The House Impeachment Report

[colfax_m]

Christ, I know what phone call record is. I know that it didn’t include the actual conversation. How the hell did you get the impression I thought otherwise.

And no, you’re incorrect that you need a warrant for them. If I’m correct, ATT has no obligation to honor anyone’s request without a warrant.

Your own link to Katz says that you MUST have a warrant! Stop taking, "How stupid can you get?" as a challenge. You are being way too successful!

Katz set out the rules for “expectation of privacy”. It didn’t rule directly on a pen registry. That came about a decade later in Smith v Maryland where it was decided that a person has no expectation of privacy when it comes to recording what number you’ve dialed.

A pen registry is one thing. Telephone records are another. You do have an expectation that the phone company will not give out your records. I doubt any of the service providers give them out voluntarily.

Go on and explain the difference between a pen registry and telephone records. If the records are with the telephone company, then you've already given up the expectation of private. They're by definition no longer private if the telephone company possesses them.

They are phone company property. Warrants are required to obtain them, just as warrants are required to obtain anything in your house.

Good point. If the phone company decides to hand them over in response to a Congressional subpoena, who are you to complain?

 

[georgephillip]

For anyone interested, turn to page 34 of the report to find the factual evidence revealed by the House inquiry.

For anyone interested, turn to page 34 of the report to find the factual evidence revealed by the House inquiry.

P. 34:

https://intelligence.house.gov/uplo...rt___hpsci_impeachment_inquiry_-_20191203.pdf

"Donald J. Trump, the 45th President of the United States—acting personally and through his agents within and outside of the U.S. government—solicited the interference of a foreign government, Ukraine, in the 2020 U.S. presidential election.

"The President engaged in this course of conduct for the benefit of his reelection, to harm the election prospects of a political opponent, and to influence our nation’s upcoming presidential election to his advantage.

"In so doing, the President placed his personal political interests above the national interests of the United States, sought to undermine the integrity of the U.S. presidential election process, and endangered U.S. national security. II."

Did Trump place his personal interests above national interests?

There's nothing here but allegations, no evidence whatsoever. All of this is based on testimony without anything to back it up, i.e., no proof at all. It's entirely based on hearsay, suppostions, presumptions, innuendo, and personal guesses. IOW, political bullshit.

There's nothing here but allegations, no evidence whatsoever. All of this is based on testimony without anything to back it up, i.e., no proof at all. It's entirely based on hearsay, suppostions, presumptions, innuendo, and personal guesses. IOW, political bullshit.

https://intelligence.house.gov/uplo...rt___hpsci_impeachment_inquiry_-_20191203.pdf (P. 34)

"President Trump ordered the suspension of $391 million in vital military assistance urgently needed by Ukraine, a strategic partner, to resist Russian aggression.

"Because the aid was appropriated by Congress, on a bipartisan basis, and signed into law by the President, its expenditure was required by law.

"Acting directly and through his subordinates within the U.S. government, the President withheld from Ukraine this military assistance without any legitimate foreign policy, national security, or anticorruption justification."

Why is Trump preventing his subordinates with first-hand knowledge of his actions from testifying? Why is he refusing to provide any documents that would provide first-hand evidence?

Our Founding Fathers Feared a Trump

 

[OldLady]

Giuliani is Trump's lawyer, dumbass. He's allowed to talk to them.

Giuliani is Trump's lawyer, dumbass. He's allowed to talk to them.

Why was Rudy talking to OMB?

Rudy Giuliani received multiple calls from Trump's OMB this year — some just minutes after he'd talked with Lev Parnas

Justice Roberts is gonna have a field day with this one. These crooks are screwed.

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?

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?

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.

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

Possible partisan battles in Senate over Trump impeachment trial previewed

"McConnell was asked by reporters how he would craft trial procedures that could determine the length of the procedure, the handling of witnesses and whether senators could pose questions."

Who calls the witnesses?
Does a witness have to appear?
Could Trump testify?

I have never heard of a trial that didn't allow both parties to call witnesses. What does that mean, "WHO calls the witnesses?" Whether a witness has to appear? So it is not a court of law? The Judge can excuse a witness, but not Mitch.

 

[bripat9643]

Your own link to Katz says that you MUST have a warrant! Stop taking, "How stupid can you get?" as a challenge. You are being way too successful!

Katz set out the rules for “expectation of privacy”. It didn’t rule directly on a pen registry. That came about a decade later in Smith v Maryland where it was decided that a person has no expectation of privacy when it comes to recording what number you’ve dialed.

A pen registry is one thing. Telephone records are another. You do have an expectation that the phone company will not give out your records. I doubt any of the service providers give them out voluntarily.

Go on and explain the difference between a pen registry and telephone records. If the records are with the telephone company, then you've already given up the expectation of private. They're by definition no longer private if the telephone company possesses them.

They are phone company property. Warrants are required to obtain them, just as warrants are required to obtain anything in your house.

Good point. If the phone company decides to hand them over in response to a Congressional subpoena, who are you to complain?

You need a warrant, not a subpoena, and that means a judge has to approve it. When did that happen?

 

[bripat9643]

Why was Rudy talking to OMB?

Rudy Giuliani received multiple calls from Trump's OMB this year — some just minutes after he'd talked with Lev Parnas

Justice Roberts is gonna have a field day with this one. These crooks are screwed.

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?

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?

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.

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

Possible partisan battles in Senate over Trump impeachment trial previewed

"McConnell was asked by reporters how he would craft trial procedures that could determine the length of the procedure, the handling of witnesses and whether senators could pose questions."

Who calls the witnesses?
Does a witness have to appear?
Could Trump testify?

I have never heard of a trial that didn't allow both parties to call witnesses. What does that mean, "WHO calls the witnesses?" Whether a witness has to appear? So it is not a court of law? The Judge can excuse a witness, but not Mitch.

How will that get Schifferbrains and the whistleblower off the hook?

 

[georgephillip]

For anyone interested, turn to page 34 of the report to find the factual evidence revealed by the House inquiry.

For anyone interested, turn to page 34 of the report to find the factual evidence revealed by the House inquiry.

P. 34:

https://intelligence.house.gov/uplo...rt___hpsci_impeachment_inquiry_-_20191203.pdf

"Donald J. Trump, the 45th President of the United States—acting personally and through his agents within and outside of the U.S. government—solicited the interference of a foreign government, Ukraine, in the 2020 U.S. presidential election.

"The President engaged in this course of conduct for the benefit of his reelection, to harm the election prospects of a political opponent, and to influence our nation’s upcoming presidential election to his advantage.

"In so doing, the President placed his personal political interests above the national interests of the United States, sought to undermine the integrity of the U.S. presidential election process, and endangered U.S. national security. II."

Did Trump place his personal interests above national interests?

Sure, he did. Please bring this to the Senate! PLEASE!

Sure, he did. Please bring this to the Senate! PLEASE

You support bribery?
Is that because Trump changed from Democrat to Republican??

https://intelligence.house.gov/uplo...rt___hpsci_impeachment_inquiry_-_20191203.pdf (P. 34)

"President Trump used the power of the Office of the President and exercised his authority over the Executive Branch, including his control of the instruments of the federal government, to apply increasing pressure on the President of Ukraine and the Ukrainian government to announce the politically-motivated investigations desired by President Trump."

 

[colfax_m]

Katz set out the rules for “expectation of privacy”. It didn’t rule directly on a pen registry. That came about a decade later in Smith v Maryland where it was decided that a person has no expectation of privacy when it comes to recording what number you’ve dialed.

A pen registry is one thing. Telephone records are another. You do have an expectation that the phone company will not give out your records. I doubt any of the service providers give them out voluntarily.

Go on and explain the difference between a pen registry and telephone records. If the records are with the telephone company, then you've already given up the expectation of private. They're by definition no longer private if the telephone company possesses them.

They are phone company property. Warrants are required to obtain them, just as warrants are required to obtain anything in your house.

Good point. If the phone company decides to hand them over in response to a Congressional subpoena, who are you to complain?

You need a warrant, not a subpoena, and that means a judge has to approve it. When did that happen?

I keep telling you. You don’t need a warrant. There’s no expectation of privacy when it comes to pen registries. Read Smith v Maryland and get back to me.

 

[airplanemechanic]

A pen registry is one thing. Telephone records are another. You do have an expectation that the phone company will not give out your records. I doubt any of the service providers give them out voluntarily.

Go on and explain the difference between a pen registry and telephone records. If the records are with the telephone company, then you've already given up the expectation of private. They're by definition no longer private if the telephone company possesses them.

They are phone company property. Warrants are required to obtain them, just as warrants are required to obtain anything in your house.

Good point. If the phone company decides to hand them over in response to a Congressional subpoena, who are you to complain?

You need a warrant, not a subpoena, and that means a judge has to approve it. When did that happen?

I keep telling you. You don’t need a warrant. There’s no expectation of privacy when it comes to pen registries. Read Smith v Maryland and get back to me.

YES YOU NEED A WARRANT.

Supreme Court rules that police generally need a warrant to access cell phone data

 

[jc456]

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.

Who cares how the inquiry started? It’s irrelevant to the factual matter at hand.

Nothing to see here, folks. Move along!

Sorry that Trump is butt hurt about his corruption being exposed.

You're butthurt that your Stalinist hero Schiff for Brains will be wriggling on the hot seat in about a month and that all his nefarious activities will be exposed.

If you say so chief. I’m not worried. Neither is Schiff. This is just more attempts at obfuscation and distraction.

it's really just a hoax, we all know it. you're just a lingering wannabe.

 

[georgephillip]

"President Trump immediately responded by asking President Zelensky to 'do us a favor though'

Isn't that what Lobbysists ask Congresscritters all day?

The Framers of the Constitution well understood that an individual could one day occupy the Office of the President who would place his personal or political interests above those of the nation.

they we sooOOoooo right too......

~S~

hey we sooOOoooo right too......

200 years and counting...

Even Founding Fathers had concerns about corporate cash and influence

"In 1816, Thomas Jefferson wrote, 'I hope we shall crush in its birth the aristocracy of our moneyed corporations, which dare already to challenge our government to a trial of strength and bid defiance to the laws of our country.'"

CA is on a glide path to becoming our Venezuela. Just watch. We're building the wall in the wrong place, seal Southern CA off from the rest of the USA and deed it back to Mexico

CA is on a glide path to becoming our Venezuela. Just watch. We're building the wall in the wrong place, seal Southern CA off from the rest of the USA and deed it back to Mexico

We'll be here long after Manhattan's swallowed by the Atlantic and any survivors are speaking Russian.

Bubble Watch: California economy goes from national leader to subpar – Orange County Register

 

[OldLady]

Justice Roberts is gonna have a field day with this one. These crooks are screwed.

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?

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?

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.

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

Possible partisan battles in Senate over Trump impeachment trial previewed

"McConnell was asked by reporters how he would craft trial procedures that could determine the length of the procedure, the handling of witnesses and whether senators could pose questions."

Who calls the witnesses?
Does a witness have to appear?
Could Trump testify?

I have never heard of a trial that didn't allow both parties to call witnesses. What does that mean, "WHO calls the witnesses?" Whether a witness has to appear? So it is not a court of law? The Judge can excuse a witness, but not Mitch.

How will that get Schifferbrains and the whistleblower off the hook?

They're not ON the hook, except in your fevered imagination.

 

[lantern2814]

How the **** did Lying Schitt get the PHONE RECORDS of the President's personal lawyer and a US Congressman?

Why the **** 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 **** has the phone records of journalist John Solomon? What happened to the 1st Amendment, you ******* traitor bastards?

THIS is the kind of shit you take up arms over. WE HAVE NO ******* LAW, Adam Schitt is a scumbag dictator constrained by no law or Constitution.

William Barr, ENFORCE THE ******* LAW, or by god we the people will. Arrest this SCHITT now.

It's called a subpoena. Schiff issued a subpoena to ATT.

Nothing illegal about it. Read a book.

Actually you should learn a thing or two. Schitt has NO right to those records as Giuliani and Nunes are NOT being investigated. Thus he has ZERO legal reason to have them. And messing with Solomon will get Schitt in a hell of a lot more trouble than he can handle. Solomon will wipe the deck with him should this get to court. Schitt CAN and SHOULD be arrested for this. But continue to kiss his ass as you clowns get destroyed in 2020.

Giuliani is definitely part of this investigation. Nunes is just an idiot who got caught up in the mess but is going to be subject to an ethics investigation shortly. Solomon is in deep shit. He's been found to be pumping basically propaganda bought and paid for by corrupt Ukrainians. He's been canned from The Hill and is trying to salvage what scraps of credibility he has left.

Schiff isn't in any trouble. He's a Stanford graduate, Harvard law graduate, former federal prosecutor. Nunes is a hayseed. Solomon is a hack. Giuliani has dementia. He'll be fine, mostly because he knows the law and hasn't violated anything. A pen register is not protected by the 4th amendment.

Boy that right there is one of the biggest piles of shit I’ve ever seen. I would wipe Schitt all over a courtroom. He’s a know nothing retard who’s still looking for nudes of Trump. And by the way, you still don’t have the votes to get to the Senate and you have no impeachable offense. Try again.

I hope you get the chance to confront Schiff in a courtroom some day. Be sure to let me know.

Before that happens, perhaps you could start learning about basics of US law. You’ve got some catching up to do.

Perhaps you should get out of grade school before spouting off about things you obviously know nothing about. I’ll gladly rub your face in how badly I embarrass Schitt for brains in court. By the way moron, the corruption exposed here belongs to Obozo and Biden. Joined by Schitt for brains and Pisslosi. You’re so confident you have Trump that you won’t even take a vote. That speaks volumes about what you don’t have,

 

[lantern2814]

How the **** did Lying Schitt get the PHONE RECORDS of the President's personal lawyer and a US Congressman?

Why the **** 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 **** has the phone records of journalist John Solomon? What happened to the 1st Amendment, you ******* traitor bastards?

THIS is the kind of shit you take up arms over. WE HAVE NO ******* LAW, Adam Schitt is a scumbag dictator constrained by no law or Constitution.

William Barr, ENFORCE THE ******* LAW, or by god we the people will. Arrest this SCHITT now.

It's called a subpoena. Schiff issued a subpoena to ATT.

Nothing illegal about it. Read a book.

Actually you should learn a thing or two. Schitt has NO right to those records as Giuliani and Nunes are NOT being investigated. Thus he has ZERO legal reason to have them. And messing with Solomon will get Schitt in a hell of a lot more trouble than he can handle. Solomon will wipe the deck with him should this get to court. Schitt CAN and SHOULD be arrested for this. But continue to kiss his ass as you clowns get destroyed in 2020.

Giuliani is definitely part of this investigation. Nunes is just an idiot who got caught up in the mess but is going to be subject to an ethics investigation shortly. Solomon is in deep shit. He's been found to be pumping basically propaganda bought and paid for by corrupt Ukrainians. He's been canned from The Hill and is trying to salvage what scraps of credibility he has left.

Schiff isn't in any trouble. He's a Stanford graduate, Harvard law graduate, former federal prosecutor. Nunes is a hayseed. Solomon is a hack. Giuliani has dementia. He'll be fine, mostly because he knows the law and hasn't violated anything. A pen register is not protected by the 4th amendment.

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.

Wrong yet again asshole. You have NOTHiNG. Not one bit of your shit would be admissible in a Senate trial. If you have the balls to send it there. Successful? Boy the dims love Gruberized idiots like you.

 

[colfax_m]

It's called a subpoena. Schiff issued a subpoena to ATT.

Nothing illegal about it. Read a book.

Actually you should learn a thing or two. Schitt has NO right to those records as Giuliani and Nunes are NOT being investigated. Thus he has ZERO legal reason to have them. And messing with Solomon will get Schitt in a hell of a lot more trouble than he can handle. Solomon will wipe the deck with him should this get to court. Schitt CAN and SHOULD be arrested for this. But continue to kiss his ass as you clowns get destroyed in 2020.

Giuliani is definitely part of this investigation. Nunes is just an idiot who got caught up in the mess but is going to be subject to an ethics investigation shortly. Solomon is in deep shit. He's been found to be pumping basically propaganda bought and paid for by corrupt Ukrainians. He's been canned from The Hill and is trying to salvage what scraps of credibility he has left.

Schiff isn't in any trouble. He's a Stanford graduate, Harvard law graduate, former federal prosecutor. Nunes is a hayseed. Solomon is a hack. Giuliani has dementia. He'll be fine, mostly because he knows the law and hasn't violated anything. A pen register is not protected by the 4th amendment.

Boy that right there is one of the biggest piles of shit I’ve ever seen. I would wipe Schitt all over a courtroom. He’s a know nothing retard who’s still looking for nudes of Trump. And by the way, you still don’t have the votes to get to the Senate and you have no impeachable offense. Try again.

I hope you get the chance to confront Schiff in a courtroom some day. Be sure to let me know.

Before that happens, perhaps you could start learning about basics of US law. You’ve got some catching up to do.

Perhaps you should get out of grade school before spouting off about things you obviously know nothing about. I’ll gladly rub your face in how badly I embarrass Schitt for brains in court. By the way moron, the corruption exposed here belongs to Obozo and Biden. Joined by Schitt for brains and Pisslosi. You’re so confident you have Trump that you won’t even take a vote. That speaks volumes about what you don’t have,

You have some bizarre fantasies.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Schiff is a ******* traitor, he's worse that the the British during Colonial times

 

[Rambunctious]

This whole thing is an act...a sham...both the dems and the republicans are working to destroy Trump...don't buy it that the GOP is on Trumps side....by the time the senate gets this case they will find something for the republicans to endorse impeachment.....and Trump will be removed....its in the cards its all over...if the GOP wanted this to stop they would of found a way....they are ******* in on it!!!

 

[Uncensored2008]

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.

Unfortunately the corrupt piles of shit in Congress have exempted themselves from congressional subpoenas. They make laws for others, not themselves. The Senate cannot compel Lying Schitt to testify. BUT they CAN compel his staff to testify.

"When did Mr. Schitt first meet with Eric Ciaramella? When he offered legal counsel in exchange for Eric Ciaramella filing the complaint written by Mark Zaid, did anything else of value get exchanged?"

 

[Uncensored2008]

But the Court ruled in favor of Katz 7-1! It's the OPPOSITE of what you say

Katz established the modern test for what constitutes an illegal search and seizure. Basically, when you dial a phone, you transmit the number to the telephone company. You cannot reasonably claim an expectation of privacy for information you have submitted to the telephone company. Therefore a pen register is not covered under the 4th amendment. It's "outside the envelope" type of information.

So Trump can get Schiff and Ciaramellas phone records just by asking? Does he have to say, "please"?

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.

******* liar.

 

[Uncensored2008]

"Talk to Rudy"
Impeachment report: Giuliani spoke to White House, Nunes and OMB at key points in Ukraine campaign

How the **** did Lying Schitt get the PHONE RECORDS of the President's personal lawyer and a US Congressman?

Why the **** 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 **** has the phone records of journalist John Solomon? What happened to the 1st Amendment, you ******* traitor bastards?

THIS is the kind of shit you take up arms over. WE HAVE NO ******* LAW, Adam Schitt is a scumbag dictator constrained by no law or Constitution.

William Barr, ENFORCE THE ******* LAW, or by god we the people will. Arrest this SCHITT now.

Nice meltdown and dodge.

Nice treason, scumbag.

 

[colfax_m]

Katz established the modern test for what constitutes an illegal search and seizure. Basically, when you dial a phone, you transmit the number to the telephone company. You cannot reasonably claim an expectation of privacy for information you have submitted to the telephone company. Therefore a pen register is not covered under the 4th amendment. It's "outside the envelope" type of information.

So Trump can get Schiff and Ciaramellas phone records just by asking? Does he have to say, "please"?

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.

******* liar.

I don’t know how many times I’ve cited the relevant court case.
It’s Smith v Maryland.

I’m not a ******* liar. You’re a ******* idiot.