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

[Viper1]

In reality he probably could've just sent a letter saying THIS IS YOUR SUBPOENA and it would still be binding.

Probably not. Unlike TECH, I went and dug through a whole lot of government documents and, although I didn't read through all the various exception clauses, I think there is at least one particular requirement. But wanted to see if he was actually interested in and capable of coming up with it or not. He wasn't.

[1713860960]

1713860960

[1713860960]

1713860960

[1713860960]

1713860960

[1713860960]

1713860960

[TECSHARE]

This is an actual subpoena: https://oversight.house.gov/sites/democrats.oversight.house.gov/files/documents/(70)%20Chaffetz%20Subpoena%20to%20Pagliano%2009-16-2016.pdf

This is NOT a subpoena: https://oversight.house.gov/sites/democrats.oversight.house.gov/files/documents/2019-09-27.EEC%20Engel%20Schiff%20%20to%20Pompeo-%20State%20re%20Document%20Subpoena.pdf

here are the requirements for a subpoena to be actionable: https://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/frcp/rule_45

Check out the Subpoena Schiff sent Esper: https://intelligence.house.gov/uploadedfiles/2019-10-07.eec_engel_schiff_to_esper-dod_re_subpoena.pdf

https://i.gyazo.com/6883d8d48729a8f12ccff4514883f575.png

This is not a subpoena. See links above for why.

Yeah we get it.  This is not a subpoena either: https://oversight.house.gov/sites/democrats.oversight.house.gov/files/documents/2019-09-27.EEC%20Engel%20Schiff%20%20to%20Pompeo-%20


It doesn't mean they didn't send an actual subpoena.

Great. Document the ACTUAL subpoena then if it exists. Enjoy your snipe hunt.

[TwitchySeal]

This is an actual subpoena: https://oversight.house.gov/sites/democrats.oversight.house.gov/files/documents/(70)%20Chaffetz%20Subpoena%20to%20Pagliano%2009-16-2016.pdf

This is NOT a subpoena: https://oversight.house.gov/sites/democrats.oversight.house.gov/files/documents/2019-09-27.EEC%20Engel%20Schiff%20%20to%20Pompeo-%20State%20re%20Document%20Subpoena.pdf

here are the requirements for a subpoena to be actionable: https://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/frcp/rule_45

Check out the Subpoena Schiff sent Esper: https://intelligence.house.gov/uploadedfiles/2019-10-07.eec_engel_schiff_to_esper-dod_re_subpoena.pdf

https://i.gyazo.com/6883d8d48729a8f12ccff4514883f575.png

This is not a subpoena. See links above for why.

Yeah we get it.  This is not a subpoena either: https://oversight.house.gov/sites/democrats.oversight.house.gov/files/documents/2019-09-27.EEC%20Engel%20Schiff%20%20to%20Pompeo-%20


It doesn't mean they didn't send an actual subpoena.

Great. Document the ACTUAL subpoena then if it exists. Enjoy your snipe hunt.

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?

[TECSHARE]

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. You claim it is real. Prove it. You have the burden of proof, no one can produce the ACTUAL subpoena issued before the official house vote. Like I said, enjoy the snipe hunt. Most likely you will just do more guffawing as you claim you are above having to prove such things to the chorus of your entourage chanting about Cheeto Hitler behind you. The fact is the subpoenas never existed and you refuse to admit it. The media and the Democrat party have been lying to you and you continue to defend them and insist they are telling the truth, yet some how no one can produce the documents? This isn't top secret stuff, this is public record. Where is it?

[TwitchySeal]

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.

 

[TECSHARE]

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]

[Spendulus]

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.

[TwitchySeal]

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=710

Click here to read the subpoena letter.
Click here to read the deposition letter.

[Spendulus]

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=710

Click here to read the subpoena letter.
Click here to read the deposition letter.

Okay, here's my response. Call the committee main number, or call that ass-hat running it. You will get a frazzled kid at the front desk. Tell him you want to see actual subpoena papers.

You'll get one of three or four answers, I do not know which, but it will likely be an interesting conversation.

[TECSHARE]

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=710

Click 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.

[TwitchySeal]

ps 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.

Even if I could find the subpoena, how would you know it was real unless you were able to hold the physical document?.  I guess you really will never know.

[TECSHARE]

ps 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.

Even if I could find the subpoena, how would you know it was real unless you were able to hold the physical document?.  I guess you really will never know.

I would know it is real because #1 the government is hosting it as a public document, and most importantly #2 it has all the requirements a actionable subpoena would have. See examples:

This is an actual subpoena: https://oversight.house.gov/sites/democrats.oversight.house.gov/files/documents/(70)%20Chaffetz%20Subpoena%20to%20Pagliano%2009-16-2016.pdf

This is NOT a subpoena: https://oversight.house.gov/sites/democrats.oversight.house.gov/files/documents/2019-09-27.EEC%20Engel%20Schiff%20%20to%20Pompeo-%20State%20re%20Document%20Subpoena.pdf

here are the requirements for a subpoena to be actionable: https://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/frcp/rule_45



Just admit it. The "real subpoena" doesn't exist. You should be able to produce it but you can't, hence all the excuses rather than just admitting you were lied to and you believed it without substantiation. If you are so sure PROVE ME WRONG. Find that subpoena and rub it in my face if you can!

[TwitchySeal]

ps 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.

Even if I could find the subpoena, how would you know it was real unless you were able to hold the physical document?.  I guess you really will never know.

I would know it is real because #1 the government is hosting it as a public document, and most importantly #2 it has all the requirements a actionable subpoena would have. See examples:

This is an actual subpoena: https://oversight.house.gov/sites/democrats.oversight.house.gov/files/documents/(70)%20Chaffetz%20Subpoena%20to%20Pagliano%2009-16-2016.pdf

This is NOT a subpoena: https://oversight.house.gov/sites/democrats.oversight.house.gov/files/documents/2019-09-27.EEC%20Engel%20Schiff%20%20to%20Pompeo-%20State%20re%20Document%20Subpoena.pdf

here are the requirements for a subpoena to be actionable: https://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/frcp/rule_45



Just admit it. The "real subpoena" doesn't exist. You should be able to produce it but you can't, hence all the excuses rather than just admitting you were lied to and you believed it without substantiation. If you are so sure PROVE ME WRONG. Find that subpoena and rub it in my face if you can!

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?

[TECSHARE]

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?

[TwitchySeal]

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?

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.

[BADecker]

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?

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.

Sounds like you are quite trusting of the Deep State that says they were using a subpoena, when you, yourself, seem to think that it will take two months to get a copy of it to see if it is real.

[TECSHARE]

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?

[TwitchySeal]

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?

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).

[BADecker]

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?

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).

If it's a letter without a subpoena, but it is called a subpoena, they would certainly state that it is not a lawful subpoena.

[TECSHARE]

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_45



PRODUCE THE SUBPOENA FROM BEFORE THE OFFICIAL VOTE