Quote from: nutildah on November 16, 2019, 03:49:39 AM

No, that's not reasonable given the fact that the people who received said subpoenas have acknowledged their existence. They aren't Democrats, they aren't liberal media, they aren't me or TwitchySeal. They are extremely loyal employees of the president. And here you are, fighting their words because they aren't in line with your incorrect belief that the subpoenas don't exist.

We already told you 20 times: we can't produce the subpoenas because they are not online.

https://www.justsecurity.org/67076/public-document-clearinghouse-ukraine-impeachment-inquiry/

There is a copy of the subpoena for DoD employee Laura Cooper, probably because she agreed to it and gave testimony already:

https://www.justsecurity.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/11/ukraine-clearinghouse-2019.10.23.Cooper-subpoena.pdf

Jon Sale, counsel for Giuliani, knows this subject far better than you or any of us, and in his response to congress he acknowledges Giuliani's receipt of a subpoena:

https://i.imgur.com/DD4fN7I.png

He's not making half-assed arguments about "due process" or questioning the fact that the subpoena exists. And his word trumps yours on this issue every day of the week.

People make assumptions. People are mistaken. People lie. The fact that a small number, or a large number of people think or say something does not constitute evidence of anything other than thoughts and ideas. I am not fighting anything. I am calling out the fact that you have the burden of proof of proving these subpoenas even existed, and you can not meet this burden of proof. People talking and thinking things is not meeting your burden of proof.

Quote from: TwitchySeal on November 16, 2019, 03:57:34 AM

Actually the words of others are absolutely a 'standard of evidence'. In fact, believe it or not, subpoenas are often used to get people to say words that are then used to as evidence. It's true that people talk about lots of things that don't exist, so you should consider the credibility of the person speaking as well as what they are saying.

If, for example, the Secretary of State says he received a subpoena, and he had no motive to lie about receiving that subpoena, then it should definitely be taken into consideration when considering whether or not the subpoena actually exists.

Arbitrarily designating individuals to be approved sources of truth is not a logical argument, it is a logical fallacy. The fact is you cant produce the subpoenas.