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

So here's a funny story: My phone number may be on that list. I had called the White House visitors center about purchasing a set of plates. The number was in fact the same number being given as the number in question. I know this since they had to call me back about the set I had asked about. So I was on the line for 20 minutes, then was called back for another 15 minutes. Does this mean that I might be called to testify, the gods better help them if I do.

Anyways the point about this is just that the list of numbers that Schiff had presented, was more about having a padding of crap than it was about having anything of substance in the call logs. So if anyone had called a family member about dinner, ordered a pizza, called a consulting nurse about a personal issue, or called a customer back if they the callers office had the listed number as the set number, then you might be in Schiff's list too. To me that feels very illegal.

***Personal note***
I was informed through an email that my number might have been used in the SCIF number batch that Schiff used. How fun?

a reply to: Guyfriday

So why are you calling the OMB? What do you have to hide?

a reply to: Stupidsecrets
Here is the phone number in question please dial it and tell me what happens.


202 395-0000

Ty

a reply to: OccamsRazor04

The person I was transferred too had that as their number when they called me back. If you must know what I have to hide, well:
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
that's what I have to hide. As you can see it's nothing really just Christmas shopping.

originally posted by: Wardaddy454

originally posted by: Stupidsecrets
Phones calls don't prove anything. If that were the case anybody who called Russia from the US in 2016 would be GUILTY.

Dumb and stupid. It's not the call. It was what was said in the call. He does not have that access because that would be illegal to listen to phone calls of innocent people without a warrant. If he had access to phone conversations of innocent people without a warrant that would be a crime.

Hm. Maybe he should have gotten a FISA warrant?

thanks for the grin...lol

originally posted by: Guyfriday
a reply to: OccamsRazor04

The person I was transferred too had that as their number when they called me back. If you must know what I have to hide, well:
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
that's what I have to hide. As you can see it's nothing really just Christmas shopping.

Well if you don't want to go to jail Pelosi needs you to prove your innocence and that you are not a Russian spy.

a reply to: Guyfriday

WHISTLEBLOWER!!! COLLUSION!!! OBSTRUCTION!!!

OBSTRUCTION!!!

OBSTRUCTION!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Seriously though, be careful posting that online. Excitable people are everywhere and they'll blow a gasket over this type of normal, mundane interaction with this White House, as proven almost daily by the goings on in the Schiff court.

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")

originally posted by: Guyfriday
a reply to: OccamsRazor04

Pelosi doesn't scare me. I have incriminating pictures of her.

We all do... basically any photo of her taken in the House while she was involved in government activity is highly incriminating.

a reply to: burdman30ott6

I have something to shut those people up (it's a picture of a straight man wearing normal clothes, reading to kids)


Back to topic though:
I was both amused by the email I had received but also very alarmed that my phone call about a Christmas gift could be used in this play being put on by the S/T. It was nice that I had gotten a heads up since they didn't have to do that, but it got me thinking had this happened during the last administration when I bought dinner plates then too? It seems very "Crappos" to me if any phone call can be used for this kind of crap. This is the kinds of junk that is being used as props during the "S" show that we are witnessing.

a reply to: Sookiechacha

And, my emails can go to, or come from, many places.

Emails are registered to specific individuals; phone numbers are registered to specific devices. I can break into someone's house and use their landline without having to enter a password or provide any identification... I cannot do that with a person's email unless I either guess/hack their password or they left their computer logged in. In addition, a switchboard is similar to a proxy email address shared by numerous users... which account the email goes to is not dependent on the Internet address used. The Internet address is the same, while the intranet address can be different.

Many organizations which use a dedicated switchboard also use the number '0000' for the switchboard. The actual number accessed would depend on what options the caller chooses and would be referred to as an extension. In actuality, extension WXYZ would translate to the phone number ending in 'WXYZ.' The organization leases the prefix code and are free to assign extensions as they wish. Many use the switchboard for outgoing calls as well... which means that if phone 1-555-555-8532 (extension 8532 for 1-555-555-0000) calls out, the caller ID reflects the switchboard number - 1-555-555-0000.

Now, if the White House internally stores incoming and outgoing call identifiers, there might be a record of exactly which device was accessed. I have never heard of an organization doing this, because it requires a lot of data storage (each call has to be stored in a database which identifies the extension used, incoming or outgoing, start time, end time, number calling or called, etc.) for precious little actual use. That's terribly inefficient, and still doesn't prove who used the phone in the first place or what was said during the call. As stated before, if you can show me any sort of official link that even insinuates that the White House uses such a system, I will accept that such records may exist.

Until then, this is proof of absolutely nothing with no leads to follow through even.

(Remember, this is digital communication switching, one of my fortes. I could likely be a professional witness in court on such a question, given my history and accomplishments in the field.)

TheRedneck

a reply to: Guyfriday

I have incriminating pictures of her. I know she wasn't aware of these pictures since I drew them my self

You're really starting to make me worry about you...

TheRedneck

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: AndyFromMichigan

I think Barr needs to announce that he's opening an investigation to determine if Adam Schiff's actions constitute perjury, fabrication of evidence, or both.

Investigation is about all the DoJ can do in this case. The Executive Branch does not have authority to prosecute a sitting Congressman. Barr could conduct an investigation and release his findings to the public, but seeing as Shiff is from California I doubt that would do any good.

TheRedneck

I thought the prohibition on arrest was specifically phrased "while congress is in session".
Certainly, plenty of congressmen have been arrested, tried and convicted over the years - were all retired?
Marion Barry, mayor of DC (not Congress I know, but it's DC and a reflection of congress or lack thereof), got convicted of crack possession and other stuff in an FBI sting - and when he got out of jail, he was promptly re-elected.
So, can military tribunals prosecute congressmen if the crime is right?

ganjoa

a reply to: TheRedneck

The White House does not contest that these calls with Giuliani originated within the White House, thereby confirming that Giuliani was in fact in frequent contact with individuals within the White House at key points during the scheme. For his part, Mr. Giuliani has now confirmed speaking to Mick Mulvaney, who continues to serve as both the head of OMB and acting chief of staff in the White House.

And...

"We don’t definitively know who the call was to because the White House has ignored our subpoena."

www.realclearpolitics.com...

So, the House Intelligence Committee seems to think that the White House has records that would clarify who made the August 8th phone call to Giuliani, that lasted 13 minutes.

a reply to: Sookiechacha

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?

a reply to: ganjoa

So far as I understand it, sitting Congressmen are immune from regular prosecution for the same reason the President is: to keep one branch from using legal harassment to influence the other. In other words, the DoJ cannot start abusing its power to coerce a Congressman into voting a certain way on a bill, and Congress cannot use the threat of prison to coerce a President to sign a bill.

How that applies in detail I am not 100% sure of. But I'm sure we'll find out before all is said and done.

Marion Barry was not a Federal official; a Mayor can be arrested. Ours at one time found himself in jail for DUI and Assaulting a Police Officer a couple of towns over. He lost his next election.

TheRedneck

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: ganjoa
and Congress cannot use the threat of prison to coerce a President to sign a bill.
TheRedneck

Yet that is exactly what we see going on here. The President isn't part of the "Old guard" group think, so he needs to be ran out on a rail. I keep thinking back to what Gore Vidal said: " The biggest threat to these usurper's to Democracy is a person rich enough to not be bought off, and who doesn't think like them". Sounds like Trump to me.

a reply to: Sookiechacha

Have you actually read that link? It contains reports that 'seem to' acknowledge that the Intelligence Committee does indeed have the wrong number. To use your latest-favorite phrase.

Is it so hard to understand that there may be no records? I just explained that the kind of records that are being requested do not normally exist, and despite asking twice for any official information, you cannot provide one link to anyone with knowledge of the White House that even insinuates such records exist. How can anyone comply with a subpoena for something that doesn't exist? Is Schiff's next move to subpoena a lime-green talking gorilla from the White House and charge Obstruction of Justice when they don't produce one? I mean, really, can we get just a little bit of reality in here?

Mick Mulvaney is serving dual roles. Guiliani could ave been speaking to him about his Chief of Staff position instead of his OMB position. Or they might have been talking about the last WWE PPV... the office of Budget Management has stated that they have had no contact with Guiliani.

As for all those phone calls... you do realize that it is fairly common, even expected in some less enlightened areas of society, for a lawyer to actually talk with his client? I know, strange concept, but some people do that. And in this case his client lives in... wait for it... lives in... patience, wait for it... in the... almost there... the White House!

The only source given that the records even exist, that the phone number belongs to the OMB (which is demonstrably false), or that Guiliani had contact with the OMB is Adam Schiff. Adam Schiff has already lied on multiple occasions, including in this very allegation, and has no inside knowledge of the White House inner workings.

TheRedneck

a reply to: Sookiechacha

The replies here have been great--and zeroed in. Thank you all for your contributions.

Not you, Sookie, although you get some props for being the lone voice willing to ignore the obvious and getting eaten alive doing it. It was hee-larious but like I said, oddly impressive too.

Now, with all due respect, because you are ATS fambly I guess--our soy-latte cousin---we may give you noogies or a swirly but we wouldn't let no one else rough you up. So having said all that tell me this: Do you not see a dangerous, foolish, and reckless bunch of shenanigans from Schiff at least?

a reply to: TheRedneck

Is it so hard to understand that there may be no records?

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

Mick Mulvaney is serving dual roles. Giuliani could have been speaking to him about his Chief of Staff position instead of his OMB position.

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

But, Mulvaney admitted that they were withholding the $$$, partly because they wanted the Ukraine to launch an investigation. And we know that Rudy had been in touch with Mulvaney about his Ukraine dealings. 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.

a reply to: The GUT

Ah! Thanks for making me feel so warm and cozy!

Do you not see a dangerous, foolish, and reckless bunch of shenanigans from Schiff at least?

I think that Rudy is displaying dangerous, foolish and reckless behavior, that appears to have had the President's stamp of approval.

I think it's dangerous, foolish and reckless for Congress not to hold Trump accountable out for his blatant criminality. I wish that they could get Mulvaney, Pompeo and Bolton to testify, but I understand that they don't want the impeachment to linger in the House during an election year.

If the Senate acquits, at least The House is on the record as having tried to defend the Constitution, even if the Senate Republicans won't.