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

[TECSHARE]

more of the same

The only thing you've done in the last 20 pages of this thread is create an alternate reality for yourself where Pompeo and Giuliani never received subpoenas, and a congressional subpoena isn't a subpoena. Have fun living there by yourself, because not one other person on planet earth is stupid or bull-headed enough to live their with you.

So what part of this absolves you of having to prove your premise that the subpoenas were real?

[1713262545]

1713262545

[1713262545]

1713262545

[1713262545]

1713262545

[1713262545]

1713262545

[1713262545]

1713262545

[1713262545]

1713262545

[TwitchySeal]

more of the same

The only thing you've done in the last 20 pages of this thread is create an alternate reality for yourself where Pompeo and Giuliani never received subpoenas, and a congressional subpoena isn't a subpoena. Have fun living there by yourself, because not one other person on planet earth is stupid or bull-headed enough to live their with you.

So what part of this absolves you of having to prove your premise that the subpoenas were real?

Considering all available evidence, I think it's very reasonable to assume that the democrats filled out the official subpoena forms and included them with all of the subpoena letters they sent out in regards to the impeachment inquiry, even before October 31.

I understand that the only evidence that you are willing to consider is whether or not you are able to see a picture of the actual subpoena, and think it's reasonable to assume that the democrats didn't fill out the official subpoena forms and include them with the subpoena letters.

[TECSHARE]

Considering all available evidence, I think it's very reasonable to assume that the democrats filled out the official subpoena forms and included them with all of the subpoena letters they sent out in regards to the impeachment inquiry, even before October 31.

I understand that the only evidence that you are willing to consider is whether or not you are able to see a picture of the actual subpoena, and think it's reasonable to assume that the democrats didn't fill out the official subpoena forms and include them with the subpoena letters.

What is "all available evidence?" You mean some people talked about it? People talk about lots of things that don't exist, the Trump Ukraine quid pro quo for example. Your assumptions are not a standard of evidence, neither are the words of others.

It is very reasonable to assume you can not produce the subpoenas because they never existed. A filled out subpoena form is not a subpoena. An authorized, signed, and recorded subpoena complying with due process is a subpoena.

[TwitchySeal]

Considering all available evidence, I think it's very reasonable to assume that the democrats filled out the official subpoena forms and included them with all of the subpoena letters they sent out in regards to the impeachment inquiry, even before October 31.

I understand that the only evidence that you are willing to consider is whether or not you are able to see a picture of the actual subpoena, and think it's reasonable to assume that the democrats didn't fill out the official subpoena forms and include them with the subpoena letters.

You mean some people talked about it? People talk about lots of things that don't exist, the Trump Ukraine quid pro quo for example. Your assumptions are not a standard of evidence, neither are the words of others.

Actually the words of others are absolutely a 'standard of evidence'.  In fact, believe it or not, subpoenas are often used to get people to say words that are then used to as evidence.  It's true that people talk about lots of things that don't exist, so you should consider the credibility of the person speaking as well as what they are saying.

If, for example, the Secretary of State says he received a subpoena, and he had no motive to lie about receiving that subpoena, then it should definitely be taken into consideration when considering whether or not the subpoena actually exists. 

[BADecker]

No wonder Pelosi is pushing to impeach Trump so hard. She or her son might be next.


Son of House Speaker Pelosi made money in Ukraine as well.

Son of House Speaker Pelosi made money in Ukraine as well. Hmmm. The left is scrubbing all videos to hide their tracks right now…

Son of House Speaker Pelosi made money in Ukraine

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=duiw4CdeVXI

[TECSHARE]

No, that's not reasonable given the fact that the people who received said subpoenas have acknowledged their existence. They aren't Democrats, they aren't liberal media, they aren't me or TwitchySeal. They are extremely loyal employees of the president. And here you are, fighting their words because they aren't in line with your incorrect belief that the subpoenas don't exist.

We already told you 20 times: we can't produce the subpoenas because they are not online.

https://www.justsecurity.org/67076/public-document-clearinghouse-ukraine-impeachment-inquiry/

There is a copy of the subpoena for DoD employee Laura Cooper, probably because she agreed to it and gave testimony already:

https://www.justsecurity.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/11/ukraine-clearinghouse-2019.10.23.Cooper-subpoena.pdf

Jon Sale, counsel for Giuliani, knows this subject far better than you or any of us, and in his response to congress he acknowledges Giuliani's receipt of a subpoena:

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

He's not making half-assed arguments about "due process" or questioning the fact that the subpoena exists. And his word trumps yours on this issue every day of the week.

People make assumptions. People are mistaken. People lie. The fact that a small number, or a large number of people think or say something does not constitute evidence of anything other than thoughts and ideas. I am not fighting anything. I am calling out the fact that you have the burden of proof of proving these subpoenas even existed, and you can not meet this burden of proof. People talking and thinking things is not meeting your burden of proof.

Actually the words of others are absolutely a 'standard of evidence'.  In fact, believe it or not, subpoenas are often used to get people to say words that are then used to as evidence.  It's true that people talk about lots of things that don't exist, so you should consider the credibility of the person speaking as well as what they are saying.

If, for example, the Secretary of State says he received a subpoena, and he had no motive to lie about receiving that subpoena, then it should definitely be taken into consideration when considering whether or not the subpoena actually exists. 

Arbitrarily designating individuals to be approved sources of truth is not a logical argument, it is a logical fallacy. The fact is you cant produce the subpoenas.

[TECSHARE]

It's not just "a large number of people" who disagree with you, its everyone. You are saying everyone is wrong on the subject except for you, including the people who received the subpoenas and their lawyers.

You know nothing about constitutional law, yet here you are saying you know better than the lawyers practicing it. You are an arrogant fool.

I don't care if everyone on Earth agrees on something, that is not evidence of it's veracity. I know enough about constitutional law to know there is no due process here. Stop pawning off your burden of proof on 3rd parties.

[TECSHARE]

I don't care if everyone on Earth agrees on something, that is not evidence of it's veracity.

In this case, it certainly is. Your entire charade is based out of your pathological inability to admit that you are wrong.

I know enough about constitutional law to know there is no due process here.

And with that sentence you reveal that you know nothing.

Stop pawning off your burden of proof on 3rd parties.

I don't have a burden of proof. As I knew before we started this whole saga, you will never admit when you are wrong. Its just been fun watching you squirm under the crushing weight of your own ego and ignorance. What you've proven to me here beyond a reasonable doubt is that you're an arrogant hack. Frankly I don't give 2 shits what you believe.

No, it is not, not in any case. That is a logical fallacy.

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

Crushing weight huh? That sounds ominous. So you are arguing a premise, but the burden of proof is not yours... interesting...

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

Good thing you unilaterally get to declare yourself correct, substantiating your premise is for chumps amirite?

[audaciousbeing]

"Video of Joe Biden admitting that he bribed the Ukrainian President with $1 billion dollars to fire lead prosecutor investigating his corrupt son"

https://www.investmentwatchblog.com/alert-video-of-joe-biden-admitting-that-he-bribed-the-ukrainian-president-with-1-billion-dollars-to-fire-lead-prosecutor-investigating-his-corrupt-son-is-being-scrubbed-from-youtube-and-other-social/

To even think someone would have $1billion to bribe is just so appalling. While I am not even concerned about whether there was some backdoor discussions with Biden or his son in conjunction with the Ukrainian authorities, $1billion would not move for bribe and someone would not have caught it. Whether Democrats are in power or Republicans are having the day, they still have people in their circles that think beyond party lines but on the path of patriotism for the country which underscore that its not possible for $1billion to be used as bribe.

[TECSHARE]

Good thing you unilaterally get to declare yourself correct, substantiating your premise is for chumps amirite?

Its been presented to you a hundred times. You've ignored it every time. Nobody else believes the subpoenas don't exist except for you. Feel free to repeat you idiotic counterargument yet again if you insist.

"it" has been presented? The subpoenas? Oh no, words, opinions, and assumptions.

[TwitchySeal]

Oh no, words, opinions, and assumptions.

If you aren't interested in other people words, opinions, and assumptions the P&S forum is a waste of your time.

edit: unless you're just here to troll

[TECSHARE]

Oh no, words, opinions, and assumptions.

If you aren't interested in other people words, opinions, and assumptions the P&S forum is a waste of your time.

edit: unless you're just here to troll

Since we are speaking for each other now.

I am a new breed of crypto-fascist that fronts with a humanist exterior.

I am interested in facts and proof. You can't provide that.

[TwitchySeal]

Oh no, words, opinions, and assumptions.

If you aren't interested in other people words, opinions, and assumptions the P&S forum is a waste of your time.

edit: unless you're just here to troll

Since we are speaking for each other now.

I am a new breed of crypto-fascist that fronts with a humanist exterior.

I am interested in facts and proof. You can't provide that.

I mean, I'm just saying other peoples opinions should be respected when discussing politics.  Even if you disagree.

I can provide plenty of facts though, if that's what you're interested in.

For example:

- I didn't say what you just quoted me as saying.

- The House said they sent subpoenas to Rudy and Pompeo before Oct 31st.

- The current month is November.

- Rudy and Pompeo confirmed they received the subpoenas.

- Trump was elected president over 3 years ago.

- The 2020 Summer Olympics will be in Tokyo.

- Roger Stone, Michael Cohen, Paul Manafort, Rick Gates, Michael Flynn, Papadopolous are all convicted felons.

- Hillary has no criminal record - not even an indictment (!)



^^^Theses are all facts....right?

[TECSHARE]

I mean, I'm just saying other peoples opinions should be respected when discussing politics.  Even if you disagree.

I can provide plenty of facts though, if that's what you're interested in.

For example:

- I didn't say what you just quoted me as saying.

- The House said they sent subpoenas to Rudy and Pompeo before Oct 31st.

- The current month is November.

- Rudy and Pompeo confirmed they received the subpoenas.

- Trump was elected president over 3 years ago.

- The 2020 Summer Olympics will be in Tokyo.

- Roger Stone, Michael Cohen, Paul Manafort, Rick Gates, Michael Flynn, Papadopolous are all convicted felons.

- Hillary has no criminal record - not even an indictment (!)



^^^Theses are all facts....right?

I don't care what you claim to respect or agree with, nor do I care about all your off topic bullshit distractions from the FACT that you can't provide the subpoenas.

[TECSHARE]

Substantiation of my premise has been presented to you a hundred times. You have ignored all evidence in order to continue sticking your fingers in your ears, closing your eyes, and shouting "Show me the subpoenas!" like a toddler. This doesn't make you correct. It makes you a fool.

Why do you think Pompeo and Giuliani are lying or mistaken about having received a suboena? If you know better than them, and us, explain the situation to us.

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

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

Or, just dodge the question again if you are a coward.

Either answer your question in exactly the way you demand or I am a coward. Interesting false choice fallacy.

"All evidence" consists of "some popele said". Some people also said other things conflicting with the things you want to believe. This is why what people think and say alone is not considered a standard of evidence. I don't need to explain around your inability to meet the burden of proof of your premise the subpoenas existed.

[TECSHARE]

What the fuck are you talking about, "in the exact way I demand"? Why can't you just answer the question?

Why do you think Pompeo and Giuliani are lying or mistaken about having received a suboena?

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

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

You can answer it in any way you want to, so long as you provide an answer. Obviously you insist that the subpoenas don't exist, so what exactly are Pompeo and Giuliani referring to when they use the word "subpoena"?

Don't be a coward and worm your way out of this. Just explain your rationale here.

Why should I answer a question designed to shift the burden of proof from you to me? I already answered the question in the way I want to. Obviously you insist the subpoenas exist, but you are just a coward and worming your way out of documenting that supposed fact. Man using personal attacks and assumptions makes debate way easier. A lot more fantasy based, but way easier.

[TECSHARE]

Its just a question. I'm not asking you to prove anything. I just want to know what your rationale here is. You insist the subpoenas don't exist. Pompeo and Giuliani - the people who received them - confirm that they do. Why do you still believe they don't exist?

I already answered the question in the way I want to.

Which was no answer at all, because you're a coward.

I don't care what you want to know. I don't owe you an explanation to you and your missing evidence designed to distract from your own inability to prove your premise. You can't provide the subpoena, so clearly you are a coward.

[TECSHARE]

You don't owe me an explanation but it sure would help you to not look like a dishonest dick if you provided one.

The difference between me and you is I am unable to provide a copy of the subpoena whereas you are unwilling to answer the question of why you still believe subpoenas received by Pompeo and Giuliani don't exist. How could the subpoenas not exist if they acknowledged receiving them?

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

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

Right, either I answer you or I am a dishonest dick. Very persuasive Nutilduhhh. The burden of proof of proving the premise that the subpoenas existed is yours, anything else is just your attempt at shifting that burden away from yourself.

[TECSHARE]

I've answered your question about why I can't produce the subpoenas. Why can't you just answer mine?

I didn't ask you a question about subpoenas, I asked you to provide the subpoenas, which you can't. Why would I participate in your diversion from this fact?

[TECSHARE]

I provided answers to your question. Now just answer mine: why would you still believe the subpoenas don't exist when Pompeo and Giuliani, their recipients, acknowledged receiving them?

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

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

It's just a question. Surely if you had a reasonable response you could give it here.

You haven't provided the subpoenas. It is not just a question, it is a mechanism to divert attention from your inability to prove your premise.