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