SCHIFF: But it’s very important to point out, we did not subpoena Devin Nunes’ call records. We did not subpoena any journalist’s call records.

So Shifty, did you use a National Security Letter which does not require a judge's approval, and cannot seek content but only record data such as phone numbers and times and call, etc.?

But look, every investigator seeks phone records to corroborate, sometimes to contradict, a witnesses’ testimony.

So the testimony mentioned Devin Nunes?

So the testimony mentioned Devin Nunes?

I think so. My take is that Schiff is saying that Nunes and some journalist turned up as making calls to or receiving calls from the subpoena targets when the Dems subpoened the call records of the various ambassadors, looking for corroboration that they had called Rudy.

Schiff isn't denying that Nunes' name came up, just that Nunes and some journalist were not the subpoena targets.

I'm still not sure who the journalist was or if the Dems had any interest in him/her.

I'm still not sure who the journalist was or if the Dems had any interest in him/her.

They published the information of a congressman, a lawyer, and a journalist.

The congressman is Devin Nunes, the lawyer is Rudy Giuliani, and the journalist is John Solomon.

For a National Security Letter (NSL) the matter sought should relate to national security investigations, and the results for congressmen, lawyers, and journalists should be subject to minimization procedures.

My take is that Schiff is saying that Nunes and some journalist turned up as making calls to or receiving calls from the subpoena targets

That's my take also. But my point was that Nunes was not part of the investigation and, therefore, his calls should have been excluded/blacked out from the report.

After all, Schiff claimed that the phone records were simply to seek "to corroborate, sometimes to contradict, a witnesses’ testimony".

For a National Security Letter (NSL) the matter sought should relate to national security investigations, and the results for congressmen, lawyers, and journalists should be subject to minimization procedures.

Yep.

This may be relevant. Shifty Schiff has stated a warrant was not obtained. He has not stated how the information was obtained.

https://law.justia.com/codes/us/2016/title-50/chapter-44/subchapter-vi/sec.-3162/

2016 US Code
Title 50 - War and National Defense
Chapter 44 - National Security
Subchapter VI - Access to Classified Information
Sec. 3162 - Requests by authorized investigative agencies

50 U.S.C. § 3162 (2016)

§3162. Requests by authorized investigative agencies

(a) Generally

(1) Any authorized investigative agency may request from any financial agency, financial institution, or holding company, or from any consumer reporting agency, such financial records, other financial information, and consumer reports as may be necessary in order to conduct any authorized law enforcement investigation, counterintelligence inquiry, or security determination. Any authorized investigative agency may also request records maintained by any commercial entity within the United States pertaining to travel by an employee in the executive branch of Government outside the United States.

(2) Requests may be made under this section where—

(A) the records sought pertain to a person who is or was an employee in the executive branch of Government required by the President in an Executive order or regulation, as a condition of access to classified information, to provide consent, during a background investigation and for such time as access to the information is maintained, and for a period of not more than three years thereafter, permitting access to financial records, other financial information, consumer reports, and travel records; and

(B)(i) there are reasonable grounds to believe, based on credible information, that the person is, or may be, disclosing classified information in an unauthorized manner to a foreign power or agent of a foreign power;

(ii) information the employing agency deems credible indicates the person has incurred excessive indebtedness or has acquired a level of affluence which cannot be explained by other information known to the agency; or

(iii) circumstances indicate the person had the capability and opportunity to disclose classified information which is known to have been lost or compromised to a foreign power or an agent of a foreign power.

(3) Each such request—

(A) shall be accompanied by a written certification signed by the department or agency head or deputy department or agency head concerned, or by a senior official designated for this purpose by the department or agency head concerned (whose rank shall be no lower than Assistant Secretary or Assistant Director), and shall certify that—

(i) the person concerned is or was an employee within the meaning of paragraph (2)(A);

(ii) the request is being made pursuant to an authorized inquiry or investigation and is authorized under this section; and

(iii) the records or information to be reviewed are records or information which the employee has previously agreed to make available to the authorized investigative agency for review;

(B) shall contain a copy of the agreement referred to in subparagraph (A)(iii);

(C) shall identify specifically or by category the records or information to be reviewed; and

(D) shall inform the recipient of the request of the prohibition described in subsection (b). (b) Prohibition of certain disclosure (1) Prohibition (A) In general

If a certification is issued under subparagraph (B) and notice of the right to judicial review under subsection (c) is provided, no governmental or private entity that receives a request under subsection (a), or officer, employee, or agent thereof, shall disclose to any person that an authorized investigative agency described in subsection (a) has sought or obtained access to information under subsection (a).

(B) Certification

The requirements of subparagraph (A) shall apply if the head of an authorized investigative agency described in subsection (a), or a designee, certifies that the absence of a prohibition of disclosure under this subsection may result in—

(i) a danger to the national security of the United States;

(ii) interference with a criminal, counterterrorism, or counterintelligence investigation;

(iii) interference with diplomatic relations; or

(iv) danger to the life or physical safety of any person.

(2) Exception (A) In general

A governmental or private entity that receives a request under subsection (a), or officer, employee, or agent thereof, may disclose information otherwise subject to any applicable nondisclosure requirement to—

(i) those persons to whom disclosure is necessary in order to comply with the request;

(ii) an attorney in order to obtain legal advice or assistance regarding the request; or

(iii) other persons as permitted by the head of the authorized investigative agency described in subsection (a) or a designee.

(B) Application

A person to whom disclosure is made under subparagraph (A) shall be subject to the nondisclosure requirements applicable to a person to whom a request is issued under subsection (a) in the same manner as the person to whom the request is issued.

(C) Notice

Any recipient that discloses to a person described in subparagraph (A) information otherwise subject to a nondisclosure requirement shall inform the person of the applicable nondisclosure requirement.

(D) Identification of disclosure recipients

At the request of the head of an authorized investigative agency described in subsection (a), or a designee, any person making or intending to make a disclosure under clause (i) or (iii) of subparagraph (A) shall identify to the head of the authorized investigative agency or such designee the person to whom such disclosure will be made or to whom such disclosure was made prior to the request.

(c) Judicial review (1) In general

A request under subsection (a) or a nondisclosure requirement imposed in connection with such request under subsection (b) shall be subject to judicial review under section 3511 of title 18.

(2) Notice

A request under subsection (a) shall include notice of the availability of judicial review described in paragraph (1).

(d) Records or information; inspection or copying

(1) Notwithstanding any other provision of law (other than section 6103 of title 26), an entity receiving a request for records or information under subsection (a) shall, if the request satisfies the requirements of this section, make available such records or information within 30 days for inspection or copying, as may be appropriate, by the agency requesting such records or information.

(2) Any entity (including any officer, employee, or agent thereof) that discloses records or information for inspection or copying pursuant to this section in good faith reliance upon the certifications made by an agency pursuant to this section shall not be liable for any such disclosure to any person under this subchapter, the constitution of any State, or any law or regulation of any State or any political subdivision of any State.

(e) Reimbursement of costs

Any agency requesting records or information under this section may, subject to the availability of appropriations, reimburse a private entity for any cost reasonably incurred by such entity in responding to such request, including the cost of identifying, reproducing, or transporting records or other data.

(f) Dissemination of records or information received

An agency receiving records or information pursuant to a request under this section may disseminate the records or information obtained pursuant to such request outside the agency only—

(1) to the agency employing the employee who is the subject of the records or information;

(2) to the Department of Justice for law enforcement or counterintelligence purposes; or

(3) with respect to dissemination to an agency of the United States, if such information is clearly relevant to the authorized responsibilities of such agency.

(g) Construction of section

Nothing in this section may be construed to affect the authority of an investigative agency to obtain information pursuant to the Right to Financial Privacy Act (12 U.S.C. 3401 et seq.) or the Fair Credit Reporting Act (15 U.S.C. 1681 et seq.). Source Credit

(July 26, 1947, ch. 343, title VIII, §802, as added Pub. L. 103–359, title VIII, §802(a), Oct. 14, 1994, 108 Stat. 3436; amended Pub. L. 109–177, title I, §116(f), Mar. 9, 2006, 120 Stat. 216; Pub. L. 109–178, §4(e), Mar. 9, 2006, 120 Stat. 281; Pub. L. 114–23, title V, §§502(e), 503(e), June 2, 2015, 129 Stat. 287, 290.) Editorial Notes

REFERENCES IN TEXT

The Right to Financial Privacy Act, referred to in subsec. (g), probably means the Right to Financial Privacy Act of 1978, which is title XI of Pub. L. 95–630, Nov. 10, 1978, 92 Stat. 3697, as amended, and is classified generally to chapter 35 (§3401 et seq.) of Title 12, Banks and Banking. For complete classification of this Act to the Code, see Short Title note set out under section 3401 of Title 12 and Tables.

The Fair Credit Reporting Act, referred to in subsec. (g), is title VI of Pub. L. 90–321, as added by Pub. L. 91–508, title VI, §601, Oct. 26, 1970, 84 Stat. 1127, as amended, which is classified generally to subchapter III (§1681 et seq.) of chapter 41 of Title 15, Commerce and Trade. For complete classification of this Act to the Code, see Short Title of 1970 Amendment note set out under section 1601 of Title 15 and Tables.

CODIFICATION

Section was formerly classified to section 436 of this title prior to editorial reclassification and renumbering as this section.

Shifty Schiff has stated a warrant was not obtained.

Not quite. He stated a warrant was not obtained for Nunes' phone records.

Nunes' phone calls showed up on other phone records which were subpoenaed.

An NSL (an administrative warrant) can inquire several hops deep, does not require prior approval of a judge, and provides precisely what the Dems have displayed. I know of no evidnce or admission of the existence of a warrant. Obtaining a search warrant for the records of a congressman, lawyer, or journalist is somewhat challenging. It may be a case of obtaining a warrant from a FISA court for a foreign national, and then following one or two hops to get to the rest.

Also, obtaining and publishing the acquired data are two seperate issues. For what purpose was John Solomon's data published to the public?

https://www.thedailybeast.com/adam-schiff-no-we-didnt-subpoena-john-solomons-phone-records

"The House Intel committee tells The Daily Beast that they did not subpoena the phone records for Devin Nunes or John Solomon."

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/editorials/why-is-adam-schiff-sniffing-around-the-phone-records-of-reporters-and-congressmen

Maybe it's a crazy idea, but there probably ought to be a presumption against leaking a political rival's phone activity in this manner. In fact, Schiff's behavior in this regard resembles that for which he now hopes to impeach the president.

There are other concerns here, as well. In the context of executive law enforcement, Fourth Amendment protections against unreasonable searches and seizures generally require permission from judges or magistrates. In other words, the “checks and balances” of the system require two of the three branches, not just one, to agree that the search is necessary and lawful. If Congress, meaning Schiff, acted without judicial imprimatur, then the legitimacy of his phone-records search is certainly questionable.

Meanwhile, if he did subpoena Solomon’s calls — again, this is not entirely clear — that would also raise serious issues related to press freedoms, in addition to the Fourth Amendment concerns. Schiff needs to clear up why Solomon’s calls were included in his dragnet. Their release appears to be an act of petty vengeance against someone whose reporting followed the wrong narrative.

“Bondy said that in a phone conversation Nunes told Parnas that he was conducting his own investigation into the Bidens and asked Parnas for help validating information he’d gathered from conversations with various current and former Ukrainian officials, including Shokin,” CNN reports....

...It’s unclear whether the activities involving Firtash intersect with Nunes. The same cast of characters who met regularly as a group — Giuliani, Fruman, Parnas, Solomon, Toensing and diGenova — were involved in the Firtash scheme, and Nunes repeatedly amplifies their work including Solomon’s articles, which Nunes read into the congressional record during the impeachment hearing. 

https://www.justsecurity.org/67480/timeline-rep-devin-nunes-and-ukraine-disinformation-efforts/

Who is Firtash? Your mother? --Nolu Chan
libertysflame.com/cgi-bin...?ArtNum=60697&Disp=11#C11

SMH/LOL!

This may be relevant. Shifty Schiff has stated a warrant was not obtained. He has not stated how the information was obtained.

You would think the FISA court would be very reluctant to grant any further subpoenas or search warrants or wiretaps. The FISA court is already under considerable scrutiny for their misdeeds earlier in the "collusion" scandal.

What bothers me is why the NSA is not being subpoenaed to testify regarding the nature of the information Schiff supplied using a "National Security letter" (as nolan chan puts it) to compel those to talk.

Today's testimony is that there were six warrants, one for Guiliani, none cited for Nunes or Solomon. Upon how the derivative information was obtained, or who order it to be obtained or published, counsel refused to answer.

My comment about a National Security Letter is conjecture. A FISA warrant could have been obtained against a foreign national. If it were a two hop warrant, they could have obtained the data of U.S. nationals. A problem is that there appears to be no excuse for not following minimization procedures and publishing the data as belonging to Congressman #1 or Journalist #1.

Also today, Dem counsel Barry Berke gave unsworn testimony, made a disparaging comment about Trump, and a motion to strike was denied by Nadler on the grounds that the cited rule did not apply to Berke because he was a witness. Shortly thereafter, Berke was functioning for the Dems as their counsel and asking question of the GOP lawyer. This was challenged as Berke had been declared a witness. I don't recall ever before seeing a witness questioning the lawyers under oath in a proceeding. What a cluster foxtrot.

Yes, the testimony did mention Devin Nunes as I had been watching this testimony since 10 am this morning.

No, this would have been the earlier House Intelligence Committee testimony. The only mention of Nunes (searching the .pdf written report) is either in footnotes or in the section on phone records.

My point is, he wasn't mentioned by the witnesses.

No, this would have been the earlier House Intelligence Committee testimony.

I believe the first release of the Nunes and Solomon phone records was with a document dump for the Judiciary Committee hearing.

Also today, Dem counsel Barry Berke gave unsworn testimony, made a disparaging comment about Trump, and a motion to strike was denied by Nadler on the grounds that the cited rule did not apply to Berke because he was a witness. Shortly thereafter, Berke was functioning for the Dems as their counsel and asking question of the GOP lawyer. This was challenged as Berke had been declared a witness. I don't recall ever before seeing a witness questioning the lawyers under oath in a proceeding. What a cluster foxtrot.

I don't understand why Berke's testimony would have any weight since his was unsworn. Either these democrats are serious about making these charges or they are not. I hope that when this so-called hearing is done, and Trump overcomes them all, that he sues them too.

I think the democrats have lost it cause they thought they had their boy and case closed. Just watching today's testimony was really very interesting because you see Berke acting out of order and unprepared. They are losing this game. Go Trump!

I don't understand why Berke's testimony would have any weight since his was unsworn.

In any case, nothing the attorneys say is evidence. They are not witnesses to anything. The three law professors each testified that he or she had no knowledge of any material fact in the report. The report contains a disclaimer that it is not necessarily the opinion of the committee or any member of the committee.

While House Rule XI (j)(1) provides, "(j)(1) Whenever a hearing is conducted by a committee on a measure or matter, the minority members of the committee shall be entitled, upon request to the chair by a majority of them before the completion of the hearing, to call witnesses selected by the minority to testify with respect to that measure or matter during at least one day of hearing thereon." Chairman Nadler has so far defied GOP efforts to avail themselves of that mandatory entitlement.

I would like to see the Dem internal polls. I think they want the GOP to just kill it as quickly as possible in the Senate. They should go to trial and subpoena Shifty and Sloppy.

In any case, nothing the attorneys say is evidence. They are not witnesses to anything.

Then why was Berke present at all?

Then why was Berke present at all?

For the Dem base watching on TV or catching highlights on YouTube. It was a show.

I believe the first release of the Nunes and Solomon phone records was with a document dump for the Judiciary Committee hearing.

Hmmm. The phone records are in the House Intelligence Committee's 300-page report, starting on page 155.

https://intelligence.house.gov/uploadedfiles/20191203_-_full_report___hpsci_impe achment_inquiry_-_20191203.pdf

We'll see.

Hmmm. The phone records are in the House Intelligence Committee's 300-page report, starting on page 155.

https://intelligence.house.gov/uploadedfiles/20191203_-_full_report___hpsci_impe achment_inquiry_-_20191203.pdf

The House Intel committee Report was issued 3 Dec 2019. That report, with the records therein, was issued after the Intel committee proceedings were over.

Vindman, Volker and Morrison testified on 11/19.

Sondland, Cooper and Hale testified on 11/20.

Hill testified on 11/21.

I begin to wonder if the House committees have violated their own procedural rules so often in the expectation that McConnell will rule the entire impeachment proceedings illegal and declare there will be no Senate trial until they follow their own rules or amend them. And that is a distinct possibility.

And that is why Trump has proclaimed that he wants a trial.

The Dems went so far out over their skis that they can't pull back. What could they and the media say? Trump is Hitler and the devil rolled into one, but we have decided to give him a pass?

The House Intel committee Report was issued 3 Dec 2019. That report, with the records therein, was issued after the Intel committee proceedings were over.

Correct. And before the Judiciary hearings were held.

So when goldilucky said (post #14) he heard Nunes' name mentioned on 12/9, it was during the Judiciary hearings.

My point was, Nunes' name was not brought up by witnesses during the House Intelligence Committee hearing, yet Schiff included his phone records "to verify witness testimony".