Topic: Vid of Biden admit bribe of Ukrainian Pres. to fire prosecutor investigating son - page 15. (Read 4111 times)

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.

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?

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?

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?

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?

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?

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




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.

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?



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?

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.

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.

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 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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.