Impeachment Investigators Got Rudy Giuliani's Phone Records

Yes we do need to see the warrants and justification for pulling someones phone records.
What is wrong with you??

Should Schiff and his staff have their phone records pulled as well?
How about Hillary Clinton and Sidney Blumenthal, I am curious who they have been speaking to.

This cannot end well for the resistance.

originally posted by: Byrd

originally posted by: fringeofthefringe
www.thedailybeast.com...

This will be interesting to see the legality and justification for this.
Our Democratic party members have lost their collective minds.

“It is deeply concerning that at a time when the president of the United States was using the power of his office to dig up dirt on a political rival, that there may be evidence that there were members of Congress complicit in that activity,” Schiff said on Tuesday of Nunes’ communications with Parnas and Giuliani.

I cannot believe the audacity of Schiff and how this will play itself out.
Do never trumpers really think this is the way to go?
What ripple effect will this have on our political future?

We need to see the warrants and I hope I am right in saying Schiff will pay dearly for this.

This is what what happens when you corner a wounded animal.

Why do you need to see the warrants? Would you know a proper warrant if you saw one? Do you know enough about the law of New York to be able to see what grounds might have been improper?

Do you know how the process of warrant searches work? (it's been to judges and has been argued before they can actually proceed with the search and seizure. And they know that if there's anything snaky in there, the opposition lawyers will tear it apart.)

Asking to "see the warrant" is not very useful unless you happen to be a New York lawyer currently practicing.

The effect it will and is having is that it is not going to be easy now for anyone with a questionable background to enter or stay in politics. This administration has been remarkable for the number of politicians being forced to resign over things like misuse of campaign funds (Hunter), sexual misconduct, and a lot of other things.

That didn't happen in the past.

Politicians HAD been operating under the idea that they could do what they liked and that power and money protected them. They are beginning to see that this is no longer true.

originally posted by: TerryMcGuire
a reply to: fringeofthefringe


There is indication that President ''X'' has solicited a foreign nation to dig up dirt on a political rival. Should we look into that possiblity or just ask President ''X'' if it is true or not?

There is indication that a loyal congressional teammate of President ''X'' has also worked to dig up dirt on a political rival of his boss, President ''X''. Should we look into that possibility or just ask President ''X'' and his crony if it is true or not?

Every firsthand witness said that didn't happen, there is no indication. Ukraine said it did not happen. We have the actual transcript that shows it did not happen. I have no problem with it being looked into, it has been. Like I said, look at them all, now let's look at Democrats and their Ukraine dealings.

I wonder why Democrats only want one group investigated ....

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

Parody? It's a signed warrant(s), I don't think those are jokes.

neither do I which is why I am interested to see what was "authorized" and when.
sunshine is always the best disinfectant

originally posted by: shooterbrody
a reply to: Byrd

What will a warrant tell you?

that due process was followed? you know , that small thing we all take for granted......

The fact that there's a warrant indicates an accountable process. The fact that Giuliani (a lawyer... a New York lawyer who's tried criminal cases) -- AND others in his firm couldn't stop of block it indicates that the process is not illegal or wrong. If it was illegal, you would have seen Giuliani himself and the American Bar Association making a real storm out of it in the news.

Seriously.

They had a warrant for an attorney's office. They got the records. That meant they showed up with a warrant and it was all proper and the attorney couldn't stop their seizure. The American Bar Association and other lawyers didn't step in.

This should tell you something, since Giuliani has a lot of lawyer friends.

How familiar are you with criminal law?

How familiar are you with cooking fried rice?

Very familiar... and by the way, my brother-in-law is a government lawyer.... so I know a bit more about this than many do.

Don't rely on an ATS member's ability to tell if it's legal or not... that was my point.

fair
but there SHOULD BE NO ISSUE with asking the question?
we all want a fair and legal process dont we?

It's fair to ask "Is Giuliani or any other lawyer arguing that this is improper". But to pretend to know whether a warrant is legal or not by the public reading it is not fair, because the non-expert is going to argue that their viewpoint is correct without actually knowing any of the laws or the issues or even the procedures needed for a search and warrant (and I think that if you read comments here you will quickly become aware that very few know how warrants are obtained and how they are served.)

originally posted by: Byrd

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: Byrd

Politicians HAD been operating under the idea that they could do what they liked and that power and money protected them. They are beginning to see that this is no longer true.

I'm hoping to see this become truth.

I'm hoping to see the system work as it was meant to.

It is. I'm a news junkie. I can't remember another administration with so many scandals... not in my lifetime. It's a side-effect of our "eyeballs everywhere" globally connected world. Politicians used to get away with all kinds of bad behavior. Now they're getting called out and kicked out.

Is it an actual scandal if after years if investigations nothing is turned up? Based on the news I would agree with you, based on reality I would not.

a reply to: fringeofthefringe

Ask yourself this, if Giuliani, who is a lawyer in New York, is not crying foul over the acquisition of these phone records then don't you think there's a good chance it's on the up and up?

The call summary has been released and the President of Ukraine has publicly said there was no wrong doing.
We saw zero testimony that suggests any crime was committed. In fact the witnesses were asked if they saw a crime and they all said no.

originally posted by: TerryMcGuire
a reply to: fringeofthefringe


There is indication that President ''X'' has solicited a foreign nation to dig up dirt on a political rival. Should we look into that possiblity or just ask President ''X'' if it is true or not?

There is indication that a loyal congressional teammate of President ''X'' has also worked to dig up dirt on a political rival of his boss, President ''X''. Should we look into that possibility or just ask President ''X'' and his crony if it is true or not?

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
. We have the actual transcript that shows it did not happen.

We do NOT have the actual transcript.

We have the notes that people said were an account of the conversation. Nobody here seems to have noticed that the president of Ukraine is recorded as using a number of Trump's pet phrases (the use of the word, "beautiful" in the typed notes is not something that Zelenskiy ever says when he speaks.)

If you read over the notes and compare them with Trump's talks and Zelenskiy's talks, you can see that the notes are apparently dictated by Trump and not any form of a real transcript.

So we don't have a transcript. We have a set of notes dictated by Trump and cleaned up by someone (possibly Ivanka.)

a reply to: Byrd

The fact that there's a warrant

Is that a "fact"?
nothing in the link says such
simply that att provided the records

That meant they showed up with a warrant and it was all proper and the attorney couldn't stop their seizure.

without proof I respectfully disagree

The American Bar Association and other lawyers didn't step in.

how could they if they did not know?

Very familiar... and by the way, my brother-in-law is a government lawyer.... so I know a bit more about this than many do.

touche'
I deal with the cfr on an almost daily basis in the course of my employment; so I may know a bit more then many as well.

But to pretend to know whether a warrant is legal or not by the public reading it is not fair, because the non-expert is going to argue that their viewpoint is correct without actually knowing any of the laws or the issues or even the procedures needed for a search and warrant (and I think that if you read comments here you will quickly become aware that very few know how warrants are obtained and how they are served.)

I did not ask if it was fair.
I asked if it existed.
When it was issued and by whom.

IMO if it exists, at least due process has been afforded.
Att ponying up the records WITHOUT said warrant is an issue imo.

It will allow us to verify the validity of the request, just like the FISA warrants.
You have heard of the FISA warrant investigation haven't you?
How could you be so blind to what is going on.
Ok, you don't like Trump we get it but this is all very wrong and we should all pray that the resistance is held accountable.

originally posted by: Byrd

originally posted by: shooterbrody
a reply to: Byrd
wow
why do you need to see the warrant?

mkay
so then spying on your political opponent is now fair game?

the days we live in

What will a warrant tell you? How familiar are you with criminal law? Could you tell on what grounds a search might be deemed illegal under law and which laws apply?

If you aren't a lawyer, asking to see a warrant is a little like asking to see the proof of the C parameter in this paper: link.springer.com... (in other words, the non-specialist reader can't tell if it's valid or not.)

In this age of noise and division, if you really want to see the warrant and if it's legal, contact a real lawyer (like the youtube channel, Legal Eagles) and ask them for an opinion.

Don't rely on an ATS member's ability to tell if it's legal or not... that was my point.

...and what of it?

Check out Rudys twitter, he isn't worried about it at all.

The low info Democrat voters will gleefully jump at joy, prematuraly as always, as it is a catchy headline no doubt, however y'all are seriously reaching for nothing, grasping at the straws, overreaching for a pittance at what may be, but is not.

As Rudy has stated, his numerous calls to the WH establish no specific topic, he is the Presidents Attorney after all 😌

Also of note, Rudy is a seasoned Attorney at Law, his representation and counsel at a level and caliber to the seat of the worlds most powerful position and head of state.

Once again, the liberal rag that the Daily Beast is and their hasty and impulsive musings is like that of a boy who first found his dads Hustler mags.

Exactly, and what was the probable cause?

It is hard to think that many of you are from the USA. I just don't understand how one could conclude that this behavior, 2 year Russian hoax, Stormy Daniels and the perpetual impeachment farce.
Unbelievable.

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

originally posted by: shooterbrody
big smiles, big smiles

Just like any other potential criminal a judge signs a warrant for. There has to be probable cause, if there isn't anything criminal than he doesn't have anything to worry about, they wont turn up any dirt and he can go back to being a monstrous douche to his constituents.

But my intuition says Devy is a sociopath besides despising bovines and probably did something stupid.

a reply to: Arnie123

I don't disagree with you. Nothing in those phone records implicates Trump in anything. It's not exactly a good look for Giuliani, but I don't think it's enough to put him away.

What it does do though is establish that Nunes is intimately tied up in all of this and as a result he should be forced to recuse himself.

a reply to: fringeofthefringe

Exactly, and what was the probable cause?

bingo
it has to be for an actual crime
it can in no way be simply political as the impeachment event can be

what crime is rudy suspected of?
that would be in the warrant would it not?

a reply to: fringeofthefringe

Giuliani's connection to Parnas and Fruman should be enough to convince a judge to issue a warrant.

originally posted by: shooterbrody
neither do I which is why I am interested to see what was "authorized" and when.
sunshine is always the best disinfectant

Hopefully Devy gets some Lysol in his cow-hating eyes.

originally posted by: fringeofthefringe
Exactly, and what was the probable cause?

I'm sure we'll all find out soon. Then we can point and laugh at Devy the cow-hating cretin.

originally posted by: Xcalibur254
a reply to: fringeofthefringe

Giuliani's connection to Parnas and Fruman should be enough to convince a judge to issue a warrant.

really?
do they frequent the white house, or nunes office?

I would think that would be a completely separate issue.....as those two were have been charged.....or is this just an ends justify the means thing????

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

Then we can point and laugh at Devy the cow-hating cretin.

nothing stopping that now
deservedly so imo

the anti schiff is just as nasty imo and from the same cauldron of overtaxation and street poo as pelosi
imagine that

originally posted by: shooterbrody
nothing stopping that now

There is, Devy sues you if you goof on him on the Twitter. Especially if you're a dairy cow.