Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
The phone company has to agree to the request. The DoJ issues subpoenas for them all the time.So Trump can get Schiff and Ciaramellas phone records just by asking? Does he have to say, "please"?
The DOJ requires a WARRANT, per our Constitution. Is Adam Schitt SUPERIOR TO THE CONSTITUTION?
They don’t. The Supreme Court decided decades ago these records requests don’t require a warrant.
Fucking liar.
I don’t know how many times I’ve cited the relevant court case.
It’s Smith v Maryland.
I’m not a fucking liar. You’re a fucking idiot.
Do me a favor and read the decision that I referenced and enlighten me as to why I’m wrong.The phone company has to agree to the request. The DoJ issues subpoenas for them all the time.
The DOJ requires a WARRANT, per our Constitution. Is Adam Schitt SUPERIOR TO THE CONSTITUTION?
They don’t. The Supreme Court decided decades ago these records requests don’t require a warrant.
Fucking liar.
I don’t know how many times I’ve cited the relevant court case.
It’s Smith v Maryland.
I’m not a fucking liar. You’re a fucking idiot.
No, you're a fucking liar.
You've been corrected a dozen times, which means that you're not mistaken, you're a liar.
Admiral Rockwell Tory utterly shredded you on these lies, so I'm not going to go through it again.
Who cares how the inquiry started? It’s irrelevant to the factual matter at hand.You're a delusional idiot. You will say anything to defend Schiff and his kangaroo court. If anyone is in trouble, it's Schiff. He has already committed perjury dozens of times. That will come to light when he is sitting in the hot seat during the Senate trial.
I can’t tell if this is satire or if you actually are this dumb.
Schiff can’t commit perjury if he isn’t under oath. He hasn’t been under oath. He’s not going to be called as a witness in the Senate Trial. This isn’t a kangaroo court, it’s an investigation and quite successful despite Trump’s clear obstruction of Constitutional Congressional powers.
He most certainly will be called in a Senate trial. You can take that to the bank. Hos conflicting statements regarding the whistle blower's contacts with him or his staff are evidence of his collusion with him or her to prompt the inquiry.
The House Intel Committee did't seem to care about any factual matters. All we heard from them was hearsay except the testimony that Trump wanted no quid pro quo. Why did they ignore that?
They sought as much factual matter as they could. And they did a pretty good job given Trump has decided to obstruct all attempts at getting to the heart of the matter.
Trump’s phone call with Sondland, if it even occurred, was after he was made aware of the whistleblower’s report. Sorry that I don’t take his attempt to cover his ass as entirely exculpatory.
Because the assertions made in his complaint have been totally corroborated.Of course you're worried. Why are you and your sleazy Komrades arguing so much that there's "no need" to call the whistle blower?
At the hearings I've been part of, the Judge is a critical member of the proceeding. At least for one, the judge will shut down a lot of the repetitive badgering and grandstanding that we heard during the House impeachment hearings. "Asked and answered; move on" is a good one.Justice Roberts is gonna have a field day with this one. These crooks are screwed.Giuliani is Trump's lawyer, dumbass. He's allowed to talk to them.Why was Rudy talking to OMB?Giuliani is Trump's lawyer, dumbass. He's allowed to talk to them.
Rudy Giuliani received multiple calls from Trump's OMB this year — some just minutes after he'd talked with Lev ParnasI wonder how much input Roberts will have on a Senate impeachment trial?Justice Roberts is gonna have a field day with this one. These crooks are screwed
Possible partisan battles in Senate over Trump impeachment trial previewed
"WASHINGTON (Reuters) - U.S. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell on Tuesday raised the possibility of a spirited battle over how an impeachment trial for President Donald Trump would be run and suggested that the referee - Supreme Court Justice John Roberts - not meddle."
Moscow Mitch will be dealing with Trump's impeachment/removal in an election year. I wonder if that will affect which witnesses we will be allowed to hear from? Will Rudy and Don and Mick get an opportunity to provide some first-hand information on this matter?
They also sustain or deny objections on points of law, allowing or omitting certain testimony, which can be critical. They can question witnesses if the attorneys fail to raise important points. Judges do a lot of things besides listen. And Chief Justice Roberts is not going to put up with a bunch of bullshit from either side if they try to tell him how to run the trial. I think he might have a little more experience with that than a bunch of Senators who think they know everything.
What hearsay?At the hearings I've been part of, the Judge is a critical member of the proceeding. At least for one, the judge will shut down a lot of the repetitive badgering and grandstanding that we heard during the House impeachment hearings. "Asked and answered; move on" is a good one.Justice Roberts is gonna have a field day with this one. These crooks are screwed.Giuliani is Trump's lawyer, dumbass. He's allowed to talk to them.Why was Rudy talking to OMB?Giuliani is Trump's lawyer, dumbass. He's allowed to talk to them.
Rudy Giuliani received multiple calls from Trump's OMB this year — some just minutes after he'd talked with Lev ParnasI wonder how much input Roberts will have on a Senate impeachment trial?Justice Roberts is gonna have a field day with this one. These crooks are screwed
Possible partisan battles in Senate over Trump impeachment trial previewed
"WASHINGTON (Reuters) - U.S. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell on Tuesday raised the possibility of a spirited battle over how an impeachment trial for President Donald Trump would be run and suggested that the referee - Supreme Court Justice John Roberts - not meddle."
Moscow Mitch will be dealing with Trump's impeachment/removal in an election year. I wonder if that will affect which witnesses we will be allowed to hear from? Will Rudy and Don and Mick get an opportunity to provide some first-hand information on this matter?
They also sustain or deny objections on points of law, allowing or omitting certain testimony, which can be critical. They can question witnesses if the attorneys fail to raise important points. Judges do a lot of things besides listen. And Chief Justice Roberts is not going to put up with a bunch of bullshit from either side if they try to tell him how to run the trial. I think he might have a little more experience with that than a bunch of Senators who think they know everything.
The first thing he will break of the House Managers heads are the hearsay evidence they will try to introduce. The Dems will be left without a case, which they never had to begin with!
What hearsay?At the hearings I've been part of, the Judge is a critical member of the proceeding. At least for one, the judge will shut down a lot of the repetitive badgering and grandstanding that we heard during the House impeachment hearings. "Asked and answered; move on" is a good one.Justice Roberts is gonna have a field day with this one. These crooks are screwed.I wonder how much input Roberts will have on a Senate impeachment trial?Justice Roberts is gonna have a field day with this one. These crooks are screwed
Possible partisan battles in Senate over Trump impeachment trial previewed
"WASHINGTON (Reuters) - U.S. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell on Tuesday raised the possibility of a spirited battle over how an impeachment trial for President Donald Trump would be run and suggested that the referee - Supreme Court Justice John Roberts - not meddle."
Moscow Mitch will be dealing with Trump's impeachment/removal in an election year. I wonder if that will affect which witnesses we will be allowed to hear from? Will Rudy and Don and Mick get an opportunity to provide some first-hand information on this matter?
They also sustain or deny objections on points of law, allowing or omitting certain testimony, which can be critical. They can question witnesses if the attorneys fail to raise important points. Judges do a lot of things besides listen. And Chief Justice Roberts is not going to put up with a bunch of bullshit from either side if they try to tell him how to run the trial. I think he might have a little more experience with that than a bunch of Senators who think they know everything.
The first thing he will break of the House Managers heads are the hearsay evidence they will try to introduce. The Dems will be left without a case, which they never had to begin with!
Biden is on video admitting he pressured the Ukraine to back off from looking into BurismaI have your answer.
He took US foreign policy, which is intended to be for the benefit of the country and instead used it for his own personal benefit.
Subversion.
What was that personal benefit?
Oh, the same personal benefit found in all of the evidence that the House Intel Committee apparently forgot is inadmissible or doesn't exist?What was that personal benefit?
To get people, the voters, to believe this about Biden.....
Joe Biden's asshole just tightened up because he did that very thing and bragged about it.
According to witnesses Trump never wanted nor did he ask for or get a quid pro quo
The mere suggestion has you dopes hooked. Bigly.
That is not what Biden did, dope.
It's that very narrative that it was done for corrupt purposes that is the benefit to Trump campaign. You dopes swallowed it whole at the first suggestion. Now Trump has an army of dishonest losers like yourself who continue to propogate this lie at every opportunity.
That's exactly what Biden did, he admitted on tape, and the former prosecutor backs up the story with his own words, DOPE.
he's not allowed? why?
How the FUCK did Lying Schitt get the PHONE RECORDS of the President's personal lawyer and a US Congressman?
Why the FUCK is this crook bastard Schitt not in CUSTODY? This is the MOST OUTRAGEOUS abuse of power and infringement of 4th Amendment rights I've ever seen. PLUS the CROOKED LITTLE FUCK has the phone records of journalist John Solomon? What happened to the 1st Amendment, you fucking traitor bastards?
THIS is the kind of shit you take up arms over. WE HAVE NO FUCKING LAW, Adam Schitt is a scumbag dictator constrained by no law or Constitution.
William Barr, ENFORCE THE FUCKING LAW, or by god we the people will. Arrest this SCHITT now.
Nice meltdown and dodge.
Nice treason, scumbag.
Hearsay is very frequently admitted in court. There’s a lot of rules about it but suffice to say, it’s not an absolute cant be admitted.What hearsay?At the hearings I've been part of, the Judge is a critical member of the proceeding. At least for one, the judge will shut down a lot of the repetitive badgering and grandstanding that we heard during the House impeachment hearings. "Asked and answered; move on" is a good one.Justice Roberts is gonna have a field day with this one. These crooks are screwed.I wonder how much input Roberts will have on a Senate impeachment trial?Justice Roberts is gonna have a field day with this one. These crooks are screwed
Possible partisan battles in Senate over Trump impeachment trial previewed
"WASHINGTON (Reuters) - U.S. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell on Tuesday raised the possibility of a spirited battle over how an impeachment trial for President Donald Trump would be run and suggested that the referee - Supreme Court Justice John Roberts - not meddle."
Moscow Mitch will be dealing with Trump's impeachment/removal in an election year. I wonder if that will affect which witnesses we will be allowed to hear from? Will Rudy and Don and Mick get an opportunity to provide some first-hand information on this matter?
They also sustain or deny objections on points of law, allowing or omitting certain testimony, which can be critical. They can question witnesses if the attorneys fail to raise important points. Judges do a lot of things besides listen. And Chief Justice Roberts is not going to put up with a bunch of bullshit from either side if they try to tell him how to run the trial. I think he might have a little more experience with that than a bunch of Senators who think they know everything.
The first thing he will break of the House Managers heads are the hearsay evidence they will try to introduce. The Dems will be left without a case, which they never had to begin with!
I heard Joe, who heard from Sammy, who heard from Bill, who heard from Fred, who heard Chris tell Nora, that Trump is a doo-doo head!
I think that just about sums up the entire House Intel Committee's evidence against Trump.
THAT hearsay!
Now balance that with Sondland saying Trump told him "No quid pro quo"..
Only the latter can be admitted into evidence because it is not hearsay.
Who cares how the inquiry started? It’s irrelevant to the factual matter at hand.I can’t tell if this is satire or if you actually are this dumb.
Schiff can’t commit perjury if he isn’t under oath. He hasn’t been under oath. He’s not going to be called as a witness in the Senate Trial. This isn’t a kangaroo court, it’s an investigation and quite successful despite Trump’s clear obstruction of Constitutional Congressional powers.
He most certainly will be called in a Senate trial. You can take that to the bank. Hos conflicting statements regarding the whistle blower's contacts with him or his staff are evidence of his collusion with him or her to prompt the inquiry.
The House Intel Committee did't seem to care about any factual matters. All we heard from them was hearsay except the testimony that Trump wanted no quid pro quo. Why did they ignore that?
They sought as much factual matter as they could. And they did a pretty good job given Trump has decided to obstruct all attempts at getting to the heart of the matter.
Trump’s phone call with Sondland, if it even occurred, was after he was made aware of the whistleblower’s report. Sorry that I don’t take his attempt to cover his ass as entirely exculpatory.
The quid pro quo never happened. Bullshit as much as you can, nothing happened!
The quid pro quo never happened
Hearsay is very frequently admitted in court. There’s a lot of rules about it but suffice to say, it’s not an absolute cant be admitted.What hearsay?At the hearings I've been part of, the Judge is a critical member of the proceeding. At least for one, the judge will shut down a lot of the repetitive badgering and grandstanding that we heard during the House impeachment hearings. "Asked and answered; move on" is a good one.I wonder how much input Roberts will have on a Senate impeachment trial?
Possible partisan battles in Senate over Trump impeachment trial previewed
"WASHINGTON (Reuters) - U.S. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell on Tuesday raised the possibility of a spirited battle over how an impeachment trial for President Donald Trump would be run and suggested that the referee - Supreme Court Justice John Roberts - not meddle."
Moscow Mitch will be dealing with Trump's impeachment/removal in an election year. I wonder if that will affect which witnesses we will be allowed to hear from? Will Rudy and Don and Mick get an opportunity to provide some first-hand information on this matter?
They also sustain or deny objections on points of law, allowing or omitting certain testimony, which can be critical. They can question witnesses if the attorneys fail to raise important points. Judges do a lot of things besides listen. And Chief Justice Roberts is not going to put up with a bunch of bullshit from either side if they try to tell him how to run the trial. I think he might have a little more experience with that than a bunch of Senators who think they know everything.
The first thing he will break of the House Managers heads are the hearsay evidence they will try to introduce. The Dems will be left without a case, which they never had to begin with!
I heard Joe, who heard from Sammy, who heard from Bill, who heard from Fred, who heard Chris tell Nora, that Trump is a doo-doo head!
I think that just about sums up the entire House Intel Committee's evidence against Trump.
THAT hearsay!
Now balance that with Sondland saying Trump told him "No quid pro quo"..
Only the latter can be admitted into evidence because it is not hearsay.
Hearsay is very frequently admitted in court. There’s a lot of rules about it but suffice to say, it’s not an absolute cant be admitted.What hearsay?At the hearings I've been part of, the Judge is a critical member of the proceeding. At least for one, the judge will shut down a lot of the repetitive badgering and grandstanding that we heard during the House impeachment hearings. "Asked and answered; move on" is a good one.
They also sustain or deny objections on points of law, allowing or omitting certain testimony, which can be critical. They can question witnesses if the attorneys fail to raise important points. Judges do a lot of things besides listen. And Chief Justice Roberts is not going to put up with a bunch of bullshit from either side if they try to tell him how to run the trial. I think he might have a little more experience with that than a bunch of Senators who think they know everything.
The first thing he will break of the House Managers heads are the hearsay evidence they will try to introduce. The Dems will be left without a case, which they never had to begin with!
I heard Joe, who heard from Sammy, who heard from Bill, who heard from Fred, who heard Chris tell Nora, that Trump is a doo-doo head!
I think that just about sums up the entire House Intel Committee's evidence against Trump.
THAT hearsay!
Now balance that with Sondland saying Trump told him "No quid pro quo"..
Only the latter can be admitted into evidence because it is not hearsay.
Bullshit! Why do you act like you are some kind of legal expert when you say such stupid things? There are exceptions to hearsay evidence and exactly none of those apply in this case.
Schiff is a fucking traitor, he's worse that the the British during Colonial times
Schiff is a fucking traitor, he's worse that the the British during Colonial times
Who said you did? I asked you a question. you avoided the answer. why?he's not allowed? why?
When did I say that, dope?
why do you care what Rudy's doing? he can talk to whoever he wants to. or are you saying he isn't allowed?
How the FUCK did Lying Schitt get the PHONE RECORDS of the President's personal lawyer and a US Congressman?
Why the FUCK is this crook bastard Schitt not in CUSTODY? This is the MOST OUTRAGEOUS abuse of power and infringement of 4th Amendment rights I've ever seen. PLUS the CROOKED LITTLE FUCK has the phone records of journalist John Solomon? What happened to the 1st Amendment, you fucking traitor bastards?
THIS is the kind of shit you take up arms over. WE HAVE NO FUCKING LAW, Adam Schitt is a scumbag dictator constrained by no law or Constitution.
William Barr, ENFORCE THE FUCKING LAW, or by god we the people will. Arrest this SCHITT now.
Nice meltdown and dodge.
Nice treason, scumbag.
Still melting down I see.
What's Rudy doing? Who's he doing it for?
how do you know he talked to the guy? what court approved looking into his phone records? or finding out who he called? unless you have transcripts, you got nothing again son. I think it's now time to arrest Schitt's for abuse of power.Schiff is a fucking traitor, he's worse that the the British during Colonial timesSchiff is a fucking traitor, he's worse that the the British during Colonial times
Anyone defending the most corrupt, incompetent POTUS in history should be the first to face charges of treason.
Nunes can’t “recall” talking to Lev Parnas despite multiple call logs
"Rep. Devin Nunes, R-Calif., said during a Fox News interview that he could not 'recall' speaking with Lev Parnas, an indicted associate of Trump attorney Rudy Giuliani, despite call records released in the House Intelligence Committee’s impeachment report showing numerous phone conversations between the two.
"Call logs that apparently obtained from AT&T and included in the endnotes of the report show at least four calls between Parnas and Nunes on April 12, amid the smear campaign against then-Ukraine Ambassador Marie Yovanovitch.
"Parnas also called The Hill columnist John Solomon, who pushed the false narrative against Yovanovitch at the outlet.
"The logs also show that Nunes spoke multiple times with Giuliani ahead of those calls.
"Parnas, who was a key player in Giuliani’s search for damaging information on former Vice President Joe Biden in Ukraine, was later indicted on campaign finance charges."
Hearsay is very frequently admitted in court. There’s a lot of rules about it but suffice to say, it’s not an absolute cant be admitted.What hearsay?The first thing he will break of the House Managers heads are the hearsay evidence they will try to introduce. The Dems will be left without a case, which they never had to begin with!
I heard Joe, who heard from Sammy, who heard from Bill, who heard from Fred, who heard Chris tell Nora, that Trump is a doo-doo head!
I think that just about sums up the entire House Intel Committee's evidence against Trump.
THAT hearsay!
Now balance that with Sondland saying Trump told him "No quid pro quo"..
Only the latter can be admitted into evidence because it is not hearsay.
Bullshit! Why do you act like you are some kind of legal expert when you say such stupid things? There are exceptions to hearsay evidence and exactly none of those apply in this case.
Thanks but nothing you said contradicted what I said.
What the hell is your problem? Why are you so angry ?Hearsay is very frequently admitted in court. There’s a lot of rules about it but suffice to say, it’s not an absolute cant be admitted.What hearsay?
I heard Joe, who heard from Sammy, who heard from Bill, who heard from Fred, who heard Chris tell Nora, that Trump is a doo-doo head!
I think that just about sums up the entire House Intel Committee's evidence against Trump.
THAT hearsay!
Now balance that with Sondland saying Trump told him "No quid pro quo"..
Only the latter can be admitted into evidence because it is not hearsay.
Bullshit! Why do you act like you are some kind of legal expert when you say such stupid things? There are exceptions to hearsay evidence and exactly none of those apply in this case.
Thanks but nothing you said contradicted what I said.
You are so stupid you cannot even recognize when you have been soundly thrashed. Is it a reading comprehension issue because that is what it appears to be?
