Topic: Vid of Biden admit bribe of Ukrainian Pres. to fire prosecutor investigating son - page 20. (Read 4111 times)

No I am going to go with it is a public document and if it exists you should have no problem producing it theory. You claim it is real. Prove it. You have the burden of proof, no one can produce the ACTUAL subpoena issued before the official house vote. Like I said, enjoy the snipe hunt. Most likely you will just do more guffawing as you claim you are above having to prove such things to the chorus of your entourage chanting about Cheeto Hitler behind you. The fact is the subpoenas never existed and you refuse to admit it. The media and the Democrat party have been lying to you and you continue to defend them and insist they are telling the truth, yet some how no one can produce the documents? This isn't top secret stuff, this is public record. Where is it?

You really going to go with the "if the subpoena isn't on the internet then it must not exist" theory?

Who got it into your head that the cover letter for the subpoena was proof the subpoena wasn't an actual subpoena?

Great. Document the ACTUAL subpoena then if it exists. Enjoy your snipe hunt.

Probably not. Unlike TECH, I went and dug through a whole lot of government documents and, although I didn't read through all the various exception clauses, I think there is at least one particular requirement. But wanted to see if he was actually interested in and capable of coming up with it or not. He wasn't.

Yeah we get it.  This is not a subpoena either: https://oversight.house.gov/sites/democrats.oversight.house.gov/files/documents/2019-09-27.EEC%20Engel%20Schiff%20%20to%20Pompeo-%20


It doesn't mean they didn't send an actual subpoena.

No, he couldn't, because a subpoena has to have specific legal information included to be actionable legally. He can request whatever he wants, in order to have an enforceable penalty (the definition of subpoena), it is a requirement certain foundational information be included, which is not. Just because they say subpoena is included doesn't mean one was. Can you provide me a copy of the ACTUAL subpoena issued before the official vote? I would love to see it, so far all I have seen were deceptively worded requests for information with no legal authority.

For the record-

This is an actual subpoena: https://oversight.house.gov/sites/democrats.oversight.house.gov/files/documents/(70)%20Chaffetz%20Subpoena%20to%20Pagliano%2009-16-2016.pdf

This is NOT a 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

here are the requirements for a subpoena to be actionable: https://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/frcp/rule_45


This is not a subpoena. See links above for why.

Oh I'm sure he'll just admit he was wrong, learn from his mistake and move on like the man he is.

That letter used the same terminology and some enclosures.

I'm still waiting for TECH to provide proof of what the subpoena is supposed to contain/look like. Not going to hold his hand though. It was entertaining for awhile to play his game but I'm over it.

I imagine TECSHARE really believed that Schiff decided to send a 'fake subpoena' because he knew that the whole thing was an illegal witch hunt but maybe they'd think the fake subpoena was a real subpoena.

In reality he probably could've just sent a letter saying THIS IS YOUR SUBPOENA and it would still be binding.

Oh good lord. So are you telling me that his reams and reams of posting about this thing can be summed up by as him deflecting to the cover letter as opposed to the other piece of paper which is the enclosed subpoena? He could have simply said that and ended the entire topic? I do note that the other letter also had enclosures. So much wasted time.

It says "we are hereby transmitting a subpoena".  When he says "this subpoena" in the next paragraph, he's referring to the subpoena that is being transmitted, not the actual document you're reading.  The same language "this subpoena" is used in the letter to Epser, which is clearly not a subpoena since it concludes with "the enclosed subpoena".

It's totally standard to include a letter explaining what the subpoena is all about since the actual subpoena doesn't have much detail.

I've been subpoenaed.

Don't know what you're saying. The "letter" he claims is not a subpoena says it's a subpoena and is authorized by the committee via all those sorts of signatures.

Check out the Subpoena Schiff sent Esper: https://intelligence.house.gov/uploadedfiles/2019-10-07.eec_engel_schiff_to_esper-dod_re_subpoena.pdf

Na, the subpoena would be enclosed with that letter.  It's like a cover letter.  They come in a big envelope with a bunch of other legal stuff about your rights and reference material.

The document he provided is for a court of law, not for oversight/impeachment.

The "letter" states it's a subpoena and has all the information required in it.

The government form he provided as "proof" was just the form. On the page itself it states it is only meant as a sample for the information required for a hearing.

I provided the senate handbook which has an impeachment subpoena in the form of a letter.

He has yet to provide any government documents that states exactly what is required for a subpoena and has said he won't. So basically, he refused to back up his claim and dances around it instead. So now there's no point continuing.

I'll read that article later.

You're right, that's a letter not a subpoena.  The subpoena would've been sent along with the letter explaining everything.  (idiot )

Not worth discussing it with him. The court has ruled that the congress are within their legal rights to conduct their oversight/impeachment inquiry etc and thus their subpoenas are legal. When asked to provide government documentation of proof of his claim he has failed to do so and just founders around with non applicable stuff.

First of all, "everyone knows", what the fuck kind of argument is this? Everyone knows when you can't form a logical argument, substituting rhetorical tricks is a useful strategy to avoid revealing this fact. Serves as a good distraction too, declaring yourself as some kind of victim that is some how being subjugated in the freedom and confines of one's own home. Very touching. Can you stick to the facts and skip the mind reader act? I don't think you are dumb, I think you are dishonest.

Report breaking down why the "Guccifer 2" DNC "hack" was actually a local leak and could not have been a remote hack.

“The metadata established several facts in this regard with granular precision: On the evening of July 5, 2016, 1,976 megabytes of data were downloaded from the DNC’s server. The operation took 87 seconds. This yields a transfer rate of 22.7 megabytes per second. These statistics are matters of record and essential to disproving the hack theory. No Internet service provider, such as a hacker would have had to use in mid-2016, was capable of downloading data at this speed.”

https://www.thenation.com/article/a-new-report-raises-big-questions-about-last-years-dnc-hack/


The DNC didn't dump its own files, Seth Rich did, and he payed with his life days later. This is why Julian Assange is so important, he can testify as to who was his source for the files. Assange might end up joining Epstein, but time will tell. He will be extradited soon, then we will all know for sure as he is the one man alive able to prove it.

For the record-

This is an actual subpoena: https://oversight.house.gov/sites/democrats.oversight.house.gov/files/documents/(70)%20Chaffetz%20Subpoena%20to%20Pagliano%2009-16-2016.pdf

This is NOT a 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

Some times the law is very black and white, and it is that way when it comes to legally enforceable documents. They have to be constructed in a specific way and include very specific information to be actionable.

here are the requirements for a subpoena to be actionable: https://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/frcp/rule_45

Your so called "subpoena" includes none of this information or other basic foundational requirements for a subpoena to function and be valid. A judge will never rule on it because there is nothing to take legal action on, it was a letter requesting information. Nothing more.

You should really read the indictment of the 19 Russian hackers.  The only way that Russia was not involved in hacking the DNC is if the FBI literally just made a ton of shit up.  It's only 30 pages: https://www.justice.gov/file/1080281/download . It's really pretty interesting all the different ways they tracked them down - Mueller def had some Bitcoin sleuths on his team.

Also, the email dumps are pretty solid evidence that the DNC servers were hacked.  Unless you're suggesting the DNC dumped their own emails in 2016 before the election?  Why would they do that?

They obviously have shit loads of evidence that go beyond just the DNC servers, btw. I'm sure a decent chunk of the 2800 subpoenas, 500 search warrants and 500 witnesses were related to the Russians (they did a lot of business in the country).


I'd like to see that.  Honestly I'm totally open read whatever evidence is out there and if it seems strong enough I will absolutely change my opinion on what I think probably happened.

You quoted it yourself dude . he said "Crowdstrike owner = Ukrainian oligarch, for example.".  How does Ukraine come into the story in your opinion?




We must have went back and forth on the subpoenas 30+ times.  I absolutely disagree with your logic and I'm fairly confident the subpoenas are enforceable.  This is a unique situation and it's not that simple.  I'm not a lawyer or a judge though, and neither are you, but I think if you were you'd understand that issues like this aren't black and white.  There are far smarter and experienced people than both of us on either side of this argument.

The only person that can decide conclusively is a judge.

By the way, you could save yourself a lot of typing by knocking it off with all the personal attacks.  Everyone already knows you think I'm less intelligent and informed than you.