Doubts raised after Schiff claims phone records prove Giuliani’s White House budget office calls

a reply to: OccamsRazor04

Maybe they should get actual info then before making claims, or do you usually make a claim and then look to see if there is evidence after?

We have actual info that Sondland told Ukrainian officials that they needed to announce an investigation into "Burisma", based on Giuliani's orders, and that that conversation prompted Fiona Hill and Lt Col VIndman to go to "the lawyers".

a reply to: Sookiechacha

I believe that the White House keeps records of outgoing calls, and the calls that they connect to offices within the West Wing.

OK, you can believe that all you want. Do you have any hard evidence that they do? This is the fourth time I have tried to get you to show us anything that indicates these records exist.

I believe Bigfoot exists. Now get me one or else!

Rudy could have been checking on his invitation to the White House Hanukkah party.

Yes, he could have been. So why is Adam Schiff lying? He is stating openly that Guiliani was in direct contact with the OMB without any evidence whatsoever... unless he has records which there is no evidence even exist, in which case why is he subpoenaing them if he already has them?

But, Mulvaney admitted that they were withholding the $$$, partly because they wanted the Ukraine to launch an investigation.

There is a legal requirement for the President to investigate countries that receive foreign aid to ensure the money does not go to corrupt causes. You seem genuinely obsessed with ensuring that Ukraine not conduct internal investigations. Might we all know why? Why are you so against Ukraine conducting investigations in Ukraine?

And we know that Rudy had been in touch with Mulvaney about his Ukraine dealings.

And since Mulvaney is acting as Chief of Staff, why shouldn't an American citizen conducting an investigation into a foreign country not maintain contact with the Chief of Staff? I thought that was proper... was he supposed to sneak around and keep secrets from the White House staff?

We know that Rudy was operating with some sort of White House blessing, because he was waving his phone around as proof, on Laura Ingram's show.

Er, yes, he was. It's called "legal representation." Do you remember a little while back when the Democrats in the House were accusing Donald Trump of improper coordination with Russia in the 2016 campaign? It was all in the news. Is there some reason why you don't believe an American citizen should be entitled to legal counsel? Is there some reason you do not believe that legal counsel should be allowed to investigate the charges brought against his client?

These are all serious questions.

TheRedneck

Trump is done for. Latest charge will force impeachment:

Trump has Bigger salt and pepper shakers than everyone else

a reply to: pavil

I think we need at least a two-year investigation into why Trump has such large salt and pepper shakers. We need a special counsel too, to make sure we get to the bottom of things. I think we need to tap Hillary Clinton to run the special investigation.

TheRedneck

a reply to: TheRedneck

OK, you can believe that all you want. Do you have any hard evidence that they do? This is the fourth time I have tried to get you to show us anything that indicates these records exist.

If the White House answers the committee's subpoena, for those records, saying they don't have them, instead of refusing to comply, I might believe it. But, until they say, in legal terms, that they don't have any such records, I'm going to assume they're stonewalling, again.

Ukraine already met all those legal requirement.

And since Mulvaney is acting as Chief of Staff, why shouldn't an American citizen conducting an investigation into a foreign country not maintain contact with the Chief of Staff?

Giuliani is Trump's personal attorney. He's not a government employee or representative, working with American law enforcement. He was leaning on Ukraine to get them to conduct an investigation in 2 American citizens, one of whom was the Vice President of the United States at the time, acting on behalf on the USA. And Mick Mulvaney was not just Trump's Chief of Staff, he's also the acting head of the Office of Management and Budget, the office that was not releasing the $400 million.

Er, yes, he was. It's called "legal representation."

Er, a personal legal representation that running around Ukraine getting an anti-corruption ambassador fired, and ordering the EU ambassador, Sondland, to inform Ukrainian officials that they need to deliver an announcement of an investigation in order to get their aid package and a meeting with Trump?

Is there some reason you do not believe that legal counsel should be allowed to investigate the charges brought against his client?

The charges are that Trump was holding up aid to Ukraine until they work with Giuliani and announce an investigation into the Bidens, and to debunk the Mueller report by finding the Crowdstrike server, supposedly hidden somewhere in Ukraine.

Trump said he wanted Ukraine to open an investigation into the Bidens in the call transcript, and he said it to reporters on the White House lawn. It's no secret that he wants Ukraine to announce an investigation into the Bidens. So what is it that Giuliani is trying to investigate and defend?

a reply to: Sookiechacha

If the White House answers the committee's subpoena, for those records, saying they don't have them, instead of refusing to comply, I might believe it. But, until they say, in legal terms, that they don't have any such records, I'm going to assume they're stonewalling, again.

Earlier in the thread, a poster stated that he had called the exact same number that Shiff had identified as "associated with the OMB." Do you think he should be outed as well? Is there no right to privacy for the literally millions of incoming and outgoing calls to and from the White House switchboard?

The White House has responded with an official statement already, which is in the original link:

“No one from OMB has talked to Giuliani,” a White House spokesperson told RealClearPolitics this week, noting that the calls were not coming from their office.

That is stating that there are no records to tie the calls from Guiliani to the OMB. Had there been records, the statement would have been more along the lines of "our records show no calls to Guiliani from the OMB." A case could then be made that releasing the records would violate the privacy of thousands of people not associated with the case. But without that admission that records exist as Adam Schiff wants us to believe, or without some admission that the records exist, there are no records.

Again, as an expert in the communication field, records such as Schiff describes may be technically possible but are rarely if ever kept. It is simply impractical to do so. I hold a BSEE in Electrical Engineering with honors and awards, plus additional study in the field of Communication, plus 40+ years of self-study in the field. I own my own personal lab where I develop prototypes for devices in the field. What are Adam Schiff's qualifications in the field of Electrical Engineering or Communication?

Giuliani is Trump's personal attorney. He's not a government employee or representative, working with American law enforcement. He was leaning on Ukraine to get them to conduct an investigation in 2 American citizens, one of whom was the Vice President of the United States at the time, acting on behalf on the USA.

As a personal attorney, Guiliani has the responsibility to follow up on any leads that might indicate his client's innocence. That includes leads into the crime alleged that might show it was committed by another than his client. It also includes leads into the possibility that the facts alleged surrounding the crime are untrue.

As an American citizen, and not a government representative, Guiliani is not bound by department policy. He is only bound by law. Now, exactly which law states that an American citizen cannot ask questions and make requests of foreign powers? I would like to know because if such a law exists, Joe Biden did the exact same thing and is on videotape bragging about how well it worked.

Also, at no time has Guiliani acted on behalf of the USA. He has acted on behalf of his client, who happens to be the US President but is also a US Citizen. All US Citizens have certain rights, including the right to legal counsel, and that includes the President.

And Mick Mulvaney was not just Trump's Chief of Staff, he's also the acting head of the Office of Management and Budget, the office that was not releasing the $400 million.

So prove in what capacity Guiliani spoke with Mulvaney. The OMB says they have had no contact with Guiliani. Mulvaney has not made a statement that he spoke with Guiliani as acting Director of the OMB. Guiliani has made no statement that he spoke with Mulvaney acting as Director of the OMB.

What you are suggesting is that every person who has spoken to Mulvaney has in fact spoken to the OMB. That is patently not only untrue, but exhibits extreme ignorance of how powers are separated. Mulvaney can speak to someone as the Chief of Staff, or he can speak to someone as the acting Director of the OMB, or he can speak to someone as a private individual. Adam Schiff has absolutely no evidence that Guililani spoke to Mulvaney as acting Director of the OMB, only that Guiliani spoke to Mulvaney.

Er, a personal legal representation that running around Ukraine getting an anti-corruption ambassador fired, and ordering the EU ambassador, Sondland, to inform Ukrainian officials that they need to deliver an announcement of an investigation in order to get their aid package and a meeting with Trump?

Ukraine has made no announcement to that fact, yet the moneys have been released, were released before the deadline, additional assistance in the form of missile sales were approved to Ukraine by President Trump, and the meetings at the White House have happened. In addition, Zelensky himself has stated on multiple occasions that he felt no pressure from Trump to perform any specific actions. Trump has stated that he intended no strict requirement from Zelensky to perform any specific act, other than to attempt to lessen corruption in Ukraine. That was Zelensky's campaign platform, after all, and would by law play into whether or not the President could release funds.

Trump did not demand an investigation into Joe Biden, or Hunter Biden for that matter. He asked for a "favor"... a term he uses quite frequently to indicate something done without formal compensation... of following through on the promises Zelensky made during his campaign. Trump mentioned two different companies, Crowdstrike, and then Burisma, as examples of potential corruption. He never stated a desired outcome either, only suggesting an investigation by Ukraine into Ukraine companies which have a known history of corruption.

The charges are that Trump was holding up aid to Ukraine until they work with Giuliani and announce an investigation into the Bidens, and to debunk the Mueller report by finding the Crowdstrike server, supposedly hidden somewhere in Ukraine.

And that is reason to not allow the President benefit of competent counsel?

Let me ask you this... suppose someone who is a US Citizen of Central American heritage is picked up by ICE and accused of transporting drugs into the US. ICE decides he should be deported. He insists that he is an American citizen, but ICE doesn't believe him because they charged him with drug running. Are you saying he should not have a lawyer, or that his lawyer should be prohibited by law from investigating the charges? Just toss him back across the border?

That is the EXACT same situation you are claiming is proper in this case: a US citizen is accused of a crime and proclaims his innocence, but his attorney cannot investigate the charges against him because of the charges against him... and when his lawyer attempts to do so, the legal authorities decide to add in more charges because of his lawyer's "improper" actions.

TheRedneck

originally posted by: Guyfriday
a reply to: OccamsRazor04

Pelosi doesn't scare me. I have incriminating pictures of her. I know she wasn't aware of these pictures since I drew them my self (sadly drawings of things might be considered good evidence in this age of "Hearsay is better than direct evidence")

Ummm...well...now we know you really...did...call the OMB...

Anyone...that had urges of drawing pictures of Nancy Pelosi in compromising and incriminating...positions...

Certainly can’t be trusted to have not watched some late night CNN...ummm...programming...


Busted...





YouSir

originally posted by: Notoneofyou
a reply to: AndyFromMichigan

That's the problem with being in a manic state.
You think your is fairytale is real, but it's just the psychosis/ meds.

Look at Schiff. He's clearly not right in the head.

He has that same glassy eyed glare that Pelosi has, you dont trust someone like that.

a reply to: OccamsRazor04
Funny thats the office that distributes the money that oh hey btw has NOT been paid in full yet...
Every day brings new info and reveals even more corruption.
So one more lame defense goes down the toilet.
No quid pro quo the money was paid.
Well no, not quite. They are still holding 35 million dollars.

a reply to: Sookiechacha

Oh dont go spoiling their fun.

There are not many days remaining.

a reply to: BlueJacket

Or he just has round eyes.
That theory is cocamamie nonsense.
Give us all a break.

Wrong Number

Impeach !

Impeach!

What's that say ?

Gross abuse of power only to get it WRONG.

Do two wrongs make a right?

a reply to: TheRedneck

I guess we'll just have to defer the disagreement on arresting congressmen - I don't have a stake in the position either way. Seems like semantic difference on how "sitting" applies. Difference of opinion, no argument.

As far as Marion Barry - used this as illustrative of the mentality of folks in DC: beltway bandits, voters, politicians - all.
It is quite a different world in the District especially when Congress is in town. Where else does the Congress directly make or break municipal law on the street?

originally posted by: pavil
Trump is done for. Latest charge will force impeachment:

Trump has Bigger salt and pepper shakers than everyone else

#SPICEGATE

Please do a thread on this...It's ludicrous!

a reply to: pavil

I can't wait to see Schiff question salt and pepper shakers.

Then watch CNN and MSNBC say how eloquant they were.

a reply to: pavil

I was sitting next to a person on the bus that said they work in the white house kitchens and this runs much deeper. There is a high probability that the salt being given to the rest at the White House isn't even Iodized while the salt in the large shakers given to the president is. While this person didn't fill the shakers she overheard the person that does explaining the process.

a reply to: neo96

Nice try guys.
Nice try.
The call was to the office of management and budget. They called Rudy.
Rudy called them back.
Then they called Rudy again and then he called them back again.
Eight times the day that Yovanovich was called home.
Cuz they really really needed her out of the way.

a reply to: Sillyolme

Ever going to stop parroting CNN?

Potus can remove diplomats at will with no cause.
Civics is a mystery to some here.


Dont forget pelosi says "it is dangerous to let the voters determine trumps fate".

She knows we hate her.

a reply to: shooterbrody

And don't forget to add some B. Franklin.

Like.

Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. LIBERTY is a well armed lamb contesting the vote.