Quote from: TECSHARE on November 08, 2019, 04:05:03 AM

Quote from: TwitchySeal on November 08, 2019, 03:29:33 AM

Quote from: TECSHARE on November 08, 2019, 03:22:36 AM

Quote from: TwitchySeal on November 08, 2019, 02:48:49 AM

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.