden of proof is yours. So here you go. Prove to us you can't get it cause it doesn't exist.
https://www.foia.gov/

That's not how burden of proof works. Your premise is the subpoenas existed. You have the burden to prove they existed. I don't have the burden to prove a negative, that they never existed. Don't ever lecture me about logic again if this is the kind of tripe you are trying to sell.

Wrong. Before anyone said anything else, you claimed it doesn't exist and you can prove your statement by requesting it and showing you can't get it. It's a public document as you've said so either they have it or they don't. So backup your claim and request it. It's your burden to prove your original statement.

[TwitchySeal]

We aren't talking about a list of 8 other subjects. We are talking about the fact that you believed a lie, you refuse to admit it was a lie, and you continue to defend those that lied to you. You have no empirical evidence to prove otherwise. Mike Pompeo isn't going to help you. Just admit it was a lie, you know I am never going to let this go until you do right? Unless you admit the subpoenas never existed I am going to forever taunt you and Nutilduhh to produce the subpoenas knowing full well you will never be able to produce them, a constant reminder for you and all around you of the lie you live every day.

Every congressional subpoena in recent years is not on the internet.

Unless you disagree with this statement ^^^, your entire theory has been debunked.

[TECSHARE]

That's not what I said. I said one was fictional, in reference to your claim about Mike Pompeo saying Bigfoot is real. This on the other hand is not fictional:

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

It is Mike Pompeo going on record saying he received a subpoena. That's why your false equivalence is doubly false.

This is some pretty sad slinking you are resorting to in an attempt to worm your way out of admitting you were wrong about the subpoena not being real.

Wrong. Before anyone said anything else, you claimed it doesn't exist and you can prove your statement by requesting it and showing you can't get it. It's a public document as you've said so either they have it or they don't. So backup your claim and request it. It's your burden to prove your original statement.

Every congressional subpoena in recent years is not on the internet.

Unless you disagree with this statement ^^^, your entire theory has been debunked.

TL;DR

1. Mike Pompeo
2. I claimed the subpoenas didn't exist before you claimed they did exist.
3. All Congressional subpoenas are not on the internet therefore you will never, ever, EVER be able to provide a copy of any House subpoena related to impeachment issued before October 31st 2019.

Does this about sum up your "debunking"?

[TwitchySeal]

That's not what I said. I said one was fictional, in reference to your claim about Mike Pompeo saying Bigfoot is real. This on the other hand is not fictional:

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

It is Mike Pompeo going on record saying he received a subpoena. That's why your false equivalence is doubly false.

This is some pretty sad slinking you are resorting to in an attempt to worm your way out of admitting you were wrong about the subpoena not being real.

Wrong. Before anyone said anything else, you claimed it doesn't exist and you can prove your statement by requesting it and showing you can't get it. It's a public document as you've said so either they have it or they don't. So backup your claim and request it. It's your burden to prove your original statement.

Every congressional subpoena in recent years is not on the internet.

Unless you disagree with this statement ^^^, your entire theory has been debunked.

TL;DR

1. Mike Pompeo
2. I claimed the subpoenas didn't exist before you claimed they did exist.
3. All Congressional subpoenas are not on the internet therefore you will never, ever, EVER be able to provide a copy of any House subpoena related to impeachment issued before October 31st 2019.

Does this about sum up your "debunking"?

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. 

[Viper1]

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.

[nutildah]

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.



Guess TECSHARE wins you guys. The subpoena isn't on the internet, therefore it doesn't exist. Oh wait a minute, I forgot about this:



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

Why would Mike Pompeo say he received a subpoena that doesn't exist?

Still waiting for your quote from Pompeo saying Bigfoot is real...

[TECSHARE]

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.jpg

Guess 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.png

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

Why 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?

[nutildah]

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.



Guess TECSHARE wins you guys. The subpoena isn't on the internet, therefore it doesn't exist. Oh wait a minute, I forgot about this:



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

Why 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.

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:



Still waiting for your proof of Pompeo saying Bigfoot is real...

[Viper1]

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.