knapplc Posted December 6, 2019 Author Share Posted December 6, 2019 1 minute ago, ActualCornHusker said: This is directly from Schiff's impeachment report. The number that he listed as "OMB Number" was put in the report in order to be the smoking gun evidence that he called OMB office regarding aid (it wasn't). That is manipulation... The article doesn't say it isn't the OMB number. The authors of the article don't make that claim, either in the article or in their discussions about it on Twitter. They say "could." They say "may." Why are you claiming otherwise? Link to comment
ActualCornHusker Posted December 6, 2019 Share Posted December 6, 2019 14 minutes ago, knapplc said: The article doesn't say it isn't the OMB number. The authors of the article don't make that claim, either in the article or in their discussions about it on Twitter. They say "could." They say "may." Why are you claiming otherwise? Let's turn the question around. Why would Schiff list it as OMB number when it "may or may not be" the OMB office, and the office claims that no one spoke to RG? 1 Link to comment
QMany Posted December 6, 2019 Share Posted December 6, 2019 Bipartisan. 5-term Republican said Trump committed impeachable conduct in May. He was basically expelled because the GOP has become the party of Trump and officially quit in July. 2 Link to comment
knapplc Posted December 6, 2019 Author Share Posted December 6, 2019 2 minutes ago, ActualCornHusker said: Let's turn the question around. Why would Schiff list it as OMB number when it "may or may not be" the OMB office, and the office claims that no one spoke to RG? Ummm.... because he has access to information our intelligence community can provide, which is probably a little more information available to, say, a couple of reporters from Rupert Murdoch's newspaper? ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 1 Link to comment
Ulty Posted December 6, 2019 Share Posted December 6, 2019 2 minutes ago, ActualCornHusker said: Let's turn the question around. Why would Schiff list it as OMB number when it "may or may not be" the OMB office, and the office claims that no one spoke to RG? Look at the record you just posted. Duration of call 0:00. He tried to call, but they can plausibly say they didn't talk to him. Link to comment
QMany Posted December 6, 2019 Share Posted December 6, 2019 13 minutes ago, Ulty said: Look at the record you just posted. Duration of call 0:00. He tried to call, but they can plausibly say they didn't talk to him. Link to comment
NM11046 Posted December 6, 2019 Share Posted December 6, 2019 52 minutes ago, ActualCornHusker said: Let's turn the question around. Why would Schiff list it as OMB number when it "may or may not be" the OMB office, and the office claims that no one spoke to RG? According to Phone Directories it's a number associated with the OMB. Link to comment
Landlord Posted December 7, 2019 Share Posted December 7, 2019 3 hours ago, ActualCornHusker said: This is directly from Schiff's impeachment report. The number that he listed as "OMB Number" was put in the report in order to be the smoking gun evidence that he called OMB office regarding aid (it wasn't). That is manipulation... You don't know that it wasn't. The article you linked doesn't say it wasn't. Why list it as "OMB Number"? Because even according to public information the number is associated with OMB, and presumably according to information you and I can't look up it is as well. And why would the office say they never spoke to Guiliani? Look at your screenshot of the spreadsheet braniac; the duration of call was zero seconds. You're having a tough time being able to process very simple reporting and information. 2 Link to comment
Guy Chamberlin Posted December 7, 2019 Share Posted December 7, 2019 2 hours ago, ActualCornHusker said: Let's turn the question around. Why would Schiff list it as OMB number when it "may or may not be" the OMB office, and the office claims that no one spoke to RG? Let's turn the question back around: how can anyone honestly deny that Donald Trump isn't a corrupt buffoon, given his long and well documented history of self-serving con artistry? 1 Link to comment
Nebfanatic Posted December 7, 2019 Share Posted December 7, 2019 20 minutes ago, Guy Chamberlin said: Let's turn the question back around: how can anyone honestly deny that Donald Trump isn't a corrupt buffoon, given his long and well documented history of self-serving con artistry? He had a change of heart and now everything he does is for America. Link to comment
Notre Dame Joe Posted December 7, 2019 Share Posted December 7, 2019 6 hours ago, schriznoeder said: So, let me get this straight... Accessing the phone records of Nunes, Parnas, and Giuliani during an investigation involving national security = BAD Accessing the phone records of Strzok and Page during an investigation involving national security = GOOD I'm so confused... Schiff is not a law enforcement officer. He's a political hack who in creepy fashion tried to get dirt on his political enemies. If Trump asked Verizon for records of Pelosi's phones you would be screaming Impeachment. 1 1 Link to comment
schriznoeder Posted December 7, 2019 Share Posted December 7, 2019 1 hour ago, Notre Dame Joe said: Schiff is not a law enforcement officer. He's a political hack who in creepy fashion tried to get dirt on his political enemies. If Trump asked Verizon for records of Pelosi's phones you would be screaming Impeachment. Correct, Schiff is not a law enforcement officer. But the HPSCI which he chairs definitely has the subpoena power to obtain such records for an investigation like this. Giuliani, Nunes and '-1': A Look At What The Impeachment Report Phone Records Mean The phone records were presumably obtained through a subpoena issued by the Intelligence Committee, but the report never specifies how the logs were secured. A spokesman for AT&T, Jim Greer, would not comment on the records, only saying the company complies with information requests from all law enforcement agencies. "In all cases, we ensure that requests for assistance are valid and that we act in compliance with the law," Greer said. Link to comment
Danny Bateman Posted December 7, 2019 Share Posted December 7, 2019 1 hour ago, Notre Dame Joe said: If Trump asked Verizon for records of Pelosi's phones you would be screaming Impeachment. Yeah, because Trump abuses his power to target his political opponents like the rest of us breathe. Schiff is a professional doing his due diligence to investigate a bunch of clumsy, corrupt goons. Comparing the two reeks of desperation. 2 1 Link to comment
QMany Posted December 7, 2019 Share Posted December 7, 2019 9 hours ago, Notre Dame Joe said: Schiff is not a law enforcement officer. He's a political hack who in creepy fashion tried to get dirt on his political enemies. If Trump asked Verizon for records of Pelosi's phones you would be screaming Impeachment. You’re implying Schiff got Nunes’ records. Link to comment
BigRedBuster Posted December 7, 2019 Share Posted December 7, 2019 10 hours ago, Notre Dame Joe said: Schiff is not a law enforcement officer. He's a political hack who in creepy fashion tried to get dirt on his political enemies. If Trump asked Verizon for records of Pelosi's phones you would be screaming Impeachment. Might want to read this thread.....and then stop listening to what Fox News is telling you. 2 Link to comment
Recommended Posts