Something I did a while back, updated for the anniversary.  1Hz3HZT4v8qxtyYiRQ66UHTUSK3dKCnVMW |
|
|
|
You were saying something about logic? You have the burden of proof to document the subpoena's existence. Since you can't, the only logical conclusion is it does not exist. If you knew where it was you would post it right? Of course you would! Right away. You can't of course because it doesn't exist.
No, that's not the only logical conclusion. How about Mike Pompeo saying that he had received a subpoena -- does that carry any weight with you? https://i.imgur.com/P53g4Nh.pnghttp://prod-upp-image-read.ft.com/74bfe2b8-e465-11e9-9743-db5a370481bcHow about the actual subpoena? Subpoenas are required to be filed in court to have any legal authority. That is the public record. Where is it? Seems the default premise is "oh it exists in some undefined place, just not on the internet." Why is it the burden of proof doesn't apply to you in a logical argument? |
|
|
|
Too bad no actual subpoena existed, as proven by your inability to produce it.
That's not how logic works. Just because something can't immediately be found it doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Every single major media outlet in the world reported the story using the word "subpoena", as did the actual House of Representatives. Again, you're ridiculous for thinking somehow you know better than all of them. Ah, those good old logical fallacies. https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/bandwagonhttps://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/burden-of-proofhttps://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/appeal-to-authorityYou were saying something about logic? You have the burden of proof to document the subpoena's existence. Since you can't, the only logical conclusion is it does not exist. If you knew where it was you would post it right? Of course you would! Right away. You can't of course because it doesn't exist. |
|
|
|
You've been arguing that Schiff never sent the actual subpoena document. The one that looks like this: https://oversight.house.gov/sites/democrats.oversight.house.gov/files/documents/(70)%20Chaffetz%20Subpoena%20to%20Pagliano%2009-16-2016.pdfWhether it's a legal enforceable subpoena or not is a different argument from whether or not they filled out the subpoena document and included it with the subpoena letter. You keep getting hung up on these nonsense arguments (it's not a criminal investigation, they never actually filled out the form) when there are valid ones you could be making. You were totally convinced that the Subpoena letter was sent in place of the Subpoena until I explained to you that it's standard practice to include a letter explaining the subpoena with the subpoena when it's served. You were wrong on the criminal investigation assumption and you're wrong on the suboena letter assumption, just move on. There are way more interesting things to discuss. If it is not legal or enforceable, it is by definition not a subpoena. You keep claiming this ghost subpoena exists but you are unable to produce it, which makes no sense since subpoenas are public court records. Yes, they certainly did write a letter talking about subpoenas didn't they. Too bad no actual subpoena existed, as proven by your inability to produce it. You made the assumption it existed because that is what you were told. You were lied to. Rather than admit it you swear it is somewhere in the ether floating around just outside the grasp of the internet, and really I am the one mistaken, even though you have no evidence to prove it ever existed beyond other people you trusted saying it existed. Tell me to move on some more and how wrong I am while you refuse to admit you have zero documentation to back up your claims of any real subpoenas from the house related to impeachment before the 31st of October. Aren't you one of the guys complaining about how I never admit when I am wrong? Seems like that criticism is some you prefer to give and not to take for yourself. |
|
|
|
I don't think Steven A. Engel would agree with you that Schiff was only sending subpoena letters and not including the actual subpoena document. You're quoting him saying the subpoenas aren't legitimate, not that they were never served. Use your brain. Even if the subpoena was on the internet it wouldn't disprove any argument that they weren't legitimate, other than your silly "they only sent a letter, not the actual subpoena" argument. That is exactly what he is saying. In order for the subpoenas to have been legitimate, they would have had to be served, or in this case, also "ratified" as he describes it. Since they were not, the subpoenas legally NEVER EXISTED. I would LOVE for you to prove me wrong on this. I am closing my eyes and sticking out my chin giving you a free shot. Prove me wrong. Find the subpoena you swear exists up and down in spite of having zero evidence of it ever being written. |
|
|
|
Great, then you should have no trouble PRODUCING THE SUBPOENA FROM BEFORE THE OFFICIAL VOTE. The subpoena isn't online. You think this means it doesn't exist. I disagree. No need to keep having same argument over and over. The only problem is you have the burden of proof. I also disagree with your baseless and undocumented conclusion. You should prove it exists with documentation, but, of course you can't. A subpoena is a public record. You cant produce it because IT NEVER EXISTED. Your red herrings about FISA filings and it not being online are just excuses in a lame attempt to distract from the fact you CAN'T PRODUCE THE ACTUAL SUBPOENA. You claim it exists all you want, you can't prove it, and seeing as the burden of proof is on you, well then I guess your argument has no basis now does it? Look who agrees with me: "As we have previously advised you, prior to October 31, 2019, the House had not vested any committee in the current Congress with the authority to issue subpoenas in connection with an impeachment inquiry. As a result, subpoenas issued before that date purporting to be “pursuant to” an impeachment inquiry were not properly authorized. Although House Resolution 660 “direct(s)” HPSCI and other committees to “con-tinue their ongoing investigations,” it does not purport to ratify any previously issued subpoena. Accordingly, while the Executive Branch may, and regularly does, accommodate congressional requests for information in the absence of a subpoena, the relevant committees would have to issue new subpoenas to impose any compulsory effect on recipients. STEVEN A. ENGEL Assistant Attorney General Office of Legal Counsel " (p5 https://www.scribd.com/document/433572872/Exclusion-of-Agency-Counsel-From-Congressional-Depositions-in-the-Impeachment-Context#from_embed ) A subpoena is literally defined as having a compulsory affect, that is what it is named for (Latin for under penalty). A subpoena without compulsory effect is called a request for information/testimony/evidence. You know better than me clearly! Prove me wrong, produce that subpoena you claim existed before October 31st! You can do it! Shut my ass up, and show me good! It just has to exist, doesn't it? You can do it! |
|
|
|
Great, then you should have no trouble PRODUCING THE SUBPOENA FROM BEFORE THE OFFICIAL VOTE. |
|
|
|
I see lots of presumptions, assumptions, and beliefs, but just because the Subpoena isn't on the internet is not proof that it doesn't exist. You mean like the presumption that the subpoena exists? I mean if it exists, surely you can find a case file or some kind of court document reference number when it was filed surely? No, this is a super top secret subpoena that no one gets to see even though by definition it is a court document of public record. Just admit you have no evidence of it ever existing. |
|
|
|
It's not called a subpoena. It's called a subpoena letter. The subpoena letter is in reference to the enclosed subpoena. Then... PRODUCE THE SUBPOENA FROM BEFORE THE OFFICIAL VOTE You claim it exists. Produce it. Why? There wouldn't be anything in the actual subpoena that isn't in the subpoena letter, except maybe an address. FOIA requests take a couple months and cost like $50. Subpoenas are published, public court documents. You don't need a FOIA request. Stop making excuses. It is a matter of public record. It never existed and you CAN'T PROVE it did. Just because some one wrote a note saying yeah we totally had that subpoena doesn't make it an actionable, filed, and processed court document. PRODUCE THE SUBPOENA FROM BEFORE THE OFFICIAL VOTE |
|
|
|
It's not called a subpoena. It's called a subpoena letter. The subpoena letter is in reference to the enclosed subpoena. Then... PRODUCE THE SUBPOENA FROM BEFORE THE OFFICIAL VOTE You claim it exists. Produce it. |
|
|
|
You're confusing a cover letter with a table of contents.
The letter you keep saying isn't a subpoena is the letter that was sent along with the subpoena. You're right about it not being a subpoena, but your wrong to conclude that it's existence is evidence that there is no subpoena.
There's nothing to gain by sending a subpoena letter without a subpoena, but if that were to happen, the person who received the subpoena letter wouldn't argue that the subpoena was unlawful (which is what's happening). I am not confusing anything. Its existence is not evidence there is no subpoena, just like the fact that Gary Busey likes green apples is not evidence the subpoena doesn't exist either. The fact that no one can produce it is evidence of the subpoena not existing. I explained what was to be gained already. They wanted to give the appearance of moving forward officially without giving the office of the president or the Republican minority in the house the ability to produce their own evidence and subpoenas. Solution, fight the battle in the media politically and just SAY you issued subpoenas. It satiates their ever more hysterical extremist base, optics work to their favor, and since it is not official the Republicans can't exercise due process in a non-existent process. There's nothing to gain by sending a subpoena letter without a subpoena, but if that were to happen, the person who received the subpoena letter wouldn't argue that the subpoena was unlawful (which is what's happening). That is EXACTLY what is happening. If it were a real subpoena they would still have to enforce it in court. The way to prove that argument wrong is to bring it to court, but you can't use a request for information as a legally actionable subpoena, because it doesn't meet the requirements for action. I can give a toddler some crayons and tell them to write me up a subpoena, and I can call it a subpoena, that doesn't make it a subpoena. The law defines very explicitly what an actionable subpoena consists of. here are the requirements for a subpoena to be actionable: https://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/frcp/rule_45PRODUCE THE SUBPOENA FROM BEFORE THE OFFICIAL VOTE |
|
|
|
For your level of expertise on subpoenas it's surprising you still think that the dems were using a cover letter as the actual subpoena. They aren't. Those letters are included with the actual subpoena to define scope.
Just because it's public record doesn't mean it's on the internet. You could request a copy of the subpoena by making a FOIA request with the state department which takes a couple months. I don't really see the point though, it won't say anything that's not included in the letter that was sent with the subpoena. Cover letters include a description of contents, usually including page numbers, that is the purpose of a cover letter. Also they are usually labeled as such. Now your strategy is to downgrade this from a subpoena to a cover letter? Just admit it was a lie and you believed it. If you are so sure I am wrong produce the subpoena. A FOIA is not required for published, public documents, as the vast majority of court records are. How many more excuses can you think up to justify the fact you cant produce the actual subpoena? |
|
|
|
How likely do you think it is that congress sent a letter that references "the enclosed subpoena" without enclosing a subpoena?
Will you assume that a subpoena was enclosed with the letter if a federal judge rules on it without any mention of whether or not the actual document was served? I don't care about your totally arbitrary statistical projections. A subpoena is a legal document, and a matter of public record. I maintain it does not exist, and have not reviewed any document that would have force of law. Your premise seems to be that the subpoena exists, you just can't find it, or refuse to look for it. I am not sure how I am supposed to prove the non-existence of something to you, but you can certainly prove the existence of the subpoena to me (if it actually existed). You have the burden of proof. Just keep looking, you are sure of yourself, you will find it eventually.... right? |
|
|
|
Throughout the 2012 election, Obama had such a polarizing presidency that he had cost Democrats many governorships, many state legislatures, and many seats in the House and the Senate. This election Republicans are starting to feel this same thing. The Trump presidency are pushing many suburban Republicans away from him, and towards Democrats down the ballot. Look at the recent Mississippi governors race -- where in 2015 Republicans had won by 34 percent. This year they won it by about 5 percent. That's too close for comfort in a race which is typically a lock down Republican. Or the fact that the Virginia state legislature has now flipped to Dem. Take this point from the article I'm referencing: This turnout trend has now continued for three Novembers, and Republicans who try to explain it away are fooling themselves. The GOP under Mr. Trump is losing more college-educated suburban voters, especially women, than it is gaining rural voters or working-class former Democrats. Republicans have to start picking up college educated suburban voters again, or this is going to get very interesting come 2020. No, its called, the "We have destroyed our own states, now we are flooding to red areas to parasitically feed of of them for a while until they collapse too." effect. |
|
|
|
This document was produced on September 16th, 2016, and wasn't uploaded to the website until November 14th, 2017 -- almost an entire year later. Pretending the actual Pompeo subpoena document doesn't exist is a pretty stupid road to go down. Besides, who cares if we show it to you? You'll just weasel around having to admit you were wrong by declaring it to be bullying of Republicans and illegal, a witch hunt, circle jerk, whatever the nom du jour you have for something you don't like is when it happens. If you read Schiff's letter, he doesn't even mention the documents being subpoenaed! ... we are hereby transmitting a subpoena that compels you to set for the documents in the accompanying schedule by October 4th... The subpoena document itself is a technicality. Just because it hasn't been published doesn't mean it doesn't actually exist. Let me guess, the House of Representatives are lying, and the entire media (all of it) is lying, but somehow you are right because you know better.  So no need to prove your claims, because am (according to you) probably wrong anyway? Man that's convenient. I will remember that next time I am asked to provide proof for one of my claims instead of finding actual sources for you to ignore. None of you can produce the subpoenas because they don't exist. Prove me wrong, its a public document. There is no reason you shouldn't be able to find them if they are real. SHow me the ACTUAL subpoena, the only part that has any legal authority. You really going to go with the "if the subpoena isn't on the internet then it must not exist" theory?
Who got it into your head that the cover letter for the subpoena was proof the subpoena wasn't an actual subpoena? No I am going to go with it is a public document and if it exists you should have no problem producing it theory. Where are all the Congressional subpoenas located? If you know of a repository for all of them let me know please. Not going to go file a FOIA. Every committee has a website link to the work and work in progress. They only post subpoena letters though, not the actual subpoenas. https://intelligence.house.gov/news/documentsingle.aspx?DocumentID=710Click here to read the subpoena letter.
Click here to read the deposition letter. Perhaps that is because the subpoena doesn't even exist? I guess we will never know because you can't produce it, and you are fine with just believing whatever you are told by people with a history of lying to the American people. It is a public record, a court document. If it exists you should have no trouble finding it. |
|
|
|
You really going to go with the "if the subpoena isn't on the internet then it must not exist" theory?
Who got it into your head that the cover letter for the subpoena was proof the subpoena wasn't an actual subpoena? No I am going to go with it is a public document and if it exists you should have no problem producing it theory. Where are all the Congressional subpoenas located? If you know of a repository for all of them let me know please. Not going to go file a FOIA. [listens to the sound of you making excuses, and crickets] |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
