Schiff's FISA Memo was Riddled with LIES

Gee an awful lot of innocent people seem to be in jail then

 

Some times it is helpful to hear what was said. Did you have access in AU to the House hearings that were broadcast in their entirety here in the USA? Did you read Schiff's 300 page report that was the basis for that hearing?

Schiff did not have the balls to testify but designated his counsel to testify in his place. Goldman, Schiff's attorney and chief investigator claimed that it was common practice for lawyers to subpoena phone records and that only metadata was published. No names were attached to the phone numbers obtained by House subpoenas sent to AT&T, Verizon and one other phone company. The phone companies complied and released the records.

What Schiff did may not be illegal but was not common practice to release any private information much less later attach names to the phone numbers obtained. It is possible Schiff now faces ethics charges, at a minimum. The minority pointed out during the hearing that if phone records were to be used in an investigation, the numbers obtained should have been matched without using actual names, rather they should have been labeled person 1, person 2, etc.

 

https://theconservativetreehouse.com/2019/12/09/ig-report-continued-specific-fisa-date-redactions/
Dems are done.

 

Do you mean the Hearings before those two Committees? If so, I saw every word (in replay) of the First Committee's events. Was not much interested in the second one.

This matter of the phone records, from what I have read, is all speculative other than the metadata stuff was released. No-one yet has established there was a subpoena, and that if there was, it was connected to Schiff. (I doubt it is a big deal anyway.)

 

It was the hearing to the House Judiciary Committee explaining Schiff's 300 page BS "intel" committee report. The phone records were obtained by subpoena directed by Schiff. The phone companies would not volunteer private information without a formal subpoena or a threat of subpoena should they not comply with Schiff's demand.

His proxy, Goldman testified and confirmed to this during the hearing when questioned minority house members.

 

Who issued the subpoena, and at whose request, and on what basis? You seem to want two bob each way. First, there was a subpoena, and then you dilute to 'threat of subpoena should they not comply with Schiff's demands.' Gotta be one or the other, or maybe something else. Who knows out here? No-one. It is all speculation over five-eights of SFA.

According to you, Goldman 'testifed' as to what was common practice. Well, common practice does not cut the mustard on the (pedantic) point we are discussing. The calls were made. Let's see if anything emerges from the fact they were made.

 

The internet, the cloud, the Penthouse Forum. Take your pick.

 

Or from Russia.

 

LOL! You think an indictment means someone went to jail....such a sweet kid.

 

Since then of course Roger Stone has also been convicted

Oops! And the latest

https://www.salon.com/2019/12/11/co...-cash-to-stonewall-mueller-probe-prosecutors/

 

IG Horowitz openly and publicly refuted Russia-gate. It's officially on the level with the 9-11 twin towers collapse theory.

 

It is somewhat understandable that you don't understand. Schiff, Nadler and Pelosi defied all normal House rules for the kangaroo court they conducted. Congressional staffers do most of the actual work even in normal proceedings. Goldman was the designated counsel for the democrat held majority. He was a principal collaborator and probable co-author of Schiff's report.

Release of the private phone records of congressmen is NOT common practice and is highly unethical, contrary to what Schitt's lawyer testified to as normal and common investigative practice by lawyers. Schitt and his highly biased partisan lawyer is his agent. For that matter, all of Schitt's staffers are his agents who Schitt is responsible for.

 

You'll have to show me where with a Link.

 

Didn't the IG release his report along with testimony? The IG said it, and even during his abusive use of it Comey said it was 'salicious and unverified' and Mueller finally put the canard on this disgusting farce in US History.

There's now no legal basis whatsoever to continue to claim Russia-gate. It's a tinfoil hat conspiracy theory, it always was.

 

I don't reckon I am labouring under any disadvantage which 'is 'understandable' and renders me as not 'understanding.' What Rules did they defy? Where might I read these Rules? And the bit in red. You call Goldman a 'principal collaborator.' Is there evidence of any dark 'collaboration' at all? And then, you expose the speculation again with 'probable.'

Where might I read what those 'ethics' are? It seems to me that things have decayed so much in the USA, that there is no longer any such thing as 'ethics,' (most recently, I give you the evidence of Horoxitz that even an Agent of the FBI, a Lawyer it seems....lied to get a warrant to surveil) especially when even your judicial system has at its core, politicisation. I reckon there is serious Constitutional trouble ahead for Team USA and to give Trump credit, he has exposed the terrible, inherent weakness.

 

Quote the bit where, as you assert, "IG Horowitz openly and publicly refuted Russia-gate."

 

Doesn't look like 30 plus convictions to me. Try again.

 

If it matters so much to you, go look up the report. But the fact is known, even to most Liberals(have you heard your fellow left posters lately?) The conspiracy theory is dead. Actually, worse than a conspiracy theory it was a lie hoisted upon all of us. I'm sure even a Liberal doesn't mind secretly that those who lied to us get their just desserts.

 

It matters nothing to me. It matters large to honest reporting, even here. Much as you might like to pigeon hole me, you are wrong so far. I am not 'left.' I have no horse in this race whatsoever.

 

You have enough of one to question the reality that most accept by now that Russia-gate was a giant hoax perpetuated on all of us, and like the President said: It should never happen to anyone again.

 

And yet you accept any and all claims by the left wing media, even based on anonymous sources, but demand proof positive for claims you do not like.

Please, you can be a lefty. No one cares.

 

What hoax? For me it is so simple. Somehow Russia got hold of those naughty private server emails of Clinton, that became known by Trump et al, Papadopoulos blurts to Downer, and somewhere along the line, Wikileaks which Trump said over and over that he loved, and then later commented that he did not know Wikileaks, has the emails, and releases them during the 2016 campaign.

 

Show me anywhere I have accepted any claim by any (let alone left-wing) media, including anonymous sources. I rely heavily upon what has been verified at source, and I especially like to rely on what I see people, including Trump and Mulvaney et al say before my very eyes and ears.

 

Both Papadopolos and Downer contest the FBI's interpretation of their conversation. And Papadoupolis also testified that it would be treason and that the campaign did not participate in those efforts. The FBI, nor anyone else for that matter including Robert Mueller found facts to dispute Papadoupolos's statements.

And Julian Assange for what it's worth protests that he got it from the Russians, he claims from another source.

This thing is dead. D E A D. There's no Ruskies, there were no Ruskies. The only Russians, is Russian Vodka

 

Thanks for admitting you accept anonymous sourced news stories and quotes taken out of context. If you went one step further and verified your stories you would see the truth. Some folks are not interested in the truth.