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

[TECSHARE]

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

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

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?

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

So Mike Pompeo is the official guy who decides of subpoenas are real now huh? Interesting. I thought that was what courts of public record did, but this is news to me. If Mike Pompeo acknowledged Bigfoot, would saying Bigfoot doesn't exist be an irrational response? You don't answer my questions, you answer the questions you wish I had asked.

[nutildah]

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?

So Mike Pompeo is the official guy who decides of subpoenas are real now huh? Interesting. I thought that was what courts of public record did, but this is news to me. If Mike Pompeo acknowledged Bigfoot, would saying Bigfoot doesn't exist be an irrational response? You don't answer my questions, you answer the questions you wish I had asked.

Stop being such a weasel and answer the question.

Why would Mike Pompeo say he received a subpoena if it didn't exist?

[TECSHARE]

Stop being such a weasel and answer the question.

Why would Mike Pompeo say he received a subpoena if it didn't exist?

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

Stop being such a muskrat and admit the subpoenas don't exist.

[nutildah]

Stop being such a weasel and answer the question.

Why would Mike Pompeo say he received a subpoena if it didn't exist?

Stop being such a muskrat and admit the subpoenas don't exist.

Why would I do that when Pompeo acknowledged receipt of said subpoena?

If the subpoena doesn't exist, why would Pompeo acknowledge receiving it?

[TwitchySeal]

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.

You keep asking the same questions and I've answered them all directly many times.  I understand you think I'm wrong.  How about we get back on topic?

[Viper1]

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?

Nice attempt to change what I said to suit your purposes. You can actually prove your claim by requesting the document. So go ahead and prove it to all of us. You're the one that has made a definitive claim, I don't believe any of us have.

And again... You claim Pompeo said bigfoot is real. Prove it by providing the statement.

[TECSHARE]

Why would I do that when Pompeo acknowledged receipt of said subpoena?

If the subpoena doesn't exist, why would Pompeo acknowledge receiving it?

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

Why wouldn't you? Oh right, because you can't, because it never existed, and you have absolutely zero empirical evidence it ever existed.  Why would Mike Pompeo shit in the woods? I don't know. Maybe he just had to go.

You keep asking the same questions and I've answered them all directly many times.  I understand you think I'm wrong.  How about we get back on topic?

You have not answered the most important question of all. Where are The House issued subpoenas related to presidential impeachment issued before October 31st 2019? How long do you think is a reasonable amount of time to pass before we can affirmatively declare they never existed because there remains no evidence of their existence? It is a fact you are wrong, and you can not prove otherwise. This is very much on topic.

Nice attempt to change what I said to suit your purposes. You can actually prove your claim by requesting the document. So go ahead and prove it to all of us. You're the one that has made a definitive claim, I don't believe any of us have.

And again... You claim Pompeo said bigfoot is real. Prove it by providing the statement.

the Democrats are attempting to conduct an extralegal investigation outside the process established for impeachment in order to maintain their one sided investigation and prevent any defense from being presented. Why the fuck would Trump participate in this farce of an "investigation" completely outside of the law?

This is false.

The constitution gives the House the sole power of impeachment.  It doesn't specify how Impeachment proceedings should be initiated and it certainly does not give the president the right to decide whether or not his own impeachment hearings are valid.

Trump took an oath to defend the constitution.  By not complying with House oversight he is violating that oath and will rightfully get another impeachment article for doing so.

Lindsey Graham was right:

“Article III of impeachment against Richard Nixon was based on the idea [he] failed to comply with subpoenas of Congress. Congress was going through its oversight function to provide oversight of the president. When asked for information, Richard Nixon chose not to comply and the Congress back at that time said, ‘You’re taking impeachment away from us. You’re becoming the judge and jury. It is not your job to tell us what we need. It is your job to comply with the things we need to provide oversight over you. The day Richard Nixon failed to answer that subpoena is the day that he was subject to impeachment because he took the power of Congress away from Congress and became the judge and jury.”

Looks like you are wrong again. This is the first mention of the subpoenas on this forum I could find. I suppose you will tell me now there is an earlier mention, but you just can't find it, but trust me, it really exists, super serial. Mike Pompeo said so.

[TwitchySeal]

Looks like you are wrong again. This is the first mention of the subpoenas on this forum I could find. I suppose you will tell me now there is an earlier mention, but you just can't find it, but trust me, it really exists, super serial. Mike Pompeo said so.

Yeah, I definitely could.  But this thread is about the video of Biden bribing the president of Ukraine (which did not happen since a bribe implies it was illegal) and you are derailing the shit out of it with your nonsense tantrum.  

[TECSHARE]

Yeah, I definitely could.  But this thread is about the video of Biden bribing the president of Ukraine (which did not happen since a bribe implies it was illegal) and you are derailing the shit out of it with your nonsense tantrum.

If you could provide the subpoena, why not provide it? How many months do you need to find a public record?

You don't think that the fact that the Democrats and media are lying about the existence of subpoenas that never existed is a relevant piece of information considering they are trying to remove a duly elected sitting president based on this information? Information which, by the way is directly related to Biden's long history of illegal pay for play schemes.

[TwitchySeal]

Yeah, I definitely could.  But this thread is about the video of Biden bribing the president of Ukraine (which did not happen since a bribe implies it was illegal) and you are derailing the shit out of it with your nonsense tantrum.

If you could provide the subpoena, why not provide it? How many months do you need to find a public record?

You don't think that the fact that the Democrats and media are lying about the existence of subpoenas that never existed is a relevant piece of information considering they are trying to remove a duly elected sitting president based on this information? Information which, by the way is directly related to Biden's long history of illegal pay for play schemes.

Cool.  Take my post and make it look like I'm saying something I'm not.

Looks like you are wrong again. This is the first mention of the subpoenas on this forum I could find. I suppose you will tell me now there is an earlier mention, but you just can't find it, but trust me, it really exists, super serial. Mike Pompeo said so.

Yeah, I definitely could.  But this thread is about the video of Biden bribing the president of Ukraine (which did not happen since a bribe implies it was illegal) and you are derailing the shit out of it with your nonsense tantrum.  

Your questions have been answered countless times.  Stop derailing the thread.

[TECSHARE]

So where are the subpoenas?

[TECSHARE]

So where are the subpoenas?

https://i.imgur.com/v3oQNCt.jpg

How can you not believe the subpoena exists after reading this?

https://i.imgur.com/DD4fN7I.png

What is Giuliani's lawyer talking about when he says "accompanying subpoena"?

If you had asked me that about the subpoena, you might have a point. Asking me that about anything else really is like asking how can you not believe in Bigfoot after looking at this:

[TECSHARE]

I did ask you about that subpoena. Why do you continue to believe it doesn't exist?

No, you asked me about Mike Pompeo. If you had presented me the subpoena and asked me how could I deny it, you would have a point. Unfortunately you don't have a point, or any evidence it ever existed.

[TECSHARE]

I also asked you about Giuliani.

What is Giuliani's lawyer talking about when he says "accompanying subpoena"?

https://i.imgur.com/DD4fN7I.png

I also asked you how long it would take you to produce the subpoenas. What does Giuliani have to do with the existence of public court records? Either the record exists or it doesn't. You endlessly repeating people talked about it doesn't prove anything other than people talked about it. You will never produce them because they never existed.

[TECSHARE]

I told you five times already: I don't know.

I answered your question. Now please answer my question: what is Giuliani's lawyer talking about if Giuiliani didn't receive a subpoena?

https://i.imgur.com/DD4fN7I.png

I don't know Nutilduhh. I answered your question. Now tell me when you will have the subpoena. See what I did there?

[TECSHARE]

You're the one who thinks the subpoena doesn't exist, that's why I'm asking you.

Obviously he did receive a subpoena. So did Pompeo. If they hadn't, they wouldn't have used the word "subpoena" in their letters to congress.

You're the one that thinks the subpoena exists, that's why I am asking you. Obviously this is not evidence the subpoenas ever existed. Neither is Pompeo. Of course this is all court admissible documentation right? Oh yeah hearsay is not admissible.

[TECSHARE]

This isn't a court room. If you really are stupid enough to think that both Pompeo and Giuliani are either lying or mistaken about receiving a subpoena, that's on you. However, I don't think you are actually that stupid. I think you are just being dishonest so you can weasel your way out of having to admit you were wrong, as is your MO.

Edit: here is the subpoena letter and schedule accompanying Giuliani's subpoena:

https://oversight.house.gov/sites/democrats.oversight.house.gov/files/documents/20190930%20-%20Giuliani%20HPSCI%20Subpoena%20Letter.pdf

https://oversight.house.gov/sites/democrats.oversight.house.gov/files/documents/201900930%20-%20Giuliani%20HPSCI%20Subpoena%20Schedule%20Only.pdf

I'll save you the trouble of having to respond.

TECHOLE: "Derp, that's still not the subpoena."

No, this isn't a court room, and no those aren't subpoenas. Why is calling letters that are not subpoenas, not subpoenas dumb? Wouldn't it be more dumb to call them subpoenas?

[nutildah]

This isn't a court room. If you really are stupid enough to think that both Pompeo and Giuliani are either lying or mistaken about receiving a subpoena, that's on you. However, I don't think you are actually that stupid. I think you are just being dishonest so you can weasel your way out of having to admit you were wrong, as is your MO.

Edit: here is the subpoena letter and schedule accompanying Giuliani's subpoena:

https://oversight.house.gov/sites/democrats.oversight.house.gov/files/documents/20190930%20-%20Giuliani%20HPSCI%20Subpoena%20Letter.pdf

https://oversight.house.gov/sites/democrats.oversight.house.gov/files/documents/201900930%20-%20Giuliani%20HPSCI%20Subpoena%20Schedule%20Only.pdf

I'll save you the trouble of having to respond.

TECHOLE: "Derp, that's still not the subpoena."

No, this isn't a court room, and no those aren't subpoenas. Why is calling letters that are not subpoenas, not subpoenas dumb? Wouldn't it be more dumb to call them subpoenas?

Yes, it would. But it would be even dumber to believe the actual subpoenas don't exist.

[Viper1]

Oh yeah hearsay is not admissible.

Yes it is in some instances. Including things like "self authenticating" documents of which there is a long list. Regardless, Pompeo and Rudy's documents can be considered circumstantial evidence.

[TECSHARE]

Oh yeah hearsay is not admissible.

Yes it is in some instances. Including things like "self authenticating" documents of which there is a long list. Regardless, Pompeo and Rudy's documents can be considered circumstantial evidence.

TS knows he's wrong so he's ignoring all other evidence than one piece of the inquiry that is unavailable on the internet. He basically has his eyes closed, his fingers in his ears and keeps shouting "SHOW THE SUBPOENA!" in hopes that we will get bored and go away. If we do, his flawless, neverending string of victories will remain uninterrupted. Even if we did find the actual subpoena document, I'm sure he has a plan to weasel his way out of acknowledging he was wrong. That's what he does best.

That'e the beauty of this all Nutillduuuh. They never existed, and every day that passes and you can't provide the subpoena is another day you have no proof it ever existed solidifying your logical failure and confirmation bias. Please do forever dwell on it, all I have to do is remind you that you still can't produce the subpoenas, published, public court records. I look forward to the endless excuses for you never being able to produce them. Ever.