Quote from: nutildah on November 15, 2019, 06:59:58 AM

Quote from: TECSHARE on November 15, 2019, 03:52:30 AM

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.

Quote from: TECSHARE on November 15, 2019, 03:52:30 AM

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?

Quote from: TECSHARE on November 15, 2019, 03:52:30 AM

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.