Intelligence committee chair Adam Schiff has released phone records, obtained under subpoena, of two of President Trump’s attorneys, an member of Congress, and a journalist, thus exposing his sources.
While it is legal for Congress to subpoena such records for investigative purposes, it is questionable if it is legal to make them public when there are no charges against those involved, simply in hopes of political gain.
Republicans, of course, are outraged, but honest Democrats, and members of the Press, should be outraged as well. So far, it’s pretty much crickets.
This is a gross abuse of the subpoena powers of Congress and in the past, would have brought down bipartisan condemnation. At the least, Schiff should be removed from office and censured by the House.
Tidewater News and Opinion Forum 
“The records do not contain the contents of the calls or identify the individuals Giuliani was reaching out to, but they include details such as the dates, times and durations of the calls.”
This is called “metadata” and according to the US government, as upheld by the US courts, is public information.
Oh well.
LikeLiked by 4 people
” . . it is questionable if it is legal to make them public”
More Trump apologist bull. Even the right wing rag pushing this story quoted GOP sources that there was nothing illegal about this decision. And even John “Torture-is-dandy” Yoo could not bring himself to say so either.
The real outrage here – the one you are blowing smoke to obscure – is that Nunes has again prostituted himself and was, it appears, deeply involved in the criminal conduct that Trump organized. At the very least he should have recused himself. Instead he is using the bully pulpit of these hearings to spread Putin’s lies. His behavior fully deserves the outing that Schiff has given it.
And, FWIIW, ANY article that refers to John Yoo as a “noted legal scholar” is intellectual garbage. The poor quality of your “information” sources is something you need to work on.
LikeLiked by 2 people
No, no. According to Nunes’ spokespersons, the phone call was a wrong number. It’s just that with the language barriers, and all, it took 8 minutes to convey that to Parnas and Guilliani.
LikeLiked by 4 people
As usual, for you, your ends justify the means.
Use of Congress’s subpoena powers to make public records otherwise held as private, or inthe caseof the press, privileged, is a blatant abuse of power,
But in your world, anything that advances the progressive cause is OK.
It’s a short jump from there to ‘reeducation camps’ and suppressing speech.
LikeLike
You are leading with your chin with this charge that “your ends justify the means.”
That has frequently been your argument in trying to defend your slavish support of the criminal Trump. You like the wrecking ball he has taken to our government and so you stand with him in spite of uncountable outrages that would have caused a cranial explosion had Obama done any of them.
You can call exposing Nunes’s complicity in Trump’s crimes a flagrant abuse of power if it floats your boat, but again the real outrage has been Nunes’s behavior itself. Like MANY Trump associates he better lawyer up.
And, BTW, where was your outrage when Nunes abused HIS power by literally sneaking over to the White House to tip them about findings in the Intelligence Committee which he headed at the time?
LikeLiked by 3 people
Whining about “process” is all the GOP has. They want to go after the people who reported the fire and not the arsonist (anarchist?) who set it.
Distract, deflect….Tick, tick, tick…
LikeLiked by 3 people
The “Process” are Constitutional rights and the law.
LikeLike
you still never answered… What of Joe and Hunter Biden’s Constitutional rights and the law?
LikeLiked by 2 people
Until you can show how Hunter Biden ‘earned’ $83,333/month while is Dad was in charge of aid to Ukraine, there is more than adequate cause to investigate them.
None of their Constitutional rights have been violated.
LikeLike
@Tabor
Of course your claims that Biden was in charge of U.S. aid to Ukraine or that there was something illegal about Hunter Biden’s gig are without ANY merit but, for the sake of argument, let’s say there really was probable cause to launch an investigation into their affairs.
(1) Since when does the DOJ farm out investigations of criminal activities by Americans to foreign countries?
(2) And, when has a legitimate criminal investigation ever been placed under the authority of the President’s personal “political representative” (your term for Giuliani)?
(3) And what has the QUID – a demand of a public announcement of the investigation by the President of Ukraine personally – got to do with law enforcement?
The answers are
(1) Never
(2) Never
(3) Nothing.
I have said it before and I will say it again – you are really embarrassing yourself with the preposterous claims that Trump was interested in anything other than getting helpful political dirt and advancing Russian disinformation that he finds helpful to his political prospects.
LikeLiked by 3 people
“The “Process” are Constitutional rights and the law.”
RIGHT DON.
Process, procedure, “by the book”, the LAW, the Constitution.
If the US government (or high US official) wants to investigate a US citizen, it (he) opens an official US investigation FIRST within the DoJ or its offices.
The US government (official) does not coerce, entice, hire, bribe, etc., a foreign investigative service to do so.
Once the DoJ opens an investigation, the AG may then, by various treaty, seek cooperation from a foreign investigative service.
This is the prescribed process for the US government to investigate a US citizen/resident.
See if that sinks in.
Now, what did Trump do first?
LikeLiked by 2 people
And if Atty General Barr announced opening an investigation of the Bidens, you would be wailing about the use of the Justice Dept to attack a political rival.
The corruption occurred in the Ukraine, so letting the Ukrainians do the investigating themselves, based on their law, provides separation between our government agencies and a domestic political candidate.
Investigation of the Trump campaign by the Obama administration during a campaign is what started this mess.
LikeLike
You left out the word “Justified”. Just ask Carter Page who is on his way to Club Fed. And you excoriated Obama for not doing enough when the Russian interference first came to light, as did many on the right.
It was his actions and Papodopolous’s drunken conversation that actually got it started.
“The corruption occurred in the Ukraine, so letting the Ukrainians do the investigating themselves, based on their law, provides separation between our government agencies and a domestic political candidate.”
You need to read what Nancy posted about “process”. I did earlier and Trump supporters ignore those pesky facts. They are not alternative in any way shape or form
And there has been zero proof of corruption by the Biden’s in Ukraine. Just conspiracy and smoke. Not even mirrors.
LikeLike
If Trump had asked the Ukraine to investigate the Ukrainian oil company Barisma (sp?) that would be totally acceptable, proper, and “a perfect phone call”. He could even have threatened to withhold or block future appropriations unless they did so. Tit-for-tat is a legitimate diplomatic approach. Obama’s Russian sanctions over Russia’s actions are a perfect example of Presidential action and this would have been no different.
If the Ukraine had then, in the course of its investigations, discovered corrupt activities by Hunter Biden, and sought to invoke the DoJ assistance by way of the aforementioned treaty, well, so be it, because then the DoJ becomes responsible for protecting Hunter’s Constitutional rights in that cooperation, as well as all of his rights should it come to, say, extradition.
But, when Trump, acting in his capacity as the President, suggested in his phone call that a US citizen be a specific target of a Ukrainian investigation, then he violated Hunter’s rights — not a perfect phone call anymore. He used the full force and power of the US government in an end run around the Constitution’s protections and Hunter’s rights.
The same as those two Chesapeake cops in that Ryan guy’s case.
LikeLiked by 2 people
You have to remember it is OK when his tribe does it.
LikeLiked by 3 people
‘The Trump administration is pressing Congress to permanently reauthorize expiring surveillance authorities under the Patriot Act, including the controversial Section 215 powers that gave U.S. spies the greenlight to collect bulk phone call information on Americans.”
…
“Brad Wiegmann, representing the Department of Justice, said that because the metadata around such communications is typically not encrypted, the government’s collection would be legal under either the Call Detail Records program and the business records provision contained in Section 215 of the Patriot Act.”
Hoist on his own petard.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Collection of such data for the purpose of investigation or oversight is certainly legal, but the release of such data obtained by subpoena for political purposes is, legal or not, an abuse of the power of Congress to subpoena records that would otherwise be private.
And, exposing a journalist’s sources, whether you agree with him or not, is most certainly an abuse of civil rights under color of authority. Honest journalists and all supporters of a free press should be outraged. Of course, then you have to find an honest journalist.
LikeLike
” but the release of such data obtained by subpoena for political purposes is, legal or not, an abuse of the power of Congress to subpoena records that would otherwise be private.”
Where do you get this garbage? “Legal or Not”?? Okay, what does that mean? If it’s legal for him to release it, then it’s still abuse of power? Do you still have N2O around the house?
LikeLiked by 3 people
Do you really believe everything that is technically legal is thus not an abuse of power?
If so, then Trump is home free.
LikeLike
@Tabor
“If so, then Trump is home free.”
Uh, last time I checked Extortion, Bribery and Obstruction of Justice are not “technically legal.” Quite the opposite in fact.
And, typically, you are egregiously exaggerating the degree to which a journalist’s sources are sacrosanct. They are not IN THE LEAST. Many a journalist has done time for trying to keep them secret.
LikeLiked by 3 people
Is that your position?
That abuse of power need not be accompanied by an illegal act to be abuse of power? Because until now, that’s the exact opposite of the “No Quid Pro Quo” defense.
Just wanting you on the record.
LikeLiked by 3 people
What I am pointing out is that the Democrats are in fact doing what Trump does in their imaginations.
LikeLike
Tell us exactly which Democrat requested a foreign government to investigate a political rival? Please. I beg you to enlighten us.
The pretzel factory called and would like its logic back.
LikeLiked by 3 people
An attack on the process, again, to try and shade the truth of what is going on, how high (or low) that it goes, and who knew what when. Notice how no one on the right is disturbed by what happened, just by how it is being investigated. Grow some balls and stand up for what is right and quit complaining about the how.
Impeachment is a political act, not a judicial one. Quit trying to make it something it is not.
LikeLiked by 3 people
Impeachment is a political act, but it is not a partisan act.
It is not just ‘if we have enough votes we can impeach’ it is a formal claim that a crime worthy of removing a President from office has been committed.
Unless you believe that simply by running for President, Joe Biden is above the law, there is no crime in asking for cooperation in investigating what on its face appears to be REAL corruption. Seeking the truth is not a crime, even if the truth benefits you.
LikeLike
But there are proper channels to request such an investigation. Step 1 is to open an investigation here in this country that leads to a need for further investigation in another. No such investigation was opened or even requested here. The ONLY reason for Trump to even mention Biden in his “perfect”call was to request something in order to release the aid. “I need you to do us a favor, though”…
And by the way, even though the aid was released, eventually, it was not until word of the call and the request were brought to light.
LikeLike
…” but it is not a partisan act.” Tell that to Bill Clinton and Newt Gingrich.
LikeLiked by 1 person
In Clinton’s impeachment, there were important differences.
First, Clinton did, in fact, commit perjury before a Grand Jury a d obstructed justice, for which he subsequently lost his license to practice law.
And, some, not many, but some, Democrats voted for impeachment.
LikeLike
I’m sorry. So it is NOT obstruction of justice (or Congress) to defy subpoenas, tell others to defy subpoenas, and order all in the executive branch not to cooperate with a LEGAL congressional inquiry?
You are getting what YOU want. The rest of us are being screwed.
LikeLike
If there is doubt about whether the subpoena is to obtain privileged information, it is entirely proper to go to the courts to determine the validity of the subpoena, which is exactly what the Trump administration did.
That the Democrats are in too big a rush to wait for the courts to rule does not make going to court obstruction.
LikeLike
And the courts have ruled on one of those already, which opes the door for the others. But Trump wants to go to his packed Supreme Court, where I can only hope that the majority sees past the who of appointed them and pay attention to the Constitutional duty of oversight by the Article I branch over the Article II.
LikeLike
And I suppose you missed Trump’s call to just get it done now?
While it would be prudent to await the court’s decision on the other subpoenas, it would be MORE prudent for Trump to allow those that can supposedly exonerate him testify now instead of stonewalling (You’re old enough to remember that Nixon tactic, which also failed miserably.).
LikeLike
OMG!
(Best read out loud, breathlessly.)
“Hey, look over here we found an “abuse of power” by the Democrats. Right there, see it? Yeah, those. Phone calls among FOX and friends, two suspected Ukrainian felons, Trump and his personal lawyers. (No, not Barr.) Yeah, yeah, we know this whole investigation is about Ukraine…but still.”
Whoa! Forget the overt intimidation of Ukraine by the most powerful person in the world by holding up aid to a Western ally for protection from the second most powerful military in the world. And for what? To dig up dirt on a specific political opponent. And to dig up more dirt on other political opponents, the DNC, on a totally debunked conspiracy that the president cannot even tell the truth about: Crowdstrike, a US company owned by a Russian born US citizen.
This is “Banana Republic” crap and not only did Trump do it, his regime bragged about it and told Americans to “get over it”.
The apologists in the GOP admit he did the gross abuse of presidential power. Yet, the defense is “so what, we don’t care, Schiff is a meany, so sue us.”
Dr. Hill was right. The Russians have done a good job convincing about 40% of us that Trump is the best thing since Lincoln. Better, for some of the more fanatical.
LikeLiked by 3 people
That’s an awful lot of deflection about something that is really simple. Answer this simple question.
Could the Washington Post force AT&T and Verizon to release those phone records for Trump’s lawyers and a journalist for its own use?
If not, then Schiff abused the powers of Congress to get those records and turn them over. He was legal in using them internally for oversight, but in making them public he abused his office and violated the rights of citizens.
And you know it.
It is really that simple. Schiff should be expelled from Congress and prosecuted.
LikeLike
I’ll dump Schiff, but you have to dump Trump.
The phone number list may be a serious breach of ethics. I am not versed in that. But it is a very convenient deflection as you seem to think about Ukraine.
Now back to why a president threatened to sacrifice an ally to the Russians for dirt on his political opponents.
Mulvaney said it was quid pro quo. Sondland, Trump’s own special pick for EU Ambassador and a mega donor, said it was unmistakably QPQ. The aid had already been authorized by Congress and the Pentagon said Ukraine had passed the “corruption test”.
But who really cares about Ukraine anyway. Putin is the “man”.
But don’t worry, your man is safe. And now he has a green light to do whatever the hell he wants and just ignore Congress, the Courts and 60% of the American people.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Not to mention any future POTUS.
LikeLike
Speaking of crap, did Schitt write your “parody” for you or did you dream this one up yourself? Honestly, go do some more hyper left wing drugs with Paul and don’t call us in the morning. I cant even respond to such partisan trash. Peace out.
LikeLike
What kind of Schitt head thinks it is funny to misspell Schiff kind of like a fifth grader at the playground? Just because Dear Leader is a dope, you don’t have to be one too. Do you?
LikeLiked by 1 person
Dope? You talking to yourself again. Honestly, get a hobby beyond scouring the net for anti-Trump garbage. Your blood pressure will thank you. Schiff is indeed Schitt.
LikeLike
You did not answer the question. Well, at least not on purpose.
LikeLike
His “parody” is a helluva lot more accurate than any of the crap Don is talking about.
You don’t like it because it is TRUE. Something Trump supporters have a hard time dealing with.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Aw gee, Bob, a little levity is (sorely) needed on this site. 🤡
“I cant even respond to such partisan trash.”
Ironically, you did.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Mic DROPPED!
LikeLike
I just said it was trash, not respond to the trash in it. You can pick your mic up now. But I have to admit, your trash does indeed add some levity. Have good day.
LikeLike
Here is a thought. Why is it the same people who complained that nothing was coming from Mueller during his investigation are now complaining because information is being released by Schiff? OMG! Could it be the hypocrites took their vitamins yesterday and now feel empowered to bitch and moan about the process while ignoring the Why for the process?
Like I said, just a thought.
LikeLike
It’s what conservatives do.
A few choice examples:
The Ken Starr show was a 6 year leak and smear fest.
McCain’s illegitimate, secret black child in SC by Bush operatives?
Swift Boat folks lying about Kerry.
Birthers.
50 murders or more by the Clintons.
Ironically, Trump reserved one of his “best” playground insults for fellow Republicans: human scum. I would say the right wing has cornered the market on such creatures.
IMHO
LikeLiked by 2 people
Really? How many of those were obtained using the subpoena powers of Congress to access private records?
LikeLike
RE: “Republicans, of course, are outraged, but honest Democrats, and members of the Press, should be outraged as well.”
It’s ironic: Schiff used the powers of his office to dig up dirt on political opponents, the very thing he wants to impeach the president for.
Ironies and hypocrisies of this sort seem to be becoming more common.
LikeLike
Hmmm, hence if Schiff is guilty of abusing his power, an impeachable offense by the way, then it must follow, as the night the day, that so then is Trump.
Want to rethink your position?
I will gladly sacrifice a bishop for a checkmate.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Except that Trump did not do what Schiff has done, but other than that it is just the same.
LikeLike
It is worth noting that Schiff did not have to dig for dirt. It has been in plain sight.
LikeLiked by 3 people
Really? Those phone records were not obtained by subpoena? They were just lying around?
LikeLike
It’s called an investigation. To compare Trump’s actions to Schiff’s is horse shitty logic. Trump exposed his own dirt, as did Mulvaney and Sondland. Giuliani was prominently mentioned in the summary of the phone call. Giuliani has NO position with the government. Nada, zip, bupkes. To get the INFORMATION for the investigation, the subpoena was issued. Schiff’s actions may be ethically challenged, but they are not criminal.
Again deflect from the why by attacking the process. Your outrage is badly misplaced. Again. Because Trump is tearing down the thing YOU hate the most, Don. The US government.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Schiff’s actions in subpoenaing the records for the purpose of oversight is not in question, but his release of those records when the subjects were not indicted in any crime is a serious breach of ethics.
Communications by attorneys and source to journalists are private matters and there was no justification for their release. It was purely for partisan advantage.
Using subpoena power for political purposes is criminal.
LikeLike
“…communications to attorneys and sources to journalists are private matters…”
Even John Yoo, the attorney quoted in your article said this:
“There is certainly a constitutional privacy issue here, but I don’t think an attorney-client privilege issue. The attorney-client privilege covers the substance of the communication, but it doesn’t protect the fact that a communication took place.”
In addition, I don’t believe journalists have a similar privilege. It might be implied, but they can be made to divulge sources in legal cases. Some have sat in jail rather than do so.
There may be some ethics issues, but it pales in comparison to Trump’s potential damage to national security by threatening to weaken an ally and a solid buffer from Russian expansion just to get some dirt on his political rivals.
So here is a compromise. Censure Schiff and imprison Trump.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Our national security is not enhanced by entering a war on behalf of the Ukraine when the Russians sincerely(and I agree with them) believe they are in the right.
We should not oppose Russia just because it is Russia. They have a just cause in the Crimea and Donbas regions as those areas are ethnic Russians who were separated from Russia by the Soviets. The people there want to be part of Russia again.
Sometimes Russia is right, sometimes they have interests that exceed ours, We should not blindly oppose them on everything.
LikeLike
“The people there want to be part of Russia again.”
The truth is only those who were allowed to vote or chose to vote in those regions want to be part of Russia again. It is NOT a majority of those who live there. Check the records on the election that was held there AFTER Russia annexed Crimea.
LikeLike
“We should not blindly oppose them on everything.”
It was not a matter of entering a war with Russia. It was a matter of showing that we supported Ukraine by both an audience with the president and the arms deal.
Ukraine is fighting for its very existence, regardless of what you might think. We are an ally, or at least supposed to be one.
I guess we could have pulled a “Kurd”, and that might have happened hadn’t the whistleblower said “enough is enough” and the rest is history.
And Putin has an agenda to return to the era of the Soviet Union. Not necessarily communist, but certainly by expansion. With NATO, that now Mr. “Switcheroo” now praised, we have obligations to a lot of nations that lie in the path of the Bear.
Of course agreements mean squat to Trump.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Russia has made to move to annex any part of Ukraine that was not part of Russia prior to the Soviet effort to break up ethnic concentrations.
Imagine if the UN ceded the southern half of Florida to Cuba, and the people there asked to be part of the United States again. Would you tolerate Russia sending weapons to Cuba to fight our troops and local militias seeking to drive Cuba out of Florida?
We are accustomed to a tribal view that anything Russia wants we have to block, but sometimes Russia is in the right.
LikeLike
So . . . when the whining continues about a lack of transparency in ‘the SCIF’ by the GOP (even though quite a few of them WERE in that basement room during hearings), we are now supposed to be horror-stricken that . . . “Adam Schiff has released phone records, obtained under subpoena,. . .” ?
The GOP can’t defend ‘djt’s actions, but they sure do whine, non-stop about what the House of Representative leadership is doing to make him accountable for welcoming a foreign individual and country to mingle in our election process AGAIN (A.G.A.I.N.!)
I’m thrilled to be a part of a party that knows it has to, at the very least, go on record that they tried to impeach this man, and hopefully end his dangerous presidency. They’ve got brass. The GOP? Not any. Just whine, whine, whine.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Neil Diamond wrote and produced a song that might be suitable for the next regime rally. Bob Marley made it a Reggae hit, I believe.
“Red, Red Whine”.
Just sayin’
(Mea Culpa)
LikeLiked by 2 people
Forgiven. 15 hours is enough time for penance of your offense.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Who wants to validate outright bullshit by providing a defense against bullshit? It’s been happening for 3 years now and everyone not a hyper left wing tart has tired of it. Sorry to hurt your feelings…
LikeLike
…”everyone not a hyper left wing tart has tired of it. ”
Nope just you, Don and the rest of the Trumpkin circus. The rest of us would like to see the Senate do the right thing, grow a pair of balls and stand up to Trump.
LikeLike
“Who wants to validate outright bullshit by providing a defense against bullshit”
Duh, the GOP?
LikeLike
The left wing fanatics in here just don’t see the irony in all of this. This has nothing to do with Trump committing a “crime” because the left truly can’t name a true crime, only what they want to label as a political crime on hearsay and innuendo to influence the 2020 elections. Pelosi even admitted it in her call for articles of impeachment. What the entire Democratic party is doing is exactly what they are accusing Trump of, using power for personal political gain. And they are not bashful at all about their own overt abuse of power on the public dime to influence elections. But it’s ok if left wing babblemouths do it, right?
LikeLike
Extortion, bribery and obstruction of justice are, in fact, crimes.
LikeLike
Prove any of them. In a court of law you would be laughed out of the court room and lose your law license.
LikeLike
Ah ha. Congress is not a court of law. That is what you Trumpkins keep forgetting. The rules are quite different.
Trying to make impeachment into something it is not. And you FAILED.
LikeLike
Thank you for further making my point. It doesn’t hold a bit of LEGAL standing so is therefore nothing but liberals making accusations of bullshit. Great job of making that known from your mouth. Now you CAN do a mic drop.
LikeLike
The trial hasn’t started yet. That takes place in the Senate where McConnell writes the rules and majority of the jurors are regime loyalists. And of course, the judge is a Republican also.
If you thought the impeachment inquiry was unfair, the trial will more than make up for it. It will be about as impartial as trying an Imperial Wizard in Alabama for killing a black man in 1950.
But that’s OK. We are now setting a precedent for future presidents, left or right, to do pretty much as they please for whomever they wish or themselves.
Trump won’t be removed from office until 2020, or more precisely, 2021. He is riding the same economic trajectory that Obama started in 2010. Almost a perfectly straight line. In employment and the DOW.
Kinda shaky on the GDP. Obama had several better quarters. And last I saw we are hovering around 2% give/take. Which is a problem as far as paying back the money we had to borrow to give the tax breaks to corporations and the top percentiles.
But so long as he doesn’t screw up the trajectory, we might have a decent 2020.
Of course, the trade wars have killed business investment and farm income.
My prediction is that enough voters will slip to the Democrats to unseat the president. Healthcare will be his undoing.
LikeLiked by 1 person
The decline in farm income came in 2014-15, and has been slowly recovering since.
If employment stays as good as it is, Trump is in good shape to be here until 2024, at which time, Rush Limbaugh has agreed to take the pay cut to replace him.
In VA. Luria and Warner are toast in 2020.
LikeLike
@Bob
The evidence of these crimes is clear and compelling. Your denying the obvious does not change it in the least.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Prove any of them. In a court of law you would be laughed out of the court room and lose your law license.
LikeLike
…”using power for personal political gain”… The new go to fro Trump supporters. The difference is what the Democrats is doing is trying to save this democratic republic from the wannabe DICKTator. It may translate to political gain, but it is NOT the purpose.
LikeLike
I suggest keeping your day job, if you have one, because comedy is just not working for you. But saying Democrats are trying to “save” this Democratic republic was pretty funny, got any more of those?
LikeLike