Quote from: nutildah on November 10, 2019, 10:29:45 AM

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.

Quote from: TwitchySeal on November 10, 2019, 09:55:56 AM

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.

Quote from: Viper1 on November 10, 2019, 10:21:51 AM

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?

Quote from: TwitchySeal on November 10, 2019, 10:13:53 AM

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?