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

[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).

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.

It's not called a subpoena.  It's called a subpoena letter.  The subpoena letter is in reference to the enclosed subpoena.

[TECSHARE]

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.

[TwitchySeal]

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.

[TECSHARE]

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

[TwitchySeal]

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

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. 

[TECSHARE]

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.

[TwitchySeal]

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.

I can do one better.  Here's the subpoena letter that was sent with the Subpoena.  It explains the scope of the 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

[TECSHARE]

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.

I can do one better.  Here's the subpoena letter that was sent with the Subpoena.  It explains the scope of the 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

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

Quote from: TwitchySeal on Today at 04:28:47 AM
"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.


EDIT:

I found another document with as much legal authority as the one you just provided: https://i.imgur.com/3c1jojN.png

It also explains the scope of the subpeenor, so of course the subpeenor is real.


Just admit it, the subpoena never existed and you got lied to.

[BADecker]

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.

I can do one better.  Here's the subpoena letter that was sent with the Subpoena.  It explains the scope of the 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

Do you have the proof that the letter was sent? That is, there must be 'proof of service' in some way, and the proof of service would include whether or not the actual subpoena went along with the letter.

I realize that if they sent the letter without the subpoena, that it would look very bad for them, except if everyone they sent the letter to was involved in a cover-up.

So, just curious, is there any proof of service?

[TwitchySeal]

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.

I can do one better.  Here's the subpoena letter that was sent with the Subpoena.  It explains the scope of the 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

Do you have the proof that the letter was sent? That is, there must be 'proof of service' in some way, and the proof of service would include whether or not the actual subpoena went along with the letter.

I realize that if they sent the letter without the subpoena, that it would look very bad for them, except if everyone they sent the letter to was involved in a cover-up.

So, just curious, is there any proof of service?

Some of them have said they responded to their subpoena and some of them have explicitly confirmed that they received it.  Like Rudy for example:

[TECSHARE]

Some of them have said they responded to their subpoena and some of them have explicitly confirmed that they received it.  Like Rudy for example:

https://i.gyazo.com/1c34df3a0e0b8069769bd0d834bdc290.png

Great, then you should have no trouble PRODUCING THE SUBPOENA FROM BEFORE THE OFFICIAL VOTE.

[TwitchySeal]

Some of them have said they responded to their subpoena and some of them have explicitly confirmed that they received it.  Like Rudy for example:

https://i.gyazo.com/1c34df3a0e0b8069769bd0d834bdc290.png

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.

[TECSHARE]

Some of them have said they responded to their subpoena and some of them have explicitly confirmed that they received it.  Like Rudy for example:

https://i.gyazo.com/1c34df3a0e0b8069769bd0d834bdc290.png

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!

[TwitchySeal]

Some of them have said they responded to their subpoena and some of them have explicitly confirmed that they received it.  Like Rudy for example:

https://i.gyazo.com/1c34df3a0e0b8069769bd0d834bdc290.png

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!

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.

[TECSHARE]

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.

[TwitchySeal]

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.

No, that's not what he's saying lol.  He's saying they sent a subpoena that wasn't properly authorized.  You're saying they didn't send a subpoena at all.

[TECSHARE]

No, that's not what he's saying lol.  He's saying they sent a subpoena that wasn't properly authorized.  You're saying they didn't send a subpoena at all.

LOL

look at me deny reality, just LOL!

ROFLMACOPTOR!!1


Question: What is the legal status of an improperly authorized subpoena?
Answer: A request for information.

A subpoena is a narrowly defined legal document that carries a penalty and is a matter of public record.

Lets review this subpoena: https://i.imgur.com/3c1jojN.png

As you can see this subpoena defines the scope of the subpeenor. Now, I have produced my subpoena. What in this document makes it a legally actionable subpoena? Now see I call it a subpoena, so clearly by virtue of government magic it is one because I called it that.

Why can't you produce the subpoena?


EDIT:

Hey look whats under the "letters" section.

https://oversight.house.gov/letters

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

You would think they would put that in the "Hearings" section or something wouldn't you if it was a subpoena?

[TwitchySeal]

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.pdf

Whether 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.  It's ok, nobody is always right, just move on.  There are way more interesting things to discuss.

[TECSHARE]

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.pdf

Whether 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.

[TECSHARE]

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/bandwagon

https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/burden-of-proof

https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/appeal-to-authority

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.