Posted on 12/08/2019 4:00:07 AM PST by Kaslin
It was bad enough for House Intelligence Chairman Adam Schiff (D-CA) to subpoena the phone records of businessman Lev Parnas and President Donald Trump’s attorney Rudy Giuliani and other political opponents, but when he released them in his impeachment report it was a stunning abuse of power. In the view of columnist Kimberly Strassel, Schiff’s move “trampled law and responsibility…it was a disgraceful breach of ethical and legal propriety.”
Not surprisingly, Trump-hating members of the news media trumpeted the release of the call records as a major step toward the President’s impeachment. Their desire to destroy the President is so all-consuming that they missed the bigger picture. Instead, journalists should have been outraged by this invasion of privacy and misuse of power. These records should have never been released to Schiff or any politician and should have never been included in his impeachment report.
The purpose of the release was to embarrass President Trump, Giuliani and Jay Sekulow, the President’s attorneys, John Solomon, investigative reporter, and Congressman Devin Nunes (R-CA), ranking member of the House Intelligence Committee. All of these individuals are on Schiff’s political enemies list.
By releasing the information, Strassel states that Schiff “claims the ignominious distinction of being the first congressman to use his official powers to spy on a fellow member and publish the details.” Congratulations Adam Schiff you have reached a new low in the long history of the United States Congress!
The records prove nothing except that calls were made between certain individuals as no contents of the conversations were provided. Not surprisingly, Schiff has not explained how he obtained the records. Either AT&T complied with a subpoena or this information was provided by the Department of Justice. Some are speculating that the U.S. Attorney’s office in the Southern District of New York released the information. This is the office that has charged Parnas with various violations of campaign finance laws.
Regardless of the source, it is a massive intrusion into the privacy of the individuals involved. By publishing the phone records of Giuliani and Parnas, Schiff has also improperly invaded the privacy of Solomon and other members of the media. For his tireless investigations into the origins of the Russian hoax and Ukrainian corruption, Solomon has now been targeted by Schiff, who is hoping to tarnish his stellar reputation. Hopefully, Solomon’s groundbreaking journalism will be valued even more. If a disgustingly partisan politician like Schiff is willing to use his powers to damage Solomon, it means he must be getting very close to uncovering the underlying truth of this sordid affair.
This disgusting episode reminds us that our privacy is being threatened like never before. According to U.S. Senator Rand Paul (R-KY), “your records are not necessarily your records if they are held by a third party – like a phone company, an Internet service provider, a credit card company, or a physician.” This horrible loophole in privacy laws is called the “third-party doctrine.”
Paul is not alone in his concern about this troubling loophole. It is also shared by Ian Pryor, former Department of Justice Deputy Director of Public Affairs. He notes that “Almost everything we do is kept track of by a third party: web browsing, online purchasing history, in-store purchasing history, phone calls, texts, emails, cloud storage, television watching and more. There is no practical way to refrain from all these activities. If all that information can be accessed in some form by the government without probable cause, we are on the fast track to an Orwellian society.”
In our country today, Big Brother is alive and well and becoming more of a problem every day. Our federal government is too large and powerful and it is too easy to intrude into our privacy. There are too few protections available to the American people.
Thus, it was ethically improper, but legal, for Schiff to be able to obtain these phone records. This is a matter of great concern to Senator Paul who believes that “It’s wrong to give Congress this power with no check. And it’s wrong to do this to the president of the United States.”
Of course, he is right as Schiff violated President Trump’s attorney-client privilege. It is a horrible precedent that Schiff created with this invasive tactic. He is hoping that it will lead to an impeachment of President Trump. In contrast, it should lead to Americans putting pressure on Congress to change these laws. As Senator Paul notes action must be taken so “Americans can feel safe in knowing their information and rights are being protected.” Today, none of us should feel safe.
The Dems thought they were releasing the Kraken when in fact they have released a mouse.
Their delusions know no end.
Welcome to DemoKratic America, where you are guilty until proven innocent by a Kangaroo Court.
Probably both.
So far, he can literally get away with anything, including covering up his underage sex outings at the Standard Hotel in Los Angeles.
He will most likely never face the music, despite all the predictions of "Free Beer Soon!" indictments coming from Durham and Barr.
The Deep State is winning.
Our side is holding its ammunition, apparently until the battle is already over.
Welcome to DemoKratic America, where you are guilty until proven innocent by a Kangaroo Court.
Is Schiff a cyberstalker?
STALKING LAW UPDATE: The Violence Against Women Act of 2005, amending a United States statute, 108 Stat. 1902 et seq, which defined stalking as: engaging in a course of conduct directed at a specific person that would cause a reasonable person to (A) fear for his or her safety or the safety of others; (B) suffer substantial emotional distress.
As of 2011, stalking is an offense under section 120a of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ).[70] The law took effect on 1 October 2007.
In 2018 the PAWS Act became law in the United States, and it expanded the definition of stalking to include “conduct that causes a person to experience a reasonable fear of death or serious bodily injury to his or her pet”.
NOTE Stalking conviction does not require any physical harm to be prosecuted.
There is no prevention in the amount of unauthorized data collected on individuals and this leads to cases where cameras are installed inappropriately. According to the BBC, four council workers in Liverpool used a street CCTV pan-tilt-zoom camera to spy on a person in her apartment. (Cavallaro, 2007). This is just one case where culprits have been caught; however, there are still many common acts such as this.
The Communications Security Establishment (CSE), formerly known as Communications Security Establishment Canada (CSEC), has previously spied on Canadians through the public wireless internet connections in an airport in the country. Through this they gathered information on who people called or texted and where they were when they communicated with others.
The CSE search through approximately 10-15 million downloads daily. An example of where surveillance may have been abused is where Facebook and Apple have admitted to allowing government officials to access personal information of their account users.
<><> California was the first state to criminalize stalking in the United States in 1990 as a result of numerous high-profile stalking cases.
<><> California also responded to numerous cases of a driver’s information being abused for criminal activity.
<><> The Drivers’ Privacy Protection Act prohibits states from disclosing drivers’ personal data without State Dept of Motor Vehicles approval.
Did Schiff stop at grabbing phone records of members of Congress, journalists, the courts??
We demand to know whether Schiff used govt surveillance methods or tax-paid technology to monitor the activity of individuals.....
House Democraps are notorious for employing the shady Paki clan for IT work.
Most of the clan absconded but the mastermind Imran Awan was tried and convicted.
An even bigger mystery than how the Pakis got here and got paid huge govt salaries is how the shady Pakis got visas to abscond.
Did “someone” with a lot of political pull facilitate the visas to help them abscond? Some reports say the Pakis traveled on WH visas.
Could be Schiff is a Cyberstalker.
Cyberstalking is the use of computers or other electronic technology to facilitate stalking.
These are “criminal stalkers” perpetrating crimes against their targeted victims through electronic and online methodologies.
<><> Facebook and Apple have admitted to allowing government officials to access personal information of their account users.
And this is why they want to eliminate cash. A cashless society allows for complete surveillance.
Schiff’s hatred for Trump is notorious——Schiff is known for inventing falsehoods......it gets the egomaniac on TV.
Factcheck.com reported Schiff, a frequent Trump critic. appearing on CNN, criticized the president for forcing the
federal government “to patronize Trump-related businesses,” such as Trump golf properties.
But, when it came to a specific example, Schiff’s shot against Trump landed out of bounds.
Schiff wrongly claimed that the Secret Service had paid the Trump Organization “over $150,000 … for the privilege of
renting Donald Trump golf carts to protect Donald Trump on his rounds.”
REALITY CHECK: The money went to two companies, but they weren’t “Trump-related businesses.” And the vehicles were not “Donald Trump golf carts.”
At the time, Schiff’s office said that the $150,000 figure came from a November 2017 USA Today story that cited the work of American Bridge 21st Century PAC, a Democratic opposition research group.
American Bridge provided factcheck.com with its research, which showed that the Secret Service rented golf carts from Golf Car & Utility Vehicle Distributors in Florida and Associates Golf Car Service of Poughkeepsie, New York.
“We haven’t found the contracts going to any Trump companies,” American Bridge spokesman Harrell Kirsten told factcheck.com.
Hey AT&T. WTF?! Definitely won’t use them as a provider. NEVER!
So you suggest we give up? Whose side are you on?
The next Congress, which will be a Republican majority, should make it a top legislative priority that all law applicable to citizens outside of Congress, including libel, slander, investigative inquiry, etc., are applicable in the proceedings of Congress. Ditto for the Senate. Procedural rules are not enough, sine the have all been cast aside in the effort to get Trump.
Neither will I
Imagine you are part of a big family. Imagine most of them don’t yet know that Grandma is dead. It’s like that. They didn’t even know she was ill. You can’t break it to them in a cruel fashion you have to gently inform them over time.
I have some bad news. Grandma is sick.
No, they did not miss it, they ignored it. Big difference and if we don’t realize that, then we are missing the big picture.
Same goes for ISPs (internet service providers). We make it too easy for Big Brother to track us; every aspect of our lives. One of these days, I may go off the grid — cash only, land telephone, no internet. I am not a law breaker nor to I plan on being one. However, I do not appreciate Big Brother snooping. This is very bad.
ATT gave shift the records....I don’t think he even ask.....lots of Trump haters out there.....Congress should fine ATT about 100 Billion per phone number....this shit ant right.
This should be blasted all over the Internet — ATT gave telephone records without due process. And then demand that ATT explain themselves and prove that they had followed due process.
This should be an embarrassment to a provider and should hurt their business.
Most people are ignorant of the fact that an provider can give up your personal communication records to anyone. And that anyone can release it to the public.
And they wonder why Trump is fighting so hard to not allow the Democrats to have his tax records.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.