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

[TECSHARE]

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:

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

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

No it is definitely weird, because if it existed I am sure the three of you would not be able to resist posting it here. You are the one holding the premise that the subpoenas exist. Mike Pompeo is irrelevant. The burden of proof is yours regardless of Mike Pompeo and Bigfoot.

https://www.house.gov/

That looks like a "repository for every single piece of information that is "publicly available" and released" by the house. Interesting.

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.

[nutildah]

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...

No it is definitely weird, because if it existed I am sure the three of you would not be able to resist posting it here. You are the one holding the premise that the subpoenas exist. Mike Pompeo is irrelevant.

If it existed on the internet, then yes, we would have. Just because something doesn't exist on the internet doesn't mean it doesn't exist. You really have completely fallen into a flat earther type argument where if somebody can't prove something to your liking then the earth must be flat. Mike Pompeo can't be irrelevant because he is the one who received said subpoena, as acknowledged in his letter to the house committee:



What is he talking about if he didn't receive a subpoena? Is he lying or is he wrong. Just answer the question instead of trying to conflate it with Nancy Pelosi, the White House, or Bigfoot.

"Mehhh... I don't have to answer any questions!"

If you weren't a such an empty flapping sack of dishonesty then you would just answer them.

That looks like a "repository for every single piece of information that is "publicly available" and released" by the house. Interesting.

Surprise: its not.

[TECSHARE]

If it existed on the internet, then yes, we would have. Just because something doesn't exist on the internet doesn't mean it doesn't exist. You really have completely fallen into a flat earther type argument where if somebody can't prove something to your liking then the earth must be flat. Mike Pompeo can't be irrelevant because he is the one who received said subpoena, as acknowledged in his letter to the house committee:

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

That looks like a "repository for every single piece of information that is "publicly available" and released" by the house. Interesting.

Surprise: its not.

So expecting you to prove your premise that these subpoenas were real makes me a flat Earther? Is that what we are going with now? The non-existence of the subpoena is independent of Mike Pompeo. How many months do you need to find it? Just give me a number.

[Viper1]

If it existed on the internet, then yes, we would have. Just because something doesn't exist on the internet doesn't mean it doesn't exist. You really have completely fallen into a flat earther type argument where if somebody can't prove something to your liking then the earth must be flat. Mike Pompeo can't be irrelevant because he is the one who received said subpoena, as acknowledged in his letter to the house committee:

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

That looks like a "repository for every single piece of information that is "publicly available" and released" by the house. Interesting.

Surprise: its not.

So expecting you to prove your premise that these subpoenas were real makes me a flat Earther? Is that what we are going with now? The non-existence of the subpoena is independent of Mike Pompeo. How many months do you need to find it? Just give me a number.

You're so dense. You could have simply said that all along you were referring to the letter implying there were subpoenas for depositions when there wasn't but that it's most likely the document request one exists as the WH and Pompeo acknowledge it exists. You could have had your "win". Instead you've doubled down that NONE exist and now just look like a total fool. Carry on though. You just keep showing everyone that nothing you say can be taken seriously.

Prove none exists by requesting them.

Where's the proof Pompeo said bigfoot exists. A picture is not a statement by him.

[TECSHARE]

You're so dense. You could have simply said that all along you were referring to the letter implying there were subpoenas for depositions when there wasn't but that it's most likely the document request one exists as the WH and Pompeo acknowledge it exists. You could have had your "win". Instead you've doubled down that NONE exist and now just look like a total fool. Carry on though. You just keep showing everyone that nothing you say can be taken seriously.

Prove none exists by requesting them.

Where's the proof Pompeo said bigfoot exists. A picture is not a statement by him.

Prove something that doesn't exist, doesn't exist? Is that how you think logic works? You hold the premise the subpoenas exist. Why can't you produce them?

[nutildah]

So expecting you to prove your premise that these subpoenas were real makes me a flat Earther? Is that what we are going with now?

You are overlooking compelling evidence that the subpoena exists in order to continue hammering your one go-to line of "SHOW ME THE SUBPOENA!" This is quite similar to what flat earthers do when they shout "SHOW ME THE EARTH IS ROUND!" while ignoring a large body of evidence suggesting that it is.

The non-existence of the subpoena is independent of Mike Pompeo. How many months do you need to find it? Just give me a number.

I will answer your question: I don't know. It may never appear online.

Now please answer mine: is Mike Pompeo wrong or lying when he mentions receiving a subpoena in his letter to the house committee? If he is not wrong or lying, then what is he talking about when he uses the word "subpoena"?

[Viper1]

Prove something that doesn't exist, doesn't exist? Is that how you think logic works?

You keep saying that but in this case your argument is bullshit. You can certainly prove the subpoenas exists or doesn't by requesting them. If they don't exist, they'll tell you that.. So backup your baseless claim and do it. You made the original claim and you can prove it so stop trying to deflect to some false logic argument.

Where's your proof that Pompeo said bigfoot exists?

[TECSHARE]

Prove something that doesn't exist, doesn't exist? Is that how you think logic works?

You keep saying that but in this case your argument is bullshit. You can certainly prove the subpoenas exists or doesn't by requesting them. If they don't exist, they'll tell you that.. So backup your baseless claim and do it. You made the original claim and you can prove it so stop trying to deflect to some false logic argument.

Where's your proof that Pompeo said bigfoot exists?

I made the original claim... that the subpoenas didn't exist before the claim was made... that they did exist? Is that what you are telling me?

So expecting you to prove your premise that these subpoenas were real makes me a flat Earther? Is that what we are going with now?

You are overlooking compelling evidence that the subpoena exists in order to continue hammering your one go-to line of "SHOW ME THE SUBPOENA!" This is quite similar to what flat earthers do when they shout "SHOW ME THE EARTH IS ROUND!" while ignoring a large body of evidence suggesting that it is.

The non-existence of the subpoena is independent of Mike Pompeo. How many months do you need to find it? Just give me a number.

I will answer your question: I don't know. It may never appear online.

Now please answer mine: is Mike Pompeo wrong or lying when he mentions receiving a subpoena in his letter to the house committee? If he is not wrong or lying, then what is he talking about when he uses the word "subpoena"?

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

I am not overlooking any evidence of anything. Some people said there were subpoenas. And? That is not proof it exists or evidence of anything other than some one said it does. I am telling you the Earth is round. I am asking you to prove the Earth is flat. You just keep shouting back at me "You can't prove the Earth is not flat!" This is why I find the NO U!!!1 meme so appropriate for you because you think this constitutes a logical argument.

https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/tu-quoque

https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/burden-of-proof

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

This set of logical fallacies constitutes the whole of your entire so called argument.

[Viper1]

Prove something that doesn't exist, doesn't exist? Is that how you think logic works?

You keep saying that but in this case your argument is bullshit. You can certainly prove the subpoenas exists or doesn't by requesting them. If they don't exist, they'll tell you that.. So backup your baseless claim and do it. You made the original claim and you can prove it so stop trying to deflect to some false logic argument.

Where's your proof that Pompeo said bigfoot exists?

I made the original claim... that the subpoenas didn't exist before the claim was made... that they did exist? Is that what you are telling me?

You claimed they don't exist. You can prove your claim by requesting them. If they don't exists, they'll tell you. As far as I know, you're the only one that has made a definitive statement as to them existing or not existing. You can prove your claim so do it.

Where's your proof that Pompeo said bigfoot exists?

[nutildah]

So expecting you to prove your premise that these subpoenas were real makes me a flat Earther? Is that what we are going with now?

You are overlooking compelling evidence that the subpoena exists in order to continue hammering your one go-to line of "SHOW ME THE SUBPOENA!" This is quite similar to what flat earthers do when they shout "SHOW ME THE EARTH IS ROUND!" while ignoring a large body of evidence suggesting that it is.

The non-existence of the subpoena is independent of Mike Pompeo. How many months do you need to find it? Just give me a number.

I will answer your question: I don't know. It may never appear online.

Now please answer mine: is Mike Pompeo wrong or lying when he mentions receiving a subpoena in his letter to the house committee? If he is not wrong or lying, then what is he talking about when he uses the word "subpoena"?

I am not overlooking any evidence of anything. Some people said there were subpoenas. And? That is not proof it exists or evidence of anything other than some one said it does.

"Some people" said there were subpoenas, including the man who received such a subpoena, Mike Pompeo.

Stop weaseling your way around the question: why would Pompeo lie about receiving a subpoena?



Clearly you think the subpoena doesn't exist. Clearly Mike Pompeo stated it does. How do you reconcile this?

[TECSHARE]

You claimed they don't exist. You can prove your claim by requesting them. If they don't exists, they'll tell you. As far as I know, you're the only one that has made a definitive statement as to them existing or not existing. You can prove your claim so do it.

Where's your proof that Pompeo said bigfoot exists?

Stop for a moment. Think step by step. According to you step one is I claimed the subpoenas don't exist.

1. I claim subpoenas don't exist.


Why would I do this? Is it not a requirement for me to claim something does NOT exist that some one at some previous point in time claimed it DID exist? Or is your suggestion that one day I was sitting alone and wanted to talk about subpoenas not existing randomly? You are doing the logical equivalent of standing on your head and pissing.

Step two

2. I have the burden of proof to prove the subpoenas didn't exist.

You insist, based on "logic" that I must prove the negative.


Reality:

1. Some one claimed to issue subpoenas
2. You and your friends repeated it blindly as fact here
3. I asked for proof they ever existed
4. Seemingly endless excuses and gnashing of teeth trying to avoid the fact that no one can find the actual public court documents anywhere

"Some people" said there were subpoenas, including the man who received such a subpoena, Mike Pompeo.

Stop weaseling your way around the question: why would Pompeo lie about receiving a subpoena?

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

Clearly you think the subpoena doesn't exist. Clearly Mike Pompeo stated it does. How do you reconcile this?

Why would Mike Pompeo lie about Bigfoot?

This is an image of Mike Pompeo with Bigfoot, therefore Bigfoot exists. How can you reconcile this?



Stop mongoosing your way around the question.

Clearly you have no evidence they ever existed, because so far your best argument is "Mike Pompeo said so", which is equally substantial as the above included proof of Bigfoot.

[TwitchySeal]

What makes you think Biden pressured Ukraine to fire prosecutor?

[Viper1]

Stop for a moment. Think step by step. According to you step one is I claimed the subpoenas don't exist.

1. I claim subpoenas don't exist.

Why would I do this? Is it not a requirement for me to claim something does NOT exist that some one at some previous point in time claimed it DID exist? Or is your suggestion that one day I was sitting alone and wanted to talk about subpoenas not existing randomly? You are doing the logical equivalent of standing on your head and pissing.

Step two

2. I have the burden of proof to prove the subpoenas didn't exist.

You insist, based on "logic" that I must prove the negative.

Reality:

1. Some one claimed to issue subpoenas
2. You and your friends repeated it blindly as fact here
3. I asked for proof they ever existed
4. Seemingly endless excuses and gnashing of teeth trying to avoid the fact that no one can find the actual public court documents anywhere

This is not the same as proving the toothfairy doesn't exist so stop trying to use that sort of bullshit argument. You can prove it doesn't exist by requesting it. So get off your ass and do it. Prove your claim by showing you can't get it.

Mike Pompeo says Bigfoot is real.

You claim he said bigfoot is real. Prove it by providing the statement.

[nutildah]

"Some people" said there were subpoenas, including the man who received such a subpoena, Mike Pompeo.

Stop weaseling your way around the question: why would Pompeo lie about receiving a subpoena?



Clearly you think the subpoena doesn't exist. Clearly Mike Pompeo stated it does. How do you reconcile this?

Why would Mike Pompeo lie about Bigfoot?

This is an image of Mike Pompeo with Bigfoot, therefore Bigfoot exists. How can you reconcile this?



Stop mongoosing your way around the question.

Clearly you have no evidence they ever existed, because so far your best argument is "Mike Pompeo said so", which is equally substantial as the above included proof of Bigfoot.

This is pretty stupid, even for you. I think this is the lowest point you've ever devolved to on the forum, which actually says quite a bit about the depths to which you've now sunk.

Obviously your shitty shop job is a shop job:



Obviously Pompeo actually said this:



Comparing the two things as equally relevant renders you a dishonest coward, especially when you can't even answer the simple question as to why Pompeo would acknowledge receipt of a subpoena if it didn't exist.

[TECSHARE]

What makes you think Biden pressured Ukraine to fire prosecutor?

What makes you think the subpoenas exist?

This is not the same as proving the toothfairy doesn't exist so stop trying to use that sort of bullshit argument. You can prove it doesn't exist by requesting it. So get off your ass and do it. Prove your claim by showing you can't get it.

Mike Pompeo says Bigfoot is real.

You claim he said bigfoot is real. Prove it by providing the statement.

So you are saying I can prove the tooth fairy doesn't exist by requesting it? Ok then.

You are the one claiming the tooth fairy exists. It is your job to prove it, not my job to prove there is no tooth fairy. Would sock puppets help explain this or?

This is pretty stupid, even for you. I think this is the lowest point you've ever devolved to on the forum, which actually says quite a bit about the depths to which you've now sunk.

Obviously your shitty shop job is a shop job:

https://i.imgur.com/443RYBu.png

Obviously Pompeo actually said this:

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

Comparing the two things as equally relevant renders you a dishonest coward, especially when you can't even answer the simple question as to why Pompeo would acknowledge receipt of a subpoena if it didn't exist.

That is a quite damning condemnation Nutilduhh. Very impressive.

You know what would be even more impressive? If you could make a logical argument, and fulfill the burden of proof for your premise, and prove the subpoenas existed by sourcing them, or even providing a date by with you might reasonably be able to find them.

Dishonest AND a coward. I should be ashamed of myself! Obviously if I don't explain why Mike Pompeo said something, clearly the subpoenas existed, right Nutilduhh?

You can't even answer the simple question, by what date will you be able to provide the subpoenas issued by The House regarding the presidential impeachment investigation before October 31st 2019. 2020? January? March? Whats a good enough amount of time for you to admit you have zero evidence? Why would you say a subpoena exists if you can't prove it?

[nutildah]

Dishonest AND a coward. I should be ashamed of myself! Obviously if I don't explain why Mike Pompeo said something, clearly the subpoenas existed, right Nutilduhh?

The conclusion I'm drawing is that you know his acknowledgement of receiving a subpoena means the subpoena exists, that's why you can't bear to answer the question. There's no other possible explanation for you continuing to squirrel your way around answering the question.

You can't even answer the simple question, by what date will you be able to provide the subpoenas issued by The House regarding the presidential impeachment investigation before October 31st 2019. 2020? January? March? Whats a good enough amount of time for you to admit you have zero evidence? Why would you say a subpoena exists if you can't prove it?

I already answered your question. The answer is I don't know. It may never be on the internet.

I say the subpoena exists because Mike Pompeo said he received it:



And you squirreled your way out of answering my question yet again. How honest and brave.

[angelinyou]

Is this a joke? lol vid on youtube is your proof?

[TwitchySeal]

What makes you think Biden pressured Ukraine to fire prosecutor?

What makes you think the subpoenas exist?

I've already answered this question directly multiple times, but here you go:

These are the reasons I believe the subpoena exists:
- Congress announces that they subpoenad Pompeo.
- They posted a detailed letter that explained the scope and reason for the subpoena.
- Pompeo confirmed he received the subpoena.
- Other witnesses that the House claimed they subpoenad around the same time for the same investigation also confirmed they received their subpoenas.


I understand that you don't think the subpoena exists because the subpoena it isn't posted the internet, you don't consider the fact that Pompeo said he received it relevant, and we aren't able to find empirical evidence proving it exists.  I disagree with you, it's nothing personal.

Lets get back to the topic of this thread now.  What makes you think Biden pressured Ukrainian to fire the prosecutor?  I am very confident that he did in fact pressure Ukraine to fire the prosecutor, but the main reason is because he said he did, and I don't have empirical evidence, so I'm just wondering what you think about the whole thing.

[TECSHARE]

I already answered your question. The answer is I don't know. It may never be on the internet.

I say the subpoena exists because Mike Pompeo said he received it:

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

And you squirreled your way out of answering my question yet again. How honest and brave.

So you don't have the burden of proof to support your premise because "it may never be on the internet". So of course we must assume they exist for this indefinite amount of time right? Of course concluding these subpoenas never existed is an irrational response to the inability to produce these subpoenas right? Of course! Stop ferreting your way around my questions. How stunning, beautiful, and brave.

I've already answered this question directly multiple times, but here you go:

These are the reasons I believe the subpoena exists:
- Congress announces that they subpoenad Pompeo.
- They posted a detailed letter that explained the scope and reason for the subpoena.
- Pompeo confirmed he received the subpoena.
- Other witnesses that the House claimed they subpoenad around the same time for the same investigation also confirmed they received their subpoenas.


I understand that you don't think the subpoena exists because the subpoena it isn't posted the internet, you don't consider the fact that Pompeo said he received it relevant, and we aren't able to find empirical evidence proving it exists.  I disagree with you, it's nothing personal.

Lets get back to the topic of this thread now.  What makes you think Biden pressured Ukrainian to fire the prosecutor?  I am very confident that he did in fact pressure Ukraine to fire the prosecutor, but the main reason is because he said he did, and I don't have empirical evidence, so I'm just wondering what you think about the whole thing.

1. Congress said
2. Congress said
3. Mike Pompeo said
4. Other people said

What does the public record say? You would think that would be an important reference for a legal court document of public record now wouldn't you? There is nothing to disagree with. It is a fact you have no empirical evidence the subpoenas ever existed. You still insist your premise is correct in spite of this fact, and of course give your self an indefinite and perpetual amount of time to then never ever have to prove your premise correct. This is all very relevant to the topic because the mythical subpoenas are regarding Ukraine, which is central to the accusation against Biden.

[nutildah]

I already answered your question. The answer is I don't know. It may never be on the internet.

I say the subpoena exists because Mike Pompeo said he received it:



And you squirreled your way out of answering my question yet again. How honest and brave.

So you don't have the burden of proof to support your premise because "it may never be on the internet". So of course we must assume they exist for this indefinite amount of time right?

That would be the logical thing to do seeing as how Pompeo said he received the subpoena:

Of course concluding these subpoenas never existed is an irrational response to the inability to produce these subpoenas right? Of course!

Given that Pompeo acknowledged receiving the subpoena, yes, saying it doesn't exist is an irrational response.

Stop ferreting your way around my questions.

I have always answered all your questions. Now simply answer mine: why would Mike Pompeo say he received a subpoena if it didn't exist?