Doubts raised after Schiff claims phone records prove Giuliani’s White House budget office calls

a reply to: Sookiechacha

We also know that Giuliani texted to the number. Since he's been waving his phone around as proof of sanction and "insurance", we know that the information is getable.

I’m buying Rudy a hammer for Xmas, problem will disappear.

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: BlueJacket

Or he just has round eyes.
That theory is cocamamie nonsense.
Give us all a break.

maybe crack a book, or google oriental facial diagnosis.

While youre at it, maybe check out a book on physiology..."round eyes"...

maybe you shouldnt make comments regarding something you know zero about?

a reply to: TheRedneck

[Switchboards are not cell phones. They do not accept texts.)

What do you suppose those blue "TEXT" boxes represent?

a reply to: Sookiechacha

OK, I am going to type r-e-a-l . . s-l-o-w and not use big words... I really want you to understand this...



See Bob. Bob has a cell phone. Good cell phone Bob! Bob can text.

See Dick. Dick does not have a cell phone. Dick has a regular phone. Poor Dick! Dick cannot text.



Look at the recipient (that's a big word that means who was called). Does it say "switchboard" in the rows where it says "text"?

No, it says "White House number." That is not a switchboard. Other rows say "switchboard," but they do not say "TEXT." Rudy Guiliani has never texted a switchboard. You lied.

Cell phones can use text. Other phones do not. A switchboard is not a cell phone.



Now, since you chose to share this with us... exactly what were the numbers called? Why are they not specified? And while we're at it, where did this come from? You forgot to mention that little detail. You are expected to specify your sources for information shared.

TheRedneck

a reply to: Sookiechacha

And yet there are zero crimes in any of it and not one person that is a first hand witness has accused him of a crime in regards to the phone call. Guilty cuz Orange.

a reply to: Sookiechacha

He text a white house number, that is not even the number Democrats are claiming is an OMB number ... which we have proven is not and they are lying.

a reply to: Sookiechacha

fax machine? some kind of tool for the deaf that coverts sound to text?

www.zipwhip.com...

Zipwhip built the original business texting network. Before Zipwhip, it wasn’t possible to text an existing business number from a mobile phone (or vice versa). Text enable your business phone number for better customer communication.

oh and look its for switchboards

www.verizonwireless.com... if rudy has verison he can text and its converted into audio

Text to Landline is a service that lets you send text messages to a phone that has a fixed wire connection (e.g., a home phone) rather than a mobile phone or tablet. The message is converted from a text message to a voice message. The service is available for use with most White Pages listed phone numbers in the US. Note: Text to Landline can't deliver messages to phone numbers outside of the US.

so yeah its a thing

www.macworld.com... same for sprint

a reply to: TheRedneck

Investigation is about all the DoJ can do in this case. The Executive Branch does not have authority to prosecute a sitting Congressman.

i'm thinking your wrong about this, the DOJ is part of The Executive Branch. you see them and the FBI ( which is part of the DOJ) investigate sitting congressmen/congresswomen all the time. and quite often bring charges against them.
if indeed Schiff's actions constitute perjury, fabrication of evidence, or both.

here is the fed statue, warning opens a pdf.

§1621. Perjury generally
Whoever— (1) having taken an oath before a competent tribunal, officer, or person, in any case in which a law of the United States authorizes an oath to be administered, that he will testify, declare, depose, or certify truly, or that any written testimony, declaration, deposition, or certificate by him subscribed, is true, willfully and contrary to such oath states or subscribes any material matter which he does not believe to be true; or (2) in any declaration, certificate, verification, or statement under penalty of perjury as permitted under section 1746 of title 28, United States Code, willfully subscribes as true any material matter which he does not believe to be true;
is guilty of perjury and shall, except as otherwise expressly provided by law, be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than five years, or both. This section is applicable whether the statement or subscription is made within or without the United States.
(June 25, 1948, ch. 645, 62 Stat. 773; Pub. L. 88–619, §1, Oct. 3, 1964, 78 Stat. 995; Pub. L. 94–550, §2, Oct. 18, 1976, 90 Stat. 2534; Pub. L. 103–322, title XXXIII, §330016(1)(I), Sept. 13, 1994, 108 Stat. 2147.)
HISTORICAL
Section 1621

again opens a PDF

§1001. Statements or entries generally (a) Except as otherwise provided in this section, whoever, in any matter within the jurisdiction of the executive, legislative, or judicial branch of the Government of the United States, knowingly and willfully— (1) falsifies, conceals, or covers up by any trick, scheme, or device a material fact; (2) makes any materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or representation; or (3) makes or uses any false writing or document knowing the same to contain any materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or entry; shall be fined under this title, imprisoned not more than 5 years or, if the offense involves international or domestic terrorism (as defined in section 2331), imprisoned not more than 8 years, or both. If the matter relates to an offense under chapter 109A, 109B, 110, or 117, or section 1591, then the term of imprisonment imposed under this section shall be not more than 8 years. (b) Subsection (a) does not apply to a party to a judicial proceeding, or that party’s counsel, for statements, representations, writings or documents submitted by such party or counsel to a judge or magistrate in that proceeding. (c) With respect to any matter within the jurisdiction of the legislative branch, subsection (a) shall apply only to— (1) administrative matters, including a claim for payment, a matter related to the procurement of property or services, personnel or employment practices, or support services, or a document required by law, rule, or regulation to be submitted to the Congress or any office or officer within the legislative branch; or (2) any investigation or review, conducted pursuant to the authority of any committee, subcommittee, commission or office of the Congress, consistent with applicable rules of the House or Senate. (June 25, 1948, ch. 645, 62 Stat. 749; Pub. L. 103–322, title XXXIII, §330016(1)(L), Sept. 13, 1994, 108 Stat. 2147; Pub. L. 104–292, §2, Oct. 11, 1996, 110 Stat. 3459; Pub. L. 108–458, title VI, §6703(a), Dec. 17, 2004, 118 Stat. 3766; Pub. L. 109–248, title I, §141(c), July 27, 2006, 120 Stat. 603.)
Section 1001

links don't seem to be working, here is the U.S.Codes,click document in context, scroll down to section number.
Content Details 18 U.S.C. 1621 - Perjury generally

a reply to: TheRedneck

No, it says "White House number." That is not a switchboard.

And, the 13 minute call says "OMB", not switchboard.

And while we're at it, where did this come from?

www.vanityfair.com...

a reply to: OccamsRazor04

He text a white house number, that is not even the number Democrats are claiming is an OMB number ... which we have proven is not and they are lying.

All you have proven is that it might not be an OMB number.

Never has so little been revealed from such a brazen act of lawlessness.

These "metadata"/call logs or what ever there called have not and will not prove anything.
These records and there release stinks of desperation and shows that Schiff has been given all the rope he needs to hang the lot of them, the resistance that is. This was a big mistake by Schiff, it did not and will not help his/their ill fated cause.

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: TheRedneck

No, it says "White House number." That is not a switchboard.

And, the 13 minute call says "OMB", not switchboard.

And while we're at it, where did this come from?

Previously linked:
www.vanityfair.com...

a reply to: OccamsRazor04

He text a white house number, that is not even the number Democrats are claiming is an OMB number ... which we have proven is not and they are lying.

All you have proven is that it might not be an OMB number.

a reply to: fringeofthefringe

These "metadata"/call logs or what ever there called have not and will not prove anything.

They prove considerable coordination of the White House West Wing with Rudy Giuliani.

When you feel the need to use the word "considerable" you are losing the argument.
I mean really, the "metadata" shows considerable coordination...LOL.
Read my prior post again instead of me re-posting it for you.

Rudy is President Trumps personal attorney so it would not be surprising that he has contacts in the west wing.
Maybe Rudy was making a run to McDonalds and was seeing if anyone wanted in...lol
Or did I miss the memo where the Presidents attorney is not allowed to make calls or have any contact with the West Wing of the Whitehouse.

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: fringeofthefringe

These "metadata"/call logs or what ever there called have not and will not prove anything.

They prove considerable coordination of the White House West Wing with Rudy Giuliani.

a reply to: fringeofthefringe

Rudy is President Trumps personal attorney so it would not be surprising that he has contacts in the west wing.
Maybe Rudy was making a run to McDonalds and was seeing if anyone wanted in...lol

Totally plausible, lol. Except, remember when Rudy was waving his phone in Laura Ingram's face, telling her that he was getting his orders from the State Department?

And, remember when Fiona Hill testified that John Bolton said “I am not part of whatever drug deal Rudy and Mulvaney are cooking up,”?

ETA:

When you feel the need to use the word "considerable" you are losing the argument.

I actually stole that phrase from one of the articles that I've cited.

a reply to: Sookiechacha

And, the 13 minute call says "OMB", not switchboard.

Which we already know is in actuality a switchboard number. So whoever made up this chart has already lied in that respect as well.

I know it's easier to just find the first thing that pops out at you, but that was not from Vanity Fair... it was a tweet from Twitter, republished in Vanity Fair. Joyce Alene tweeted it, and Jake Sherman tweeted out another.

I checked both out. Both are hugely pro-impeachment activists. And apparently, Joyce Alene lies, since she got the OMB number wrong. That is not a personal attribute that should be emulated.

The bottom line has not changed: there is no direct evidence that Guiliani called the OMB or that the OMB called him. The White House switchboard does not accept texts. There is nothing illegal, immoral, or otherwise unseemly about communicating with individuals in the White House. Lawyers are allowed to investigate matters concerning their clients to provide effective defenses against allegations.

Everything else is echo-chamber wistfulness and ignorance.

TheRedneck

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: fringeofthefringe

Rudy is President Trumps personal attorney so it would not be surprising that he has contacts in the west wing.
Maybe Rudy was making a run to McDonalds and was seeing if anyone wanted in...lol

Totally plausible, lol. Except, remember when Rudy was waving his phone in Laura Ingram's face, telling her that he was getting his orders from the State Department?
I did not see the Laura Ingram clip, so there was some "official" capacity. Is that illegal?
I don't know but I would think not if Rudy stated it publicly.

And, remember when Fiona Hill testified that John Bolton said “I am not part of whatever drug deal Rudy and Mulvaney are cooking up,”?
LOL, that is a funny thing to say by Bolton. Looking forward to hearing him clarify.
As far as Fiona, remember her testifying that she saw no crimes committed.

ETA:

When you feel the need to use the word "considerable" you are losing the argument.

I actually stole that phrase from one of the articles that I've cited.

We have many unanswered questions, I just do not see the justification for access to phone records or impeachment to say the least.

originally posted by: fringeofthefringe

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: fringeofthefringe

Rudy is President Trumps personal attorney so it would not be surprising that he has contacts in the west wing.
Maybe Rudy was making a run to McDonalds and was seeing if anyone wanted in...lol

Totally plausible, lol. Except, remember when Rudy was waving his phone in Laura Ingram's face, telling her that he was getting his orders from the State Department?
I did not see the Laura Ingram clip, so there was some "official" capacity. Is that illegal?
I don't know but I would think not if Rudy stated it publicly.

And, remember when Fiona Hill testified that John Bolton said “I am not part of whatever drug deal Rudy and Mulvaney are cooking up,”?
LOL, that is a funny thing to say by Bolton. Looking forward to hearing him clarify.
As far as Fiona, remember her testifying that she saw no crimes committed.

ETA:

When you feel the need to use the word "considerable" you are losing the argument.

I actually stole that phrase from one of the articles that I've cited.

a reply to: TheRedneck

The only reason I posted the graph was to show that there were TEXT messages, not to prove anything other than that. Those are gettable phone numbers.

I understand that the OMB number is questionable. I just don't agree it's proven not to have originated from an OMB official.

Exactly, it proves nothing and was reckless and meaningless.
Schiff should never have done it.

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: TheRedneck

The only reason I posted the graph was to show that there were TEXT messages, not to prove anything other than that. Those are gettable phone numbers.

I understand that the OMB number is questionable. I just don't agree it's proven not to have originated from and OMB official.

a reply to: TheRedneck

The bottom line has not changed: there is no direct evidence that Guiliani called the OMB or that the OMB called him.

Not directly from the phone records, from the testimony of witnesses and the words of the President, Giuliani himself and Mick Mulvaney.

a reply to: RalagaNarHallas

Would not work with a switchboard of the type we are discussing. It would filter through a switchboard if the extension is embedded in the number called, but a text sent to the switchboard number would be delivered to the switchboard... which is a machine, not a person.

Think about it... when you call most larger businesses, you do not talk to a person. You get an automated recording that gives you a list of options. A circuit is also listening for the DTMP signals that correspond to a pressed button, allowing you to move through the menu to locate the proper extension. Even to get to a central operator, one has to press "0." A text message has no information within itself to correlate with the menu set up by the switchboard owner.

When a text is sent, it is sent very similar to a packet of data on the Internet, with one exception: locating the recipient. Instead of an Internet-wide broadcast for a response, the text is compared with a database at the phone company that is constantly monitoring the location of the cell numbers. Once the cell phone being texted is located, the message packet is sent along with a prefix sentinel code that identifies it as a text stream. The cell phone receiving the text recognizes this sentinel code, accepts the data stream as a text message, replies with a validation signal, and stores the message for user retrieval.

If a text-to speech device is used on a landline, the device looks for the sentinel code and if found, intercepts the data stream and converts it to speech. That speech is then digitally stored for retrieval by the recipient. If the recipient is a switchboard number, however, that message contains no information about which extension is supposed to receive the message; the message could not filter through to an extension. It would only work if the extension is dialed directly; the switchboard on that case would simply allow the information to be passed through to the extension the same way dialing an extension directly allows the audio signal to be passed through directly.

Bottom line: you still cannot text to or from a switchboard number, only to or from a properly-equipped extension number behind a compatible switchboard.

TheRedneck