Impeachment Investigators Got Rudy Giuliani's Phone Records

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus
will he get more from that than from cnn?
will the cow pay off in chick-fil-a?

a reply to: shooterbrody

He'll likely get nothing from either, mostly because he is a moron that doesn't understand how the First Amendment applies to civil servants.

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.

Are you on Mars or something? Guliani is a central figure in all this so of course his phone records were subpoenaed.

Why is it always that they shouldn't have the evidence, instead of judging what the evidence actually shows? Deflection may work in public opinion but it certainly won't be a valid argument in the proceedings.

a reply to: shooterbrody

Why would two Ukrainian men, with connections to the President's personal lawyer, who were arrested for attempting to violate campaign finance law, not be pertinent to a case where it's claimed that the President used that same personal lawyer to use his Ukrainian contacts to impact the impending election?

a reply to: Xcalibur254
Oh is that what the president did now?
I though he attempted to blackmail the president of ukraine, at least that is what joe told bob who tweeted george who blew the whistle after meeting with schiff......

your 6 degrees of kevin bacon has no legal standing imo,

from reading around it appears att handed over phone records with no evidence of ANY ACTUAL CRIME
that is an issue imo

Really, guilty by association. You'll need more than knowing some crooks to justify a judge issuing a warrant.

I mean if that was the case then we would have all of Hillary and Bill Clinton's' phone records...right?

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.

So was a warrant issued? We've seen how good Democrats are at getting
one that's for sure. If there was a warrant it should have been in the
article.

Please enlighten me,
What is the definition of a civil servant?

So the 1st amendment is applied differently to teachers , postman and garbage collectors?

How, exactly, does the 1st amendment apply differently to civil servants?

Thanks in advance.

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus
a reply to: shooterbrody

He'll likely get nothing from either, mostly because he is a moron that doesn't understand how the First Amendment applies to civil servants.

a reply to: TerryMcGuire

Is that the argument that gets a warrant these days? Congressman X is an ally of ORANGE MAN BAD; therefore CONGRESSMAN X BAD. I need warrant?

a reply to: fringeofthefringe

But it's more than just a connection to two random crooks though isn't it? Giuliani was using Parnas and Fruman to dig up dirt on Biden in Ukraine.

Do you really not see how that might be relevant to a case where the President is accused of abusing his power to dig up dirt on Biden in Ukraine?

For what this is worth, and FBI dude has warned Nunes to lawyer up.


www.ontownmedia.com...



a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

a reply to: Xcalibur254

But it's more than just a connection to two random crooks though isn't it? Giuliani was using Parnas and Fruman to dig up dirt on Biden in Ukraine.

Do you really not see how that might be relevant to a case where the President is accused of abusing his power to dig up dirt on Biden in Ukraine?

So if I run for president I can get away with any gaw damn thing I want
because I'm immune to investigation?

a reply to: Xcalibur254

If it's relevant, why were no witnesses called to testify to that evidence? Why was it kept hidden until the report? They only focused on the one half of one phone call supposedly overheard by someone and reported on by people who heard about it via watercooler gossip.

I am sure they could have letter-summoned sympathetic watercooler witnesses to talk about the phone records ... unless they weren't obtained strictly above board, and they didn't want that controversy to be splashed all over -or- there isn't any there there so they had to use it to best effect which is to bury it in a manner where it cannot be questioned until the lie has time to get ground in (i.e. in the report like this to create an impression of something other than reality).

originally posted by: fringeofthefringe
How, exactly, does the 1st amendment apply differently to civil servants?

I suggest you look into the matter, it's fairly straight forward when elected officials are involved, basically they cannot curtail what private citizens say about them as long as they are not slanderous or libelous.

originally posted by: lakenheath24
For what this is worth, and FBI dude has warned Nunes to lawyer up.

Maybe Cowhater can retask some of his attorneys from suing his constituents to handling his potential criminal case.

Oh, the joy of watching an asshat like him get blasted.

a reply to: OccamsRazor04

Every firsthand witness said that didn't happen, there is no indication.

Oh please. If there were no indication then there would be nothing, NOTHING, to even be concerned about. Do you really think there is no indication?

And first hand witnesses? We have a crew that moniters presidential calls and they report to a lead and that lead has said there is indication as well as others on that crew that said there was.

Ukraine said it did not happen.

Of course that is what that president said. He is basically a kid in political circles who was a stand up comic before winning the election. Now as a novice politician he seeks powerful support, that being Trump, so of course he would take the Trump line.

We have the actual transcript that shows it did not happen.

Transcript.... Not a verbatim record but a transcript that was presented by the White House. And we should not forget the word,,,,thought,,,,

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.

Yes, but first, let's finish looking into the need for impeachment because while you say it has been, I see that it still IS being looked into, in the House, and likely soon, in the Senate. Once all that is over, in either case, let's focus on Biden and his kid.

a reply to: fringeofthefringe

No testimony indicating crime? I refer you to Sondlands testimony.

a reply to: ketsuko

Congressman had multiple phone calls with two foreign nationals who are in prison after attempting to leave the country with one way tickets. Two men who appear to be deeply involved in this whole fiasco, enough so that they were put in jail and are awaiting trial. Those phone calls offer ''indication'' that they MIGHT have been involved with a congressman.

That is a weak reply, back up what you said.
Don't ask me to look it up.
Are teachers and garbage collectors civil servants? Do they have special 1st amendment rights?

Civil servants is what you stated not elected officials(below) when you mocked someone else for being ignorant of the application of the 1st amendment.
All the never trumpers have are these silly semantics and ignore the real issues at hand. They have been attacking a duly elected president and anyone who associates with him. The law and jurisprudence has been thrown out the window.

We should all be horrified and stand together against the madness we are witnessing.
Sadly you defend it with countless others.

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

originally posted by: fringeofthefringe
How, exactly, does the 1st amendment apply differently to civil servants?

I suggest you look into the matter, it's fairly straight forward when elected officials are involved, basically they cannot curtail what private citizens say about them as long as they are not slanderous or libelous.

originally posted by: Byrd
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.)

Are you under the mistaken impression that search warrant applications have 'opposition lawyers' representing the Rights of the potential target of the warrant during the warrant application process?

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.

?? Hunter is a House Rep, not a member of Trumps Admin. Sexual misconduct? You mean like democrat Katie Hill, also a House Rep (and also not a member of the Admin).

If those people aren't who you are referring to, then be more specific.

That didn't happen in the past.

Politicians have never resigned when caught engaging in misdeeds? What planet are you from? I want to move there.