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

[Spendulus]

Ukraine meddling with the 2016 elections.

Can you explain the "Ukraine meddled in the 2016 election" conspiracy theory for me?

Do people think that it was Ukraine, not Russia that was responsible for Hillarys emails being released?  I've been looking for evidence or a clear explanation but can't find anything other than the Crowdstrike stuff that has been debunked.

If "debunked," why did Trump ask the Pres of Ukraine to look into it?

I guess what I'm asking is this. Do you know better and more than Trump?

It's basically just Trump saying "No U" to all the proof that Russia meddled in the election to help Trump get elected.
Also, he could use the fact that Ukraine is investigating the DNC to legitimize the conspiracy theory and use it as ammo to attack Democrats.


The whole theory really is pretty nuts.  I did some more research, the theory really is that Russia was not involved, it was the DNC and Ukraine that hacked the DNC and then leaked all those DNC emails.  I mean, come on.  ...

Okay, but consider the bolded above. Whether the reality behind XYZ could be used as ammo to attack Political Party cannot be a defense against investigating XYZ, when the very question is where there is WRONG behind XYZ. Then the so called "ammo" is "evidence of wrong". That's kind of important.

At the same time, it seems investigating might clear the Political Party or some parts of it? I honestly don't see the problem with that. They know they've had some bad apples. We know that. Why not get this all over and move on?

As for Ukraine vs Russia. A lot of people don't even really understand these are different countries, let along understand their current relationship with each other. Let alone the history. For sure include "Media Reporters" in this level of "totally ignorant gufus" category.

I don' have the impression that it reduces to Ukraine(2016 involvement yet to be understood) vs Russia(2016 involvement detailed out to date). Could be both, Crowdstrike owner = Ukrainian oligarch, for example.

[1715048512]

1715048512

[1715048512]

1715048512

[1715048512]

1715048512

[1715048512]

1715048512

[1715048512]

1715048512

[1715048512]

1715048512

[TwitchySeal]

Crowdstrike owner = Ukrainian oligarch, for example.

I highly suggest you do some research.  I'm not saying that to be a smart ass.  Go try to prove yourself wrong to yourself, just start googling and clicking links and judging each source on it's own.  IF you seriously think Crowdstrike is owned by a Russian Oligarch then you've been reading too many conspiracy blogs or something.

[Viper1]

I don't need an entourage, you seldom travel without one.

Nobody has an "entourage", and neither is anybody traveling anywhere. This is a forum. I can't stop other people from writing comments, nor encourage them, nor do I try to. Anybody is free to do as they please.

Thanks for again proving you have trouble separating your personal feelings about discussions in Politics & Society and forum policy discussion in other sections.

Your projections don't change the fact that you're the only one here trying to do any censoring.

How long did the Russia-gate investigations last? 3 years? When did these accusations about manipulation in the 2016 elections start surfacing? Very recently.

Don't know, don't care. Its irrelevant to this discussion.

Democrats only allow investigations of their opponents though, investigations of anyone they support is just meddling of course.

 

Whatever you say, here comes one now... ^

I don't have the power to censor anything. I am not a moderator. Also I report people when they break the rules, not because they make a point I think should be hidden.

What? 2016 election meddling via Ukraine by the Bidens is irrelevant to the discussion, but posts about nothing but personal attacks is "on topic" and "censorship" if reported? Yeah ok buddy.

When did these accusations about manipulation in the 2016 elections start surfacing? Very recently.

You either have selective memory or are just out of the loop.

https://www.politico.com/story/2017/01/ukraine-sabotage-trump-backfire-233446

One has to wonder why NOW is when Trump decided to make it an issue when he's had 2 1/2 years to have investigations happen. Oh wait. Election season. Gotcha. It's clear from one of the transcripts that Trump has a bone to pick with Ukraine saying "They screwed me". But now is the time for some pay back time for him and gain political advantage out of it cause that's what he does. Use his office to settle personal scores.

One has to wonder how dense you have to be to not notice the connection between the investigations into Biden, and Ukraine meddling with the 2016 elections. Why make it an issue now? Might have something to do with the 3 years of Russia gate investigations making it difficult to do his job and run investigations of his own. So rather than immediately jumping into it and surely facing accusations of political interference, he let the investigation conclude, exposing itself as completely baseless, before exposing the ones involved with his own investigations. The 3 years of Russia gate of COURSE were not politically motivated right? Nor were the investigations of everyone who ever did Trumps landscaping or laundry. Now of course Trump thinks investigations of the other party are prudent, well of course all of that can only be motivated by politics right? You have so many holes in your brain when the wind blows it whistles.

[TECSHARE]

Ukraine meddling with the 2016 elections.

Can you explain the "Ukraine meddled in the 2016 election" conspiracy theory for me?

Do people think that it was Ukraine, not Russia that was responsible for Hillarys emails being released?  I've been looking for evidence or a clear explanation but can't find anything other than the Crowdstrike stuff that has been debunked.

If "debunked," why did Trump ask the Pres of Ukraine to look into it?

I guess what I'm asking is this. Do you know better and more than Trump?

It's basically just Trump saying "No U" to all the proof that Russia meddled in the election to help Trump get elected.
Also, he could use the fact that Ukraine is investigating the DNC to legitimize the conspiracy theory and use it as ammo to attack Democrats.


The whole theory really is pretty nuts.  I did some more research, the theory really is that Russia was not involved, it was the DNC and Ukraine that hacked the DNC and then leaked all those DNC emails.  I mean, come on.  

Also,
Crowdstrike isn't a Ukranian company.  It's located in California and publicly traded.

There's no evidence that the servers are in Ukraine or were ever in Ukraine.

The FBI did have access to the data from the servers.  They used it as evidence to indict 12 Russian hacker for hacking the DNC and other Democrats.  The indictment explains in detail exactly how they hacked the DNC. https://www.justice.gov/file/1080281/download

There are a ton of examples like this one:

For example, on or about March 19, 2016, LUKASHEV and his co-conspirators
created and sent a spearphishing email to the chairman of the Clinton Campaign.
LUKASHEV used the account “john356gh” at an online service that abbreviated
lengthy website addresses (referred to as a “URL-shortening service”).
LUKASHEV used the account to mask a link contained in the spearphishing email,
which directed the recipient to a GRU-created website. LUKASHEV altered the
appearance of the sender email address in order to make it look like the email was
a security notification from Google (a technique known as “spoofing”), instructing
the user to change his password by clicking the embedded link. Those instructions
were followed. On or about March 21, 2016, LUKASHEV, YERMAKOV, and
their co-conspirators stole the contents of the chairman’s email account, which
consisted of over 50,000 emails.

What proof? The Russia investigations are over. There never was any proof. It has been 3 years, how much more time do you need to produce it? Some one who has a story about how they think it happened is not the same thing as physical evidence, such as the hardware itself. One is a theory, the other is physical evidence. Evidence now points to a coverup within the DNC of their own crimes. The fact that they never released the server to the FBI is a significant factor. Crowdstrike has the raw data. That is why Trump mentioned it in his phone call to the Ukrainian president, because he knew this would be a good opportunity to use the countless, endless, and baseless accusations against him to draw attention to some real election meddling in 2016, including physical evidence. Now millions of people are looking into Crowdstrike as Biden's long history of pay for play deals get exposed in the process.

By the way, still no comment on those non-subpoena subpoenas?

Digital evidence in a computer related crime is just as valuable (and admissible in court) in a computer related crime as physical evidence in a murder.  

Unless you're dusting for fingerprints or checking for DNA, an image of a hard drive or server is the exact same thing as having the actual hardware.  

It's not like when you take a picture of a picture, where you lose a little bit of quality each time.  When you image a drive it's a byte for byte exact digital duplicate.  There is no way to hide anything from  being digitally imaged, including data that may have been deleted but recoverable.

For these reason, it's standard practice to image a drive when practical rather than physically seize it.  Also, I'm pretty sure when they actually seize computers or servers, they just image the hard drive and any ram and then investigate the images.  Not 100% sure how the FBI does it, but many other LE agencies do it that way.

It also seems incredibly unlikely that anyone could trick the FBI digital forensics team (world class) into thinking all those hacks happened at those exact times and dates by those exact Russians.



We've already discussed the subpoenas.  I think they're legal, you think they're not actually subpoenas. I think a judge is going to rule on a couple soon (McGhan and Bolton I think), so we'll get to find out for sure.  If I'm wrong I will definitely let you know I was wrong and you were right.

Crowdstrike owner = Ukrainian oligarch, for example.

I highly suggest you do some research.  I'm not saying that to be a smart ass.  Go try to prove yourself wrong to yourself, just start googling and clicking links and judging each source on it's own.  IF you seriously think Crowdstrike is owned by a Russian Oligarch then you've been reading too many conspiracy blogs or something.

What the fuck are you even rambling on about "digital evidence". No one is talking about "digital evidence" but you. What is important is the FBI has FIRST HAND KNOWLEDGE by PERSONALLY INSPECTING the servers, not simply taking the report of a private Democrat party affiliated security company with incentive to provide false information. One more time, it is a FACT that the FBI was never allowed to inspect the DNC's servers that were so called hacked by Russia. Speaking of "digital evidence" the files in question were copied at rates indicating they were copied via a USB thumb drive, not via the internet, of course that kind of "digital evidence" doesn't matter when it contradicts your story of course. "it is incredibly unlikely", well fuck, you say it is unlikely! Case closed, that is all the proof we need, you think it is unlikely! Why didn't you just say that before? Unlikely of course unless they had their own incentives to cover it up, but lets all keep pretending the FBI being barred from a first hand inspection of the servers is not a big deal and is not a breech of custody of evidence standards.

We did discuss the non-subpoena subpoenas issued before the official vote, and I proved conclusively they were not subpoenas but requests for information, and showed actually legally enforceable subpoenas for comparison, then you went quiet and refused to discuss the issue. Now I see your strategy is to wait for a new real subpoena to be issued so you can pretend as if the previously issued letters were real subpoenas. Who cares if the Democrat party is lying to everyone along with the media right? What is important is they are on "my side", and the ends justify the means right? No one said anything about Crowdstrike being run by a Russian oligarch, that is a non-sequitur and a straw man.

At least I made an argument. You substituted Tumblr in lieu of having independent thoughts. Bruh... that's deep. Don't forget to include some yoga pants shots.

[TwitchySeal]

What the fuck are you even rambling on about "digital evidence". No one is talking about "digital evidence" but you. What is important is the FBI has FIRST HAND KNOWLEDGE by PERSONALLY INSPECTING the servers, not simply taking the report of a private Democrat party affiliated security company with incentive to provide false information. One more time, it is a FACT that the FBI was never allowed to inspect the DNC's servers that were so called hacked by Russia.

You should really read the indictment of the 19 Russian hackers.  The only way that Russia was not involved in hacking the DNC is if the FBI literally just made a ton of shit up.  It's only 30 pages: https://www.justice.gov/file/1080281/download . It's really pretty interesting all the different ways they tracked them down - Mueller def had some Bitcoin sleuths on his team.

Also, the email dumps are pretty solid evidence that the DNC servers were hacked.  Unless you're suggesting the DNC dumped their own emails in 2016 before the election?  Why would they do that?

They obviously have shit loads of evidence that go beyond just the DNC servers, btw. I'm sure a decent chunk of the 2800 subpoenas, 500 search warrants and 500 witnesses were related to the Russians (they did a lot of business in the country).

Speaking of "digital evidence" the files in question were copied at rates indicating they were copied via a USB thumb drive, not via the internet, of course that kind of "digital evidence" doesn't matter when it contradicts your story of course.

I'd like to see that.  Honestly I'm totally open read whatever evidence is out there and if it seems strong enough I will absolutely change my opinion on what I think probably happened.

No one said anything about Crowdstrike being run by a Russian oligarch, that is a non-sequitur and a straw man.

You quoted it yourself dude . he said "Crowdstrike owner = Ukrainian oligarch, for example.".  How does Ukraine come into the story in your opinion?

We did discuss the non-subpoena subpoenas issued before the official vote, and I proved conclusively they were not subpoenas but requests for information, and showed actually legally enforceable subpoenas for comparison, then you went quiet and refused to discuss the issue.

We must have went back and forth on the subpoenas 30+ times.  I absolutely disagree with your logic and I'm fairly confident the subpoenas are enforceable.  This is a unique situation and it's not that simple.  I'm not a lawyer or a judge though, and neither are you, but I think if you were you'd understand that issues like this aren't black and white.  There are far smarter and experienced people than both of us on either side of this argument.

The only person that can decide conclusively is a judge.

By the way, you could save yourself a lot of typing by knocking it off with all the personal attacks.  Everyone already knows you think I'm less intelligent and informed than you.

[TECSHARE]

What the fuck are you even rambling on about "digital evidence". No one is talking about "digital evidence" but you. What is important is the FBI has FIRST HAND KNOWLEDGE by PERSONALLY INSPECTING the servers, not simply taking the report of a private Democrat party affiliated security company with incentive to provide false information. One more time, it is a FACT that the FBI was never allowed to inspect the DNC's servers that were so called hacked by Russia.

You should really read the indictment of the 19 Russian hackers.  The only way that Russia was not involved in hacking the DNC is if the FBI literally just made a ton of shit up.  It's only 30 pages: https://www.justice.gov/file/1080281/download . It's really pretty interesting all the different ways they tracked them down - Mueller def had some Bitcoin sleuths on his team.

I mean, the email dumps are pretty solid evidence that the DNC servers were hacked.  Unless you're suggesting the DNC dumped their own emails in 2016 before the election?  Why would they do that?

They obviously have shit loads of evidence that go beyond just the DNC servers, btw. I'm sure a decent chunk of the 2800 subpoenas, 500 search warrants and 500 witnesses turned up something.

Speaking of "digital evidence" the files in question were copied at rates indicating they were copied via a USB thumb drive, not via the internet, of course that kind of "digital evidence" doesn't matter when it contradicts your story of course.

I'd like to see that.  Honestly I'm totally open read whatever evidence is out there and if it seems strong enough I will absolutely change my opinion on what I think probably happened.

No one said anything about Crowdstrike being run by a Russian oligarch, that is a non-sequitur and a straw man.

You quoted it yourself dude . he said "Crowdstrike owner = Ukrainian oligarch, for example.".  How does Ukraine come into the story in your opinion?

We did discuss the non-subpoena subpoenas issued before the official vote, and I proved conclusively they were not subpoenas but requests for information, and showed actually legally enforceable subpoenas for comparison, then you went quiet and refused to discuss the issue.

We must have went back and forth on the subpoenas 30+ times.  I absolutely disagree with your logic and I'm fairly confident the subpoenas are enforceable.  This is a unique situation and it's not that simple.  I'm not a lawyer or a judge though, and neither are you, but I think if you were you'd understand that issues like this aren't black and white.  There are far smarter and experienced people than both of us on either side of this argument.

The only person that can decide conclusively is a judge.

By the way, you could save yourself a lot of typing by knocking it off with all the personal attacks.  Everyone already knows you think I'm less intelligent and informed than you.

First of all, "everyone knows", what the fuck kind of argument is this? Everyone knows when you can't form a logical argument, substituting rhetorical tricks is a useful strategy to avoid revealing this fact. Serves as a good distraction too, declaring yourself as some kind of victim that is some how being subjugated in the freedom and confines of one's own home. Very touching. Can you stick to the facts and skip the mind reader act? I don't think you are dumb, I think you are dishonest.

Report breaking down why the "Guccifer 2" DNC "hack" was actually a local leak and could not have been a remote hack.

“The metadata established several facts in this regard with granular precision: On the evening of July 5, 2016, 1,976 megabytes of data were downloaded from the DNC’s server. The operation took 87 seconds. This yields a transfer rate of 22.7 megabytes per second. These statistics are matters of record and essential to disproving the hack theory. No Internet service provider, such as a hacker would have had to use in mid-2016, was capable of downloading data at this speed.”

https://www.thenation.com/article/a-new-report-raises-big-questions-about-last-years-dnc-hack/


The DNC didn't dump its own files, Seth Rich did, and he payed with his life days later. This is why Julian Assange is so important, he can testify as to who was his source for the files. Assange might end up joining Epstein, but time will tell. He will be extradited soon, then we will all know for sure as he is the one man alive able to prove it.

For the record-

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

Some times the law is very black and white, and it is that way when it comes to legally enforceable documents. They have to be constructed in a specific way and include very specific information to be actionable.

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

Your so called "subpoena" includes none of this information or other basic foundational requirements for a subpoena to function and be valid. A judge will never rule on it because there is nothing to take legal action on, it was a letter requesting information. Nothing more.

[Viper1]

At least I made an argument. You substituted Tumblr in lieu of having independent thoughts. Bruh... that's deep. Don't forget to include some yoga pants shots.

[Viper1]

We must have went back and forth on the subpoenas 30+ times.  I absolutely disagree with your logic and I'm fairly confident the subpoenas are enforceable.

Not worth discussing it with him. The court has ruled that the congress are within their legal rights to conduct their oversight/impeachment inquiry etc and thus their subpoenas are legal. When asked to provide government documentation of proof of his claim he has failed to do so and just founders around with non applicable stuff.

[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

Some times the law is very black and white, and it is that way when it comes to legally enforceable documents. They have to be constructed in a specific way and include very specific information to be actionable.

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

Your so called "subpoena" includes none of this information or other basic foundational requirements for a subpoena to function and be valid. A judge will never rule on it because there is nothing to take legal action on, it was a letter requesting information. Nothing more.

I'll read that article later.

You're right, that's a letter not a subpoena.  The subpoena would've been sent along with the letter explaining everything.  (idiot )

[Viper1]

You're right, that's a letter not a subpoena.  The subpoena would've been sent along with the letter explaining everything.  (idiot )

The document he provided is for a court of law, not for oversight/impeachment.

The "letter" states it's a subpoena and has all the information required in it.

The government form he provided as "proof" was just the form. On the page itself it states it is only meant as a sample for the information required for a hearing.

I provided the senate handbook which has an impeachment subpoena in the form of a letter.

He has yet to provide any government documents that states exactly what is required for a subpoena and has said he won't. So basically, he refused to back up his claim and dances around it instead. So now there's no point continuing.

[TwitchySeal]

You're right, that's a letter not a subpoena.  The subpoena would've been sent along with the letter explaining everything.  (idiot )

The document he provided is for a court of law, not for oversight/impeachment.

The "letter" states it's a subpoena and has all the information required in it.

The government form he provided as "proof" was just the form. On the page itself it states it is only meant as a sample for the information required for a hearing.

I provided the senate handbook which has an impeachment subpoena in the form of a letter.

He has yet to provide any government documents that states exactly what is required for a subpoena and has said he won't. So basically, he refused to back up his claim and dances around it instead. So now there's no point continuing.

Na, the subpoena would be enclosed with that letter.  It's like a cover letter.  They come in a big envelope with a bunch of other legal stuff about your rights and reference material.

[TwitchySeal]

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

[Viper1]

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

Don't know what you're saying. The "letter" he claims is not a subpoena says it's a subpoena and is authorized by the committee via all those sorts of signatures.

[TwitchySeal]

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

Don't know what you're saying. The "letter" he claims is not a subpoena says it's a subpoena and is authorized by the committee via all those sorts of signatures.

It says "we are hereby transmitting a subpoena".  When he says "this subpoena" in the next paragraph, he's referring to the subpoena that is being transmitted, not the actual document you're reading.  The same language "this subpoena" is used in the letter to Epser, which is clearly not a subpoena since it concludes with "the enclosed subpoena".

It's totally standard to include a letter explaining what the subpoena is all about since the actual subpoena doesn't have much detail.

I've been subpoenaed.

[Viper1]

It says "we are hereby transmitting a subpoena".  When he says "this subpoena" in the next paragraph, he's referring to the subpoena that is being transmitted, not the actual document you're reading.  The same language "this subpoena" is used in the letter to Epser, which is clearly not a subpoena since it concludes with "the enclosed subpoena".

It's totally standard to include a letter explaining what the subpoena is all about since the actual subpoena doesn't have much detail.

I've been subpoenaed.

Oh good lord. So are you telling me that his reams and reams of posting about this thing can be summed up by as him deflecting to the cover letter as opposed to the other piece of paper which is the enclosed subpoena? He could have simply said that and ended the entire topic? I do note that the other letter also had enclosures. So much wasted time.

[TwitchySeal]

It says "we are hereby transmitting a subpoena".  When he says "this subpoena" in the next paragraph, he's referring to the subpoena that is being transmitted, not the actual document you're reading.  The same language "this subpoena" is used in the letter to Epser, which is clearly not a subpoena since it concludes with "the enclosed subpoena".

It's totally standard to include a letter explaining what the subpoena is all about since the actual subpoena doesn't have much detail.

I've been subpoenaed.

Oh good lord. So are you telling me that his reams and reams of posting about this thing can be summed up by as him deflecting to the cover letter as opposed to the other piece of paper which is the enclosed subpoena? He could have simply said that and ended the entire topic? I do note that the other letter also had enclosures. So much wasted time.

I imagine TECSHARE really believed that Schiff decided to send a 'fake subpoena' because he knew that the whole thing was an illegal witch hunt but maybe they'd think the fake subpoena was a real subpoena.

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

[Viper1]

It says "we are hereby transmitting a subpoena".  When he says "this subpoena" in the next paragraph, he's referring to the subpoena that is being transmitted, not the actual document you're reading.  The same language "this subpoena" is used in the letter to Epser, which is clearly not a subpoena since it concludes with "the enclosed subpoena".

It's totally standard to include a letter explaining what the subpoena is all about since the actual subpoena doesn't have much detail.

I've been subpoenaed.

Oh good lord. So are you telling me that his reams and reams of posting about this thing can be summed up by as him deflecting to the cover letter as opposed to the other piece of paper which is the enclosed subpoena? He could have simply said that and ended the entire topic? I do note that the other letter also had enclosures. So much wasted time.

I imagine TECSHARE really believed that Schiff decided to send a 'fake subpoena' because he knew that the whole thing was an illegal witch hunt but maybe they'd think the fake subpoena was a real subpoena.

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

That letter used the same terminology and some enclosures.

I'm still waiting for TECH to provide proof of what the subpoena is supposed to contain/look like. Not going to hold his hand though. It was entertaining for awhile to play his game but I'm over it.

[TwitchySeal]

It says "we are hereby transmitting a subpoena".  When he says "this subpoena" in the next paragraph, he's referring to the subpoena that is being transmitted, not the actual document you're reading.  The same language "this subpoena" is used in the letter to Epser, which is clearly not a subpoena since it concludes with "the enclosed subpoena".

It's totally standard to include a letter explaining what the subpoena is all about since the actual subpoena doesn't have much detail.

I've been subpoenaed.

Oh good lord. So are you telling me that his reams and reams of posting about this thing can be summed up by as him deflecting to the cover letter as opposed to the other piece of paper which is the enclosed subpoena? He could have simply said that and ended the entire topic? I do note that the other letter also had enclosures. So much wasted time.

I imagine TECSHARE really believed that Schiff decided to send a 'fake subpoena' because he knew that the whole thing was an illegal witch hunt but maybe they'd think the fake subpoena was a real subpoena.

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

That letter used the same terminology and some enclosures.

I'm still waiting for TECH to provide proof of what the subpoena is supposed to contain/look like. Not going to hold his hand though. It was entertaining for awhile to play his game but I'm over it.

Oh I'm sure he'll just admit he was wrong, learn from his mistake and move on like the man he is.

[TECSHARE]

It says "we are hereby transmitting a subpoena".  When he says "this subpoena" in the next paragraph, he's referring to the subpoena that is being transmitted, not the actual document you're reading.  The same language "this subpoena" is used in the letter to Epser, which is clearly not a subpoena since it concludes with "the enclosed subpoena".

It's totally standard to include a letter explaining what the subpoena is all about since the actual subpoena doesn't have much detail.

I've been subpoenaed.

Oh good lord. So are you telling me that his reams and reams of posting about this thing can be summed up by as him deflecting to the cover letter as opposed to the other piece of paper which is the enclosed subpoena? He could have simply said that and ended the entire topic? I do note that the other letter also had enclosures. So much wasted time.

I imagine TECSHARE really believed that Schiff decided to send a 'fake subpoena' because he knew that the whole thing was an illegal witch hunt but maybe they'd think the fake subpoena was a real subpoena.

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

No, he couldn't, because a subpoena has to have specific legal information included to be actionable legally. He can request whatever he wants, in order to have an enforceable penalty (the definition of subpoena), it is a requirement certain foundational information be included, which is not. Just because they say subpoena is included doesn't mean one was. Can you provide me a copy of the ACTUAL subpoena issued before the official vote? I would love to see it, so far all I have seen were deceptively worded requests for information with no legal authority.

For the record-

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.

[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.