Quote from: BADecker on November 08, 2019, 12:52:11 AM

Quote from: TwitchySeal on November 08, 2019, 12:34:39 AM

Quote from: TECSHARE on November 08, 2019, 12:30:10 AM

Quote from: TwitchySeal on November 08, 2019, 12:25:40 AM

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?

Cool

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: