Lawsuit filed against Trump-bashing Schiff: Show us your phone-snooping records

Share:

Schiff allegedly used shifty methods to spy on White House officials for the impeachment hearings. Now he’s been called out for violating the Constitution… and that’s just the beginning.

 

In what can only be deemed as poetic justice, Judicial Watch has filed a lawsuit against the House Intelligence Committee and its chairman, Adam Schiff (D-CA).

The lawsuit is to seek records related to Schiff’s unprecedented request for phone records for presidential attorney Rudolf Giuliani, journalist John Solomon, and the ranking member of the House Intelligence Committee, Devin Nunes (R-CA).

Schiff requested the records in an attempt to implicate them in an alleged plot to smear former U.S. Ambassador to Ukraine, Marie Yovanovich. Yovanovich was fired by President Donald Trump, as he clearly has the right to do. Precedent from former presidents also clearly shows that Trump had the right to terminate Yovanovich. Ambassadors serve at the pleasure of the president, and Mr. Trump no longer felt that Yovanovich was acting in line with his policies where Ukraine was concerned.

On December 6 of this year, Judicial Watch requested records of subpoenas requesting information regarding:

  • “All subpoenas issued by the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence on or about September 30, 2019 to any telecommunications provider including, but not limited to AT&T, Inc. for records of telephone calls of any individuals;
  • All responses received to the above-referenced subpoenas.

After Judicial Watch received no response to the request, the group filed the lawsuit under the public’s common-law right of public access to examine government records.

Schiff, who as chairman of the House Intelligence Committee ran the committee’s impeachment hearings like a Spanish Inquisition, is being accused of abusing his power. Sounds familiar, no?

Adam Schiff
Congressman Adam and Eve Schiff (Flickr)

 

According to sources, Schiff allegedly issued a subpoena to AT&T for the records of several unidentified phone numbers of several “unidentified phone numbers in an apparent attempt to conceal the fact that he was trying to reconstruct the phone conversations of his intended targets (Nunes, Giuliani and Solomon).

Schiff then utilized those phone conversation records as part of the Intelligence Committee’s impeachment report. There was no legal precedent for Schiff to subpoena these records and these actions likely violated the First, Fourth, and Sixth Amendments to the Constitution. Schiff’s operation of the House Intelligence Committee’s impeachment “inquiry” also likely violated the Fifth Amendment.

First Amendment- Schiff printed phone logs amidst a 300-page report which included those of Nunes, Giuliani and Solomon. Solomon is a journalist and as such enjoys First Amendment protection under freedom of the press.

Fourth Amendment-Federal law bars phone carriers from handing over records without an individual’s consent. There are exceptions for law enforcement investigations, but NO exception of lawmakers. This is clearly a violation of improper search and seizure. Schiff’s request had no law enforcement purpose and no crime was alleged.

Lawsuit filed against Trump-bashing Schiff: Show us your phone-snooping records

 

Fifth Amendment- Democrats and Schiff in particular denied due process rights to the president which were given to prior impeachment inquiry subjects, such as Richard Nixon and Bill Clinton. While Nixon and Clinton were allowed legal representation during the fact-finding portion of the impeachment inquiry, President Trump was denied such an opportunity. Moreover, he was told at the beginning of what can only be described as a circus, that if he made any effort to invoke constitutional rights or privileges, that would be considered further evidence of impeachable offenses. Unbelievable.

Sixth Amendment- Under the Sixth Amendment, Schiff and the Democrats violated President Trump’s right to counsel when they spied on Giuliani’s phone records, including making public conversations between Giuliani and the White House. Since Giuliani is the president’s personal attorney, this violated attorney-client privilege, which is a hallmark of our legal system. They also denied the president the right to confront his accuser by refusing to identify the so-called “whistleblower,” who by all legal definitions of the term does not fit the legal definition of such.

Of course, Democrats say that Constitutional rights only apply in a criminal trial and not in an impeachment, which is laughable. They say that any rights would only apply during the “trial” portion in the Senate. So, by inference the analogy would be that Constitutional rights do not apply during a grand jury phase of an investigation, only during the criminal trial emanating from the grand jury. Makes sense, right?

Absolutely not.

Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton said, “Adam Schiff abused his power to secretly subpoena and then publish the private phone records, in potential violation of law, of innocent Americans. What else is Mr. Schiff hiding?”

“Schiff and his Committee ran roughshod over the rule of law in pursuit of the abusive impeachment of President Trump. This lawsuit serves as a reminder that Congressman Schiff and Congress are not above the law.”

It has been clear that since President Trump was elected in 2016, and probably before that when he became the frontrunner, Democrats and their deep state buddies in the FBI and CIA were hell bent on destroying him.

Did you know that Law Enforcement Today has a private new home for those who support emergency responders and veterans?  It’s called LET Unity, and it’s where we share the untold stories of those patriotic Americans.  Every penny gets reinvested into giving these heroes a voice.  Check it out today.

Lawsuit filed against Trump-bashing Schiff: Show us your phone-snooping records

 

The IG report, which dropped days before the impeachment vote, was readily dismissed by the mainstream media and Democrats as disproving the existence of a so-called “deep state” and that it exonerates people such as James Comey, Lisa Page, Peter Strzok, John Brennan, James Clapper and others.

The truth of the matter however is that IG Michael Horowitz himself identified “at least 17 significant errors or omissions” by the FBI regarding the investigation initiated by the bogus “Steele dossier.” While Horowitz said he found “no political bias or improper motivation” to investigate the “Trump-Russian collusion” claptrap, the report itself provides plenty of evidence that this in fact occurred.

In emails and texts between Strzok and Page, who were having an extramarital affair, they spoke of Trump saying, “We’ll stop him,” and another spoke of an “insurance policy” in the event Trump won. It is quite likely that all these beltway insiders never thought Trump would win and therefore these texts and emails would never see the light of day because a Clinton administration would have buried them.

In the Horowitz report, he also noted that the FBI held back “exculpatory evidence” when applying for FISA warrants to spy on Carter Page, Trump’s aide. These warrants then opened up other people in the Trump camp to investigations.

President Trump and cops

 

The FBI alleged that Page was talking to the Russians to help collude on the 2016 election. What the FBI forgot to include, but which was known was that Page was in fact working for the CIA and reporting back to them. Yet for all that, Page was arrested despite the FBI having exculpatory information which, by all rules of justice, must be included in any arrest application. However, that did not fit the narrative.

The FBI also did not notify the FISA court that the Steele dossier was bogus and was in fact provided by the Hillary Clinton presidential campaign and the Democratic National Committee. The court was led to believe that it came from the intelligence community. 

When the IG report was issued, former FBI director James Comey did a victory lap, saying that the report vindicated him. Horowitz, however disagreed. In testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee two weeks ago, Horowitz said, “The activities we found here don’t vindicate anybody who touched this.”

For what seemed like forever, Democrats had laid their hopes on Special Prosecutor Robert Mueller’s report, that was going to once and for all prove that President Trump colluded with Russia and Vladmir Putin to “steal” the 2016 election. When that did not materialize, it was on to the next “crime.”

On July 25, the president had a call with new Ukrainian President Zelensky, during which the topic of interference in the 2016 election by Ukraine came up. President Trump asked Zelensky to “look into” the issue and of course, Joe Biden and his son Hunter were knee deep in the hijinks going on in Ukraine in 2016. He never threatened to withhold aid in that phone call and only asked Zelensky to look into it. He said, “our country has been through a lot” and “I’d like you to look into this for us.” No threats, no quid pro quo. Nothing.

Enter the so-called “whistleblower.” It should be noted that the “whistleblower’s” attorney, in a January 2017 tweet said that “a coup has started” and “impeachment will follow ultimately.” He later tweeted “we will get rid of him.” Things that make you go hmmmm.

Now then, we have the president of the Trump Derangement Syndrome Club, Adam Schiff. He launched his own version of the Spanish Inquisition or Salem Witch Trials “impeachment inquiry” over the Ukraine call. President Zelensky himself said there was no threats, intimidation or quid pro quo in the call. Trump even released a transcript of the call, which clearly showed no threats.

So back to shifty Schiff. During the House Intelligence Committee hearings, Republicans were not allowed to call their own witnesses, could only ask questions cleared by Schiff, acted as quasi-attorneys for witnesses and advised them not to answer certain questions, and leaked selected testimony without context to the lapdog press.

The impeachment inquiry went from quid pro quo, to bribery to extortion, back to quid pro quo and finally settled on abuse of power and obstruction of Congress. This was an impeachment in search of a crime, which was never found.

It will be interesting to see how this Judicial Watch lawsuit pans out. For his part, Rep. Nunes has filed a defamation lawsuit against CNN in federal court, seeking $435,350 in damages. This lawsuit stems from a “demonstrably false hit piece” on Nunes where the network tied him into a meeting with a former Ukrainian prosecutor last year in Vienna ostensibly to get “dirt” on former vice-president and current Democratic presidential candidate Joe Biden.

CNN claims they tried to contact Nunes about the report, but Nunes has refused to speak to the network since 2017. Nunes claims the story was retaliation for his failure to speak to the network. Part of CNN’s “evidence” are the phone calls that Schiff apparently illegally obtained from AT&T.

Nunes also has a $250 million dollar lawsuit against Twitter, alleging the company buries conservative content, which appears to be a legitimate complaint.

Hopefully, Judicial Watch and Rep. Nunes prevail in their lawsuits. It is beyond time that rogue politicians like Adam Schiff and “news” organizations like CNN and social media companies like Twitter get their comeuppance.

 


Want to make sure you never miss a story from Law Enforcement Today?  With so much “stuff” happening in the world on social media, it’s easy for things to get lost.  

Make sure you click “following” and then click “see first” so you don’t miss a thing!  (See image below.)  Thanks for being a part of the LET family!

Facebook Follow First

 

Share:
Related Posts