Welcome to the Hardcore Husky Forums. Folks who are well-known in Cyberland and not that dumb.
Options
What rats are doing is wrong and should not be tolerated by the American people.
Bendintheriver
Member Posts: 5,394
in Tug Tavern
Most have seen the latest polls concerning battle ground states. Having conducted polling in the past I can tell you that polling about anything that is going to happen in a year or two is worthless. However, polling on current events where you have a series of polls over a short amount of time to measure movement is valuable and relevant. The rats are losing ground in battleground states and it is substantial. We all know why this is happening. Even the democrats on here know why this is happening. When the rats have to use focus groups to determine what SOUNDS good to the voters concerning impeachment, you know this is a contrived and complete joke of an effort to impeach. Shitf has run this thing like a 3rd world communist leader would. The fix was in from the beginning and nothing about this is fair.
All that behind us now, what the long term effect is going to be is concerning to say the least. The dem leaders (shitf in particular) have used this sham to go after political enemies. He secretly had the phone records of members of congress AND the press pulled. None of these people committed any crimes or have even been accused of crimes. They were just political enemies of shitf. Giuliani, Nunes, John Solomon are all a thorn in shitf's side. Schitf then published the numbers and the recipients of the calls and this is the second of what should be crimes committed by Schitf. We have seen the BO team wire tap a FOX reporter and now we have shitf using his position in government to eavesdrop on the press. Shitf and his lawyer buddies have no idea what the phone calls were about so they went on television yesterday and made up stories about what these calls were concerning. As you can see in the attached article, the inference to these calls put forth by the rats, is a complete farce. Conjured up out of thin air to do maximum damage to innocent people.
People, this is some pretty corrupt shit that is happening here. It has been corrupt behavior by rats since before Trump even took office but this latest one is particularly exposed as a bold excessive abuse of power and everyone should be concerned not just people who disagree with the rats and the low life shit they are doing, but everyone who values their privacy between them and their lawyer, minister, priest, friends, family, etc. Shitf went after a fellow member of congress for crying out loud and then tried to smear him when he had zero proof about any content of any phone call.
My hope is that somehow, some way the nadlers, shitf's and pelosi's of the world get rebuked but the rat press is in their pocket so I will probably have to do without.
https://www.wsj.com/articles/schiff-threatens-press-freedom-11575937690
The FBI and Justice Department have therefore created specific rules governing agents’ actions involving special-circumstances professionals, which include high-level approval and review. There are also special rules for subpoenaing journalists.
If the executive branch, and by extension the courts that enforce these privacy protections, observe the need for such sensitivity, it seems reasonable that Congress should have similar guardrails ensuring that the powers of the state are equally and fairly applied.
House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff apparently doesn’t see things that way. His committee secretly authorized subpoenas to AT&T earlier this year for the phone records of President Trump’s personal attorney, Rudy Giuliani, and an associate. He then arbitrarily extracted information about certain private calls and made them public.
Many of the calls Mr. Schiff chose to publicize fell into the special-circumstances categories: a fellow member of Congress ( Rep. Devin Nunes, the Intelligence Committee’s ranking Republican), two lawyers (Mr. Giuliani and fellow Trump lawyer Jay Sekulow ) and a journalist (me).
More alarming, the released call records involve figures who have sometimes criticized or clashed with Mr. Schiff. I wrote a story raising questions about his contacts with Fusion GPS founder Glenn Simpson, a key figure in the Russia probe, that brought the California Democrat unwelcome scrutiny. Mr. Nunes has been one of Mr. Schiff’s main Republican antagonists, helping to prove that the exaggerated claims of Trump-Russia election collusion were unsubstantiated. Messrs. Sekulow and Giuliani represent Mr. Trump, who is Mr. Schiff’s impeachment target.
Mr. Schiff’s actions in obtaining and publicizing private phone records trampled the attorney-client privilege of Mr. Trump and his lawyers. It intruded on my First Amendment rights to interview and contact figures like Mr. Giuliani and the Ukrainian-American businessman Lev Parnas without fear of having the dates, times and length of private conversation disclosed to the public.
Contrary to Mr. Schiff’s defense that he was simply serving the investigative interest of Congress, the release of the phone records served much more to punish people whose work Mr. Schiff found antagonistic than to fulfill an oversight purpose. And it served Congress poorly because it spread false insinuations. Mr. Schiff’s report suggested, for instance, that Mr. Giuliani called the White House to talk to the Office of Management and Budget, implying he might have been trying to help Mr. Trump withhold aid to Ukraine as Democrats allege. The White House says that claim is wrong; the number was a generic phone entry point and no one in OMB talked to Mr. Giuliani.
Likewise, Mr. Schiff published call records between Mr. Giuliani and me and suggested they involved my Ukraine stories. Many contacts I had with Mr. Giuliani involved interviews on the Mueller report and its aftermath or efforts to invite the president’s lawyer on the Hill’s TV show, which I supervised.
Mr. Schiff’s team has tried to minimize the conduct because he never subpoenaed my phone records directly but extracted them from others’ call records. That defense is laughable. Once a journalist and his calls are made public through the powers of the surveillance state, there is an instant chilling effect on press freedom.
Similarly, in the days since Mr. Schiff’s phone-record release, I have had people who openly talked to me on the phone this year suddenly ask to communicate only by encrypted apps. They don’t want their names splashed in the next congressional report. And they fear a bipartisan open season on phone records of political opponents in the future.
Rep. Mike Turner (R., Ohio), a member of the Intelligence Committee, tells me he’s drafting legislation to put guardrails on future congressional subpoenas for phone records. That’s a good start, but more needs to be done sooner.
Mr. Schiff appears to assume that Congress enjoys unlimited investigative powers under the Constitution’s Speech or Debate clause. He does not. I recommend the chairman examine the record in McSurely v. McClellan, a two-decade legal battle that began in 1967 and pitted a powerful committee chairman against a liberal activist couple in Kentucky. It is widely regarded—along with the McCarthy hearings of the 1950s—as one of most egregious episodes of misconduct in the modern history of congressional oversight.
In one of the final appellate decisions in that topsy-turvy case, the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia ruled that Congressional oversight isn’t boundless and that the Speech or Debate Clause has limits. The final paragraph of that ruling derided a “sorry chapter of investigative excess.”
The judges wrote that their decision “can only stand as a small reaffirmation of the proposition that there are bounds to the interference that citizens must tolerate from the agents of their government—even when such agents invoke the mighty shield of the Constitution and claim official purpose to their conduct.” That principle is due for another affirmation.
Mr. Solomon is an investigative journalist who has written for the Associated Press, the Washington Post, “60 Minutes” and the Hill, among others.
All that behind us now, what the long term effect is going to be is concerning to say the least. The dem leaders (shitf in particular) have used this sham to go after political enemies. He secretly had the phone records of members of congress AND the press pulled. None of these people committed any crimes or have even been accused of crimes. They were just political enemies of shitf. Giuliani, Nunes, John Solomon are all a thorn in shitf's side. Schitf then published the numbers and the recipients of the calls and this is the second of what should be crimes committed by Schitf. We have seen the BO team wire tap a FOX reporter and now we have shitf using his position in government to eavesdrop on the press. Shitf and his lawyer buddies have no idea what the phone calls were about so they went on television yesterday and made up stories about what these calls were concerning. As you can see in the attached article, the inference to these calls put forth by the rats, is a complete farce. Conjured up out of thin air to do maximum damage to innocent people.
People, this is some pretty corrupt shit that is happening here. It has been corrupt behavior by rats since before Trump even took office but this latest one is particularly exposed as a bold excessive abuse of power and everyone should be concerned not just people who disagree with the rats and the low life shit they are doing, but everyone who values their privacy between them and their lawyer, minister, priest, friends, family, etc. Shitf went after a fellow member of congress for crying out loud and then tried to smear him when he had zero proof about any content of any phone call.
My hope is that somehow, some way the nadlers, shitf's and pelosi's of the world get rebuked but the rat press is in their pocket so I will probably have to do without.
https://www.wsj.com/articles/schiff-threatens-press-freedom-11575937690
The FBI and Justice Department have therefore created specific rules governing agents’ actions involving special-circumstances professionals, which include high-level approval and review. There are also special rules for subpoenaing journalists.
If the executive branch, and by extension the courts that enforce these privacy protections, observe the need for such sensitivity, it seems reasonable that Congress should have similar guardrails ensuring that the powers of the state are equally and fairly applied.
House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff apparently doesn’t see things that way. His committee secretly authorized subpoenas to AT&T earlier this year for the phone records of President Trump’s personal attorney, Rudy Giuliani, and an associate. He then arbitrarily extracted information about certain private calls and made them public.
Many of the calls Mr. Schiff chose to publicize fell into the special-circumstances categories: a fellow member of Congress ( Rep. Devin Nunes, the Intelligence Committee’s ranking Republican), two lawyers (Mr. Giuliani and fellow Trump lawyer Jay Sekulow ) and a journalist (me).
More alarming, the released call records involve figures who have sometimes criticized or clashed with Mr. Schiff. I wrote a story raising questions about his contacts with Fusion GPS founder Glenn Simpson, a key figure in the Russia probe, that brought the California Democrat unwelcome scrutiny. Mr. Nunes has been one of Mr. Schiff’s main Republican antagonists, helping to prove that the exaggerated claims of Trump-Russia election collusion were unsubstantiated. Messrs. Sekulow and Giuliani represent Mr. Trump, who is Mr. Schiff’s impeachment target.
Mr. Schiff’s actions in obtaining and publicizing private phone records trampled the attorney-client privilege of Mr. Trump and his lawyers. It intruded on my First Amendment rights to interview and contact figures like Mr. Giuliani and the Ukrainian-American businessman Lev Parnas without fear of having the dates, times and length of private conversation disclosed to the public.
Contrary to Mr. Schiff’s defense that he was simply serving the investigative interest of Congress, the release of the phone records served much more to punish people whose work Mr. Schiff found antagonistic than to fulfill an oversight purpose. And it served Congress poorly because it spread false insinuations. Mr. Schiff’s report suggested, for instance, that Mr. Giuliani called the White House to talk to the Office of Management and Budget, implying he might have been trying to help Mr. Trump withhold aid to Ukraine as Democrats allege. The White House says that claim is wrong; the number was a generic phone entry point and no one in OMB talked to Mr. Giuliani.
Likewise, Mr. Schiff published call records between Mr. Giuliani and me and suggested they involved my Ukraine stories. Many contacts I had with Mr. Giuliani involved interviews on the Mueller report and its aftermath or efforts to invite the president’s lawyer on the Hill’s TV show, which I supervised.
Mr. Schiff’s team has tried to minimize the conduct because he never subpoenaed my phone records directly but extracted them from others’ call records. That defense is laughable. Once a journalist and his calls are made public through the powers of the surveillance state, there is an instant chilling effect on press freedom.
Similarly, in the days since Mr. Schiff’s phone-record release, I have had people who openly talked to me on the phone this year suddenly ask to communicate only by encrypted apps. They don’t want their names splashed in the next congressional report. And they fear a bipartisan open season on phone records of political opponents in the future.
Rep. Mike Turner (R., Ohio), a member of the Intelligence Committee, tells me he’s drafting legislation to put guardrails on future congressional subpoenas for phone records. That’s a good start, but more needs to be done sooner.
Mr. Schiff appears to assume that Congress enjoys unlimited investigative powers under the Constitution’s Speech or Debate clause. He does not. I recommend the chairman examine the record in McSurely v. McClellan, a two-decade legal battle that began in 1967 and pitted a powerful committee chairman against a liberal activist couple in Kentucky. It is widely regarded—along with the McCarthy hearings of the 1950s—as one of most egregious episodes of misconduct in the modern history of congressional oversight.
In one of the final appellate decisions in that topsy-turvy case, the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia ruled that Congressional oversight isn’t boundless and that the Speech or Debate Clause has limits. The final paragraph of that ruling derided a “sorry chapter of investigative excess.”
The judges wrote that their decision “can only stand as a small reaffirmation of the proposition that there are bounds to the interference that citizens must tolerate from the agents of their government—even when such agents invoke the mighty shield of the Constitution and claim official purpose to their conduct.” That principle is due for another affirmation.
Mr. Solomon is an investigative journalist who has written for the Associated Press, the Washington Post, “60 Minutes” and the Hill, among others.
Comments
When you add to this the fact that they illegally wire tapped a competing Presidential campaign, this is corruption at its biggest.