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

[Viper1]

What do you think Viper1, what does "clerk" mean?

I know exactly who it is. You don't as you didn't do the research which was clear from you throwing out court of law references for congressional subpoenas.

Then tell me, what is "clerk", and what is their job?

I have said on multiple occasions I'm not going to hold your hand. I asked you to prove your points by providing information from actual government documents and you said you wouldn't. And now you're trying to get me to do it for you. No. I spent hours pouring over documents. Do your own research. I can only assume based on your refusal to take action and prove your points that you have zero interest in the truth about any of this.

[1715217117]

1715217117

[1715217117]

1715217117

[Viper1]

Your concept of burden of proof is so twisted I am not sure what the point is.

I'm going to say this one more time. The burden of proof is yours. So prove it.

Burden of Proof
A fallacy is when someone makes an argument based on unsound reasoning. Burden of proof is one type of fallacy in which someone makes a claim, but puts the burden of proof onto the other side. For example, a person makes a claim. Another person refutes the claim, and the first person asks them to prove that the claim is not true. In a logical argument, if someone states a claim, it is up to that person to prove the truth of his or her claim.

A negative claim is a colloquialism for an affirmative claim that asserts the non-existence or exclusion of something. The difference with a positive claim is that it takes only a single example to demonstrate such a positive assertion ("there is a chair in this room," requires pointing to a single chair), while the inability to give examples demonstrates that the speaker has not yet found or noticed examples rather than demonstrates that no examples exist (the negative claim that a species is extinct may be disproved by a single surviving example or proven with omniscience). The argument from ignorance is a logical fallacy. There can be multiple claims within a debate. Nevertheless, it has been said whoever makes a claim carries the burden of proof regardless of positive or negative content in the claim.

All your dancing around is nothing more than that. The burden of proof is yours as you can provide it but refuse to.

[TECSHARE]

What do you think Viper1, what does "clerk" mean?

I know exactly who it is. You don't as you didn't do the research which was clear from you throwing out court of law references for congressional subpoenas.

Then tell me, what is "clerk", and what is their job?

I have said on multiple occasions I'm not going to hold your hand. I asked you to prove your points by providing information from actual government documents and you said you wouldn't. And now you're trying to get me to do it for you. No. I spent hours pouring over documents. Do your own research. I can only assume based on your refusal to take action and prove your points that you have zero interest in the truth about any of this.

Your concept of burden of proof is so twisted I am not sure what the point is.

I'm going to say this one more time. The burden of proof is yours. So prove it.

Burden of Proof
A fallacy is when someone makes an argument based on unsound reasoning. Burden of proof is one type of fallacy in which someone makes a claim, but puts the burden of proof onto the other side. For example, a person makes a claim. Another person refutes the claim, and the first person asks them to prove that the claim is not true. In a logical argument, if someone states a claim, it is up to that person to prove the truth of his or her claim.

A negative claim is a colloquialism for an affirmative claim that asserts the non-existence or exclusion of something. The difference with a positive claim is that it takes only a single example to demonstrate such a positive assertion ("there is a chair in this room," requires pointing to a single chair), while the inability to give examples demonstrates that the speaker has not yet found or noticed examples rather than demonstrates that no examples exist (the negative claim that a species is extinct may be disproved by a single surviving example or proven with omniscience). The argument from ignorance is a logical fallacy. There can be multiple claims within a debate. Nevertheless, it has been said whoever makes a claim carries the burden of proof regardless of positive or negative content in the claim.

All your dancing around is nothing more than that. The burden of proof is yours as you can provide it but refuse to.

So you think I should prove that subpoenas that I don't think exist, don't exist? Also, what does a clerk do?

[Viper1]

So you think I should prove that subpoenas that I don't think exist, don't exist? Also, what does a clerk do?

Burden of proof is yours even more so since you can prove it. Please don't try and throw out your phony "logic" argument. As someone with an actual scientific background I know you're just full of shit and that since you can prove it, the burden is even more so yours. So put up or shut up.

Also, what does a clerk do?

Why don't you provide the government documents that show who the clerk is, what they do and the rules etc associated with it. Oh yeah. You refused to do that.

[nutildah]

Also, what does a clerk do?

You were already provided with this answer:

"Clerk" means "Clerk of the House," who is currently Cheryl Johnson.

Has nothing to do with a court.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clerk_of_the_United_States_House_of_Representatives

^^^
you can read all about it for yourself in this link

[TECSHARE]

Also, what does a clerk do?

You were already provided with this answer:

"Clerk" means "Clerk of the House," who is currently Cheryl Johnson.

Has nothing to do with a court.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clerk_of_the_United_States_House_of_Representatives

^^^
you can read all about it for yourself in this link

"Rule 45. Subpoena
Primary tabs

(a) In General.

(1) Form and Contents.

(A) Requirements—In General. Every subpoena must:

(i) state the court from which it issued;"

https://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/frcp/rule_45



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clerk_of_the_United_States_House_of_Representatives#Duties

Under duties:

"attest and affix the seal of the House to all writs, warrants, and subpoenas and formal documents issued by the House.
...
retain, in the official library, a permanent set of the books and documents generated by the House."


"A court of record is a court that is required to keep a record of its proceedings. All the proceedings, acts and decisions of the court are retained on a permanent record. These records of the court are presumed to be accurate and cannot be impeached collaterally. Strictly speaking court of records has the power to fine and imprison."

https://definitions.uslegal.com/c/court-of-record/

Like I said, a subpoena imposes to "fine or imprison" as a penalty, therefore it must be filed with a COURT of record. That is the clerks job, as described above to file, keep, and attest to the record.

Where are the subpoenas Nutilduhh?

[nutildah]

Also, what does a clerk do?

You were already provided with this answer:

"Clerk" means "Clerk of the House," who is currently Cheryl Johnson.

Has nothing to do with a court.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clerk_of_the_United_States_House_of_Representatives

^^^
you can read all about it for yourself in this link

"Rule 45. Subpoena
Primary tabs

(a) In General.

(1) Form and Contents.

(A) Requirements—In General. Every subpoena must:

(i) state the court from which it issued;"

https://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/frcp/rule_45

You are now confusing a judicial subpoena with a congressional subpoena. They are entirely different entities.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clerk_of_the_United_States_House_of_Representatives#Duties

Under duties:

"attest and affix the seal of the House to all writs, warrants, and subpoenas and formal documents issued by the House.
...
retain, in the official library, a permanent set of the books and documents generated by the House."


"A court of record is a court that is required to keep a record of its proceedings. All the proceedings, acts and decisions of the court are retained on a permanent record. These records of the court are presumed to be accurate and cannot be impeached collaterally. Strictly speaking court of records has the power to fine and imprison."

https://definitions.uslegal.com/c/court-of-record/

Like I said, a subpoena imposes to "fine or imprison" as a penalty, therefore it must be filed with a COURT of record.

That's simply not true. A "court of record" has the power to fine or imprison. Guess who else does? Congress, even though they haven't actually done it for almost a century. There is no court involved with the issuing of a congressional subpoena.

That is the clerks job, as described above to file, keep, and attest to the record.

A "permanent set of the books and documents generated by the House" is not the same thing as a court.

Where are the subpoenas Nutilduhh?

We've told you several times already: they are not publicly available as of yet.

https://www.justsecurity.org/67076/public-document-clearinghouse-ukraine-impeachment-inquiry/

Just Security has compiled and curated all publicly available documents in Congress’s impeachment inquiry concerning President Donald Trump in connection with Ukraine. This collection seeks to include significant original source material, including relevant legislation, letters, subpoenas, deposition transcripts, executive branch communications, and litigation documents.

Anything else?

[TwitchySeal]

You are now confusing a judicial subpoena with a congressional subpoena. They are entirely different entities.

Starting to see a pattern...

Cover letters include a description of contents, usually including page numbers, that is the purpose of a cover letter.

You're confusing a cover letter with a table of contents.

I am not confusing anything.

I'm still stuck on how his brain somehow thinks that the [ existence of an investigation into Bidens son ] and the fact that [ Biden pressured Ukraine to fire the prosecutor investigating his son ] are not 'mutually exclusive'.  Maybe he just confused about what mutually exclusive means?

[nutildah]

You are now confusing a judicial subpoena with a congressional subpoena. They are entirely different entities.

Starting to see a pattern...

Cover letters include a description of contents, usually including page numbers, that is the purpose of a cover letter.

You're confusing a cover letter with a table of contents.

I am not confusing anything.

Be prepared for him to shift the argument to something else at this point. That's what he does after he's been caught not knowing what he's talking about. You'd think that the guy who said this wouldn't let himself be proven wrong so easily:

As I explained before I have invested way more time into informing myself on these subjects over a period of decades than most people, and certainly more than you. I have gone to the gym every day and built my muscles while you sat on the couch and picked your ass, and you wonder why I treat you like an insect. I am not infallible, but compared to you I might as well be. I am very sorry you haven't invested more time into educating yourself, but your feels and boo boos ren't my concern.

Really all it takes is about 15 minutes of research to thoroughly understand the difference between judicial and congressional subpoenas.

[Viper1]

and the fact that [ Biden pressured Ukraine to fire the prosecutor investigating his son ]

The prosecutor was investigating the owner Zlochevsky and not Biden's Son. That's just a lie that the conspiracy theory people try and spread in order to twist things to their purposes. Never mind how they twist the timing and other facts to suit their purpose.

[Viper1]

Really all it takes is about 15 minutes of research to thoroughly understand the difference between judicial and congressional subpoenas.

He probably gets confused because impeachment is considered a "judicial proceeding", derived from the senate trial. It's the reason why, as in the case of the Clinton impeachment and as is happening now with getting access to the Muelar report etc, the exclusions of some ruling 6e applies to being able to get unredacted documents and grand jury testimony when doing an impeachment inquiry etc. You know. I know far too much about all this crap now.

[TECSHARE]

Be prepared for him to shift the argument to something else at this point.

He said as he shifts the point. How is this for not shifting the point. When will you produce the subpoenas Nutilduhh?

I'm still stuck on how his brain somehow thinks that the [ existence of an investigation into Bidens son ] and the fact that [ Biden pressured Ukraine to fire the prosecutor investigating his son ] are not 'mutually exclusive'.  Maybe he just confused about what mutually exclusive means?

What?

That's simply not true. A "court of record" has the power to fine or imprison. Guess who else does? Congress, even though they haven't actually done it for almost a century. There is no court involved with the issuing of a congressional subpoena.

That is the clerks job, as described above to file, keep, and attest to the record.

A "permanent set of the books and documents generated by the House" is not the same thing as a court.

Where are the subpoenas Nutilduhh?

We've told you several times already: they are not publicly available as of yet.

https://www.justsecurity.org/67076/public-document-clearinghouse-ukraine-impeachment-inquiry/

Just Security has compiled and curated all publicly available documents in Congress’s impeachment inquiry concerning President Donald Trump in connection with Ukraine. This collection seeks to include significant original source material, including relevant legislation, letters, subpoenas, deposition transcripts, executive branch communications, and litigation documents.

Anything else?

I am not confusing anything. In order for a subpoena to have legal force it must be filed with a court of record and made public, as well as personally served to the person required to comply with it. Without these steps it is just a request for information and not a subpoena. Yes, one more thing.

When will you produce the subpoenas Nutilduhhh?

[TwitchySeal]

Looks like Congress is actually exempt from the FOIA.  They don't have to publish anything other than the daily Congressional Record, which is basically just a transcript of each session, and obviously bills, laws, amendments, and resolutions (these are required to be published on their website as of 2017).

Why FOIA Obligations Don't Apply to Congress

National Security Archive

The FOIA applies to Executive Branch departments, agencies, and offices; federal regulatory agencies; and federal corporations. Congress, the federal courts, and parts of the Executive Office of the President that function solely to advise and assist the President, are NOT subject to the FOIA.

I guess TECSHARE was assuming that because DOJ subpoenas are public record, Congressional Subpoenas must also be public record.  He actually had me kind of convinced that they were pubic record, you just had to ask for them.  At least we gained some useless knowledge.

[TECSHARE]

Boom. Great find.

On the downside, I guess we'll never be able to prove that the subpoenas exist now.      

BOOM great excuse to never have to prove your premise. All you have is a sad chain of topic sliding, logical fallacies, assumptions, and sophistry. You are the verbal equivalent of street performers juggling for nickles. All I am expecting you to do is prove your premise, that the supposed subpoenas issued by the house before October 31st exist by providing the document. This isn't that high of a standard of evidence.

You are the ones who brought up FOIA as a distraction and topic slide. FOIA has nothing to do with it. The subpoenas are public records. You can't find them, therefore you will manufacture any excuse you can think of to justify the fact that you can not prove your premise with a very basic standard of evidence, the document itself. You have fun with Mike Pompeo, FOIAs, and more Mike Pompeo.

I am not confusing anything.

Then why did you give the definition for a judicial subpoena instead of a congressional subpoena? You didn't know what a house clerk was and were insisting that they somehow communicated with and stored records in a court, which they don't. You were confused, and then you were wrong.

In order for a subpoena to have legal force it must be filed with a court of record and made public, as well as personally served to the person required to comply with it. Without these steps it is just a request for information and not a subpoena.

Despite your personal preference of definition, a congressional subpoena is still a subpoena; its just not a judicial subpoena. It does not have to be filed with a court of record -- I'm not even certain it _has_ to be made public. This all stems from a misunderstanding on your part several pages back. Instead of admitting you were wrong, you doubled-down, tripled-down and now have quadrupled-down on your error. It doesn't change the fact that you were wrong to begin with.

Meanwhile, not one single person, Republican or otherwise, claims that the subpoenas don't exist -- you are alone in this camp.

Yes, one more thing.

When will you produce the subpoenas Nutilduhhh?

Again: they are not publicly available as of yet. That hasn't changed since 3 hours ago.

ANY subpoena has basic legal requirements to be enforceable. This is not because of what jurisdiction they were issued from but because that is what due process requires. Part of that due process is a filing of the subpoena, certifying it, and serving it. That means as standard procedure public records are generated, ones which you should easily be able to produce, but can't.

Then why did you give the definition for a judicial subpoena instead of a congressional subpoena? You didn't know what a house clerk was and were insisting that they somehow communicated with and stored records in a court, which they don't. You were confused, and then you were wrong.

- prepare the roll of Members-elect.

- call the Members-elect to order at the commencement of each Congress; to call the roll of Members-elect, and, pending the election of the Speaker, to preserve order and decorum; and to decide all questions of order.

- prepare and distribute at the beginning of every session a list of reports required to be made to Congress.

- note all questions of order, and decisions thereon, and to print these as an appendix to the Journal of each session of the House.

- prepare and print the House Journal after each session of Congress, and to distribute the Journal to Members and to the executive and the legislature of each State.

- attest and affix the seal of the House to all writs, warrants, and subpoenas and formal documents issued by the House.

- certify the passage by the House of all bills and joint resolutions.

- receive messages from the President and the Senate when the House is not in session.

- prepare and deliver messages to the Senate and otherwise as requested by the House.

- retain, in the official library, a permanent set of the books and documents generated by the House.

- manage the office and supervise the staff of any vacant Member (the vacancy may have occurred by expulsion, resignation, or death) until a successor is elected.

In addition, the Clerk:

- acts as custodian of all noncurrent records of the House, pursuant to Rule VII.

- is responsible, under the supervision and direction of the U.S. House of Representatives Fine Arts Board, for the administration, maintenance, and display of the works of fine art and other similar property of the Congress for display or for other use in the House wing of the Capitol, the House Office Buildings, or any other location under the control of the House (P.L. 100-696). In addition, pursuant to the rules of the United States Preservation Commission, the Clerk may be asked to provide staff support and assistance to the Commission.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clerk_of_the_United_States_House_of_Representatives#Duties

Meanwhile, not one single person, Republican or otherwise, claims that the subpoenas don't exist -- you are alone in this camp.

In letters to State Department employees, the Committees have ominously threatened- without any legal basis and before the Committees even issued a subpoena - that "[a]ny failure to appear" in response to a mere letter request for a deposition "shall constitute evidence of obstruction."

https://www.scribd.com/document/429357573/White-House-Letter-to-Speaker-Pelosi-Et-Al-10-08-2019

Starting to see a pattern...

yeah, me too:

"HUGE! EXCLUSIVE BOMBSHELL: Documents Released by Ukrainian General Prosecutor’s Office Reveal MILLIONS Funneled to Hunter Biden and the John Kerry Family"

https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2019/11/huge-exclusive-bombshell-documents-released-by-ukrainian-general-prosecutors-office-reveal-millions-funneled-to-hunter-biden-and-the-john-kerry-family/

https://www.scribd.com/user/259237201/JohnSolomon/uploads

[TwitchySeal]

ANY subpoena has basic legal requirements to be enforceable. This is not because of what jurisdiction they were issued from but because that is what due process requires. Part of that due process is a filing of the subpoena, certifying it, and serving it. That means as standard procedure public records are generated, ones which you should easily be able to produce, but can't.

Just because a document has to be certified and served doesn't mean public records are generated.  There are plenty of scenarios where documents, like subpoenas for example, being made public would be a violation of privacy or interfere with an investigation.  Sometimes Subpoenas are made public, but not very often.  Go see how many subpoenas you find on the internet if you don't believe me.  

Then go see how many congressional subpoenas you can find.  The answer is not many.  That's because A) Congress is not required to make the subpoenas public and B) It's just a form.  If they want to make the substance of the subpoena public they would put the subpoena letter on the internet.

There are groups that are very against the exception Congress has when it comes to requiring records to be public, and the laws have been challenged, which is why in Jan 2017 The House voted to be even more explicit:

https://www.congress.gov/115/bills/hres5/BILLS-115hres5eh.pdf

Code:

In the House of Representatives, U. S.,
January 3, 2017.
Resolved, That the Rules of the House of Representatives of the One Hundred Fourteenth Congress, including applicable provisions of law or concurrent resolution that constituted rules of the House at the end of the One Hundred
Fourteenth Congress, are adopted as the Rules of the House
of Representatives of the One Hundred Fifteenth Congress,
with amendments to the standing rules as provided in section
2, and with other orders as provided in sections 3, 4, and 5.
SEC. 2. CHANGES TO THE STANDING RULES. 

...

Code:

Records created, generated, or received by the
congressional office of a Member, Delegate, or the Resident Commissioner in the performance of official duties
are exclusively the personal property of the individual
Member, Delegate, or the Resident Commissioner and 
10
•HRES 5 EH
such Member, Delegate, or Resident Commissioner has
control over such records.’

And let me stop you before you play the "that's for records, not for Subpoenas!"

Anything filed with the clerk is considered a record.

If you're going to continue to insist that all congressional subpoenas are public record, and if a subpoena isn't available to the public then it must not exist, I kindly request you let me know where all the other subpoenas are.

I've only been able to find 8 out of thousands.

[TECSHARE]

ANY subpoena has basic legal requirements to be enforceable. This is not because of what jurisdiction they were issued from but because that is what due process requires. Part of that due process is a filing of the subpoena, certifying it, and serving it. That means as standard procedure public records are generated, ones which you should easily be able to produce, but can't.

Just because a document has to be certified and served doesn't mean public records are generated.  There are plenty of scenarios where documents, like subpoenas for example, being made public would be a violation of privacy or interfere with an investigation.  Sometimes Subpoenas are made public, but not very often.  Go see how many subpoenas you find on the internet if you don't believe me.  

Then go see how many congressional subpoenas you can find.  The answer is not many.  That's because A) Congress is not required to make the subpoenas public and B) It's just a form.  If they want to make the substance of the subpoena public they would put the subpoena letter on the internet.

There are groups that are very against the exception Congress has when it comes to requiring records to be public, and the laws have been challenged, which is why in Jan 2017 The House voted to be even more explicit:

https://www.congress.gov/115/bills/hres5/BILLS-115hres5eh.pdf

Code:

In the House of Representatives, U. S.,
January 3, 2017.
Resolved, That the Rules of the House of Representatives of the One Hundred Fourteenth Congress, including applicable provisions of law or concurrent resolution that constituted rules of the House at the end of the One Hundred
Fourteenth Congress, are adopted as the Rules of the House
of Representatives of the One Hundred Fifteenth Congress,
with amendments to the standing rules as provided in section
2, and with other orders as provided in sections 3, 4, and 5.
SEC. 2. CHANGES TO THE STANDING RULES. 

...

Code:

Records created, generated, or received by the
congressional office of a Member, Delegate, or the Resident Commissioner in the performance of official duties
are exclusively the personal property of the individual
Member, Delegate, or the Resident Commissioner and 
10
•HRES 5 EH
such Member, Delegate, or Resident Commissioner has
control over such records.’

And let me stop you before you play the "that's for records, not for Subpoenas!"

Anything filed with the clerk is considered a record.

If you're going to continue to insist that all congressional subpoenas are public record, and if a subpoena isn't available to the public then it must not exist, I kindly request you let me know where all the other subpoenas are.

I've only been able to find 8 out of thousands.

Your public record argument is unrelated and a non-sequitur. A subpoena is not just a record. This post is a record. A subpoena has actionable legal force. It is a matter of due process and constitutional law it has certain requirements based on that fact.

"The Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment requires that before any witness under congressional investigation can be punished for failure to cooperate, the pertinency of the interrogation to the topic under the congressional committee's inquiry must be brought home to the witness at the time the questions are presented.

The Justices have explained:
Unless the subject matter has been made to appear with undisputable clarity, it is the duty of the investigative body, upon objection of the witness on grounds of pertinency, to state for the record the subject under inquiry at that time and the manner in which the propounded questions are pertinent thereto.10 Even when a legislative committee acts within bounds, the form of questions asked and the rulings on objections to them maybe so obtuse as to make it violative of due process of law for courts to punish a refusal to answer."


http://www.ncsl.org/Portals/1/Documents/relacs/2018_PDS/Committee_Sub_Jones.pdf

https://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/frcrmp/rule_17

https://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/frcp/rule_45

No, it doesn't mean that. This is your unfounded assertion. At least you abandoned your incorrect application of the term "court of record."

Your argument is unless you accept the subpoenas are real without reading them you are not "capable of thinking both logically and honestly"?

It does mean that, as explained above. You can't enforce a subpoena without due process. If it is not enforceable, then it is not a subpoena.

Let me put it in simpler terms for you. You are driving down the highway and you get pulled over. The cop asks for your drivers license. You hand it to him and he says "hey this expired 3 months ago". He then tickets you for driving without a license. You have your license in your hand, but legally speaking you have a piece of plastic because it has no authority under the law.

A subpoena without authority under the law to punish is by definition not a subpoena (Latin for under penalty). Just like it is not a license because it has no legal standing, a subpoena is not a subpoena without its own basic constitutional due process requirements as outlined above.


Produce the subpoenas hyenas.

[TwitchySeal]

Produce the subpoenas hyenas.

I can't find them.  I've only found 8 congressional subpoenas in total from the past 7 years.
 
Show me where there are hundreds of other congressional subpoenas (ballerinas  ).

[TECSHARE]

I can't find them.  I've only found 8 congressional subpoenas in total from the past 7 years.
 
Show me where there are hundreds of other congressional subpoenas (ballerinas  ).

I don't remember saying there were hundreds of them. Is your point because there aren't a lot of them clearly some must be unpublished? That doesn't seem logical as it could simply be a matter of fact that they don't often exercise their subpoena authority, but you do seem to be a fan of assumptions.

P.S. Your rhymes suck Chuck.

Produce the subpoenas Tina.

[TECSHARE]

Your argument is unless you accept the subpoenas are real without reading them you are not "capable of thinking both logically and honestly"?

This really is a flat earther level argument. I don't have to see that the earth is round to know it is round. The preponderance of evidence suggests that, much like the subpoenas exist, the earth is round.

It does mean that, as explained above. You can't enforce a subpoena without due process. If it is not enforceable, then it is not a subpoena.

Sigh... No, it doesn't. Congress can request for judicial intervention in order to get somebody to comply with a congressional subpoena. So far, that has not happened yet with Giuliani or Pompeo. It has, however, happened in the past. You clearly have no idea what you're talking about yet you keep talking. Why?

Produce the subpoenas hyenas.

We've never tried to wriggle our way out of acknowledging that we can't produce them. However, only a fool would think they don't exist after the people being subpoenaed publicly acknowledged their existence. Do you really think Pompeo and Giuliani are trying to pull a fast one over on you? What's wrong with you?

What evidence? You mean people talking about the subpoena? That is evidence? What else? In order to have a preponderance of evidence you must first have evidence, then multiple sources of it. You have neither. You have a preponderance of assumptions.

The judicial intervention you just described is what is required to meet the standards of due process and enforce a subpoena. If the subpoena has no legal standing, then it is not enforceable, and therefore by definition NOT A SUBPOENA. No penalty, no subpoena. Of course you can't even produce a document even resembling a subpoena from The House regarding impeachment before October 31st 2019.

[BADecker]

Democrats have no actual plan for impeachment - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Evj_qduJY7U