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.