General statistics
List of Youtube channels
Youtube commenter search
Distinguished comments
About

Nikkishears
Fox News
comments

Comments by "Nikkishears" (@nikkishears6402) on "Rep. Nunes taking legal action after Schiff released private phone records" video.

He didn't. He talked to his wife one time briefly, and then redirectef her call to staff. You don't have to like Nunes, but you do have to tell the truth. Parnez is a white collar criminal, looking to strike a deal to avoid jail time.
3
@erbeylopez440 , please tell me you're not a Democrat. That was a very racist comment. Democrats shouldn't say things like that, as the party of "love and tolerance."
3
@DaRealHibachi , that's not in the report. Only one call between Nunes and Parnez's wife is documented. Where can i find the 8 minute info? The report showed one call from Parnez number to Nunes. The call lasted one minute. Likely is it was a voicemail. Where are you getting your info? Source, please?
2
@DethFiesta , I'm not on either side. I don't vote. I'm simply looking for the truth. If you can show proof of Nunes' guilt, I would love to see it. I would want him prosecuted, and I'd lean towards impeaching Trump. It is my belief that both parties are corrupt; full of liars, thieves, and murderous war mongers. Which is why i don't vote. Trump was right about one thing: Washington is a swamp. Politicians are duplicitous. The question is: can Democrats produce proof that Trump, Guilliani, and Nunes are the swamp?
2
@DethFiesta , there is no chart in the report. There is a list of phone numbers pulled and numbers they called listed by date and time. Only one call is to Nunes from Parnez. One minute duration of the call is given. The other "2 calls" from Nunes to Parnez you're referencing, lasted one second combined. Thousands upon thousands of people call congressman. Perhaps he got Nunes # from a member of Congress, or from Guilliani. Or perhaps he obtained it illegally. We don't know.
2
@bruceguyman6540 , Nunes asserted he spoke with the wife. Two staffers confirmed it. We have no proof that they lied. Perhaps that will come to light, but it hasn't yet. Are you not concerned about the phone company handing out client information without a legal request? Genuinely asking.
2
@bruceguyman6540 , they didn't legally request this information. Pretend you're Parnez. If you were accused of a crime, and the government got your call records without legal authority, (no warrant, no subpoena) you'd be ok with that? Without a warrant, evidence collected by police cannot be used as evidence in court proceedings. It's the statue of "fruit from the poisonous tree".
2
@bruceguyman6540 , I'm not on either side. I don't vote. I'm simply looking for the truth. If you can show proof of Nunes' guilt, I would love to see it. I would want him prosecuted, and I'd lean towards impeaching Trump. It is my belief that both parties are corrupt; full of liars, thieves, and murderous war mongers. Which is why i don't vote. Trump was right about one thing: Washington is a swamp. Politicians are duplicitous. The question is: can Democrats produce proof that Trump, Guilliani, and Nunes are the swamp?
2
@bruceguyman6540 , I don't see that in the evidence presented. We disagree. I do wonder, why is it ok for Democrats to investigate their political rival for 4 years, but it's not ok for Republicans to look into a former VP with connections to a corrupt foreign oil company? I think both investigations NEED TO HAPPEN. Both Trump and Biden should be investigated. Trump is being investigated, and that's good. Why isn't Biden being investigated? No Democrat wants to look into it. Why?
2
@Subterfugeo , an arrest warrant does not include phone call records. That is a separate request. Just cause you're charged with a crime, doesn't mean government can have your phone records. Warrants are specific. Just because you have a warrant to search someone's house, doesn't mean you can search their car. That is a separate warrant. An arrest warrant only gives law enforcement permission to arrest a suspect, not search his phone records.
2
@bryanb4990 , they didn't legally request this information. Pretend you're Parnez. If you were accused of a crime, and the government got your call records without legal authority, (no warrant, no subpoena) you'd be ok with that? Without a warrant, evidence collected by police cannot be used as evidence in court proceedings. It's the statue of "fruit from the poisonous tree".
2
@DethFiesta , The report showed one call to Nunes from Parnez's number, lasting one minute. Most likely a voicemail, cause Nunes calls the number back soon after. 2 calls from Nunes to Parnez's number are shown. Neither call lasted more than 1 sec. Meaning one of two things happened: Nunes received a 1 minute voicemail, or spoke to Parnez or his wife for one minute. Are you intentionally being deceptive or was this an honest mistake? Parnez is an accused foreign criminal. Should his word mean more than a member of Congress who hasn't been criminally charged with anything? Nunes asserted he spoke with the wife, and 2 of his staffers confirmed this. Please post the part of the report with the call time of eight minutes. I can't find it anywhere. This could have been staff his wife talked to. It could have been a voicemail that was eight minutes. You can't prove Nunes was on the phone. You can't prove Nunes spoke to Parnez based on your premise and assertions. Can you provide the part of the report that shows the call time? I can't find it anywhere.
1
@DethFiesta , there is no third column of any chart in the official report. Everything is listed by date. Can you please copy and paste that part of the official report for me?
1
@DethFiesta , the facts are definitely contested by several witnesses, including professor Turley, a Democrat. I've read the report. I'm looking at it right now. I had to pay to download it. Did you pay? Are you sure you don't have someone's summary of the report?
1
@DethFiesta , the only fact witnesses were Sondland and Volker. Both said there was no crime.
1
@DethFiesta, I know you have the wrong report. You didn't pay to download it. It's not available for free. It's not cheap, either. You must have been fooled by some fake news site. It's so terrible that people can publish any false thing they want on the internet and call it truth, without being held to account. I don't blame you. I blame the internet.
1
@DethFiesta , I'm not "weaseling" out of anything, and i don't do drugs. I'm an SRN. As a medical professional, i would never do drugs. I can't understand why you're attacking me now. I've provided links for you to prove my assertion. You say "it's everywhere", but you won't provide a source for me. I had to pay to download the report. It's free for government, citizens have to pay. You have to request it from FOIA, if you want to see it.
1
@DethFiesta, i did Google it. It's not there without subscription to the source or fee to download. I always provide all kinds of links. YouTube never removes them. What's the web address that you got your info from? I got mine from FOIA.
1
@DethFiesta , i don't understand why you won't provide the web address where you got your report. Are you being deceptive? I really hope not, cause i thought we were having a good discussion. Please, provide a link for me. If what you're saying is true, I want to know. All i care about is the truth.
1
@DethFiesta, Now you are lying. You posted no links. Not one. I checked CBS, CNN, NBC, the Washington Post, and New York Times. The NYT and WaPo don't offer the report for free. None of the tv news had the official report for public viewing. FOIA is the official way to get information from official government documents and reports. These documents are not free on the internet. There is no lawsuit to get these documents. This was released by Congress to the public thru FOIA. It is available upon request. Use the link, fill out your information request, pay, and download the report.
1
@DethFiesta , I'm not the one lying, and i don't think you believe what you're saying. Where's the link you provided? I think you're a Google paid shill, and i feel sorry for you.
1
@DethFiesta and my name's not Nikki. You don't know me.
1
@DethFiesta I didn't say "FOIA was the only place to download". I said, "it's the official place to download". You keep lying, despite our documented conversation. Very disturbing.
1
@DethFiesta , You're lying. Everyone can see it. You provided no links. Why would NBC be providing a link with a virus? You're not making any sense.
1
@DethFiesta , I have different accounts and devices. All my links are visible from all accounts and devices. One of the accounts is my husband's. You have no links, and verbally refused to post them. I'm convinced you're a Google paid shill, and I think everyone can see it. I don't know who you think you're fooling. You've been "outted". My links are there to prove my assertions. Let the people decide.
1
@DethFiesta , articles of impeachment announced today: 1) obstruction of Congress. 2) abuse of power. There is no bribery, and no extortion. As I observed and expressed here: there wasn't evidence of quid pro quo.
1
@DethFiesta , you lied several times. I told you, I checked from my husband's account. There were no links from you, but mine were all present. I have since checked from both my daughter's accounts. You posted no links, but mine are present. I'm the only one who posted sourced facts. You verbally refused to post links, and then lied, and said you posted them. Then you had the nerve to say that YouTube removes links because of viruses. Why would your "source", NBC, provide links with viruses to their viewers? This is another lie. What you've done here is evidence that you're a Google paid shill. You lie for a living. You're a propagandist. It's very sad to see this kind of censorship in America. You're the Google thought police. How you can live with yourself is beyond me. I'll pray for you.
1
@DethFiesta , my last comment to you was about the impeachment articles, which prove: there was no bribery or extortion. Democrats have no crime. Just hatred for the orange man. You lied about evidence of quid pro quo, and the articles prove it. Democrats have proved impeachment has nothing to do with the Constitution. The Constitution is the Law. Democrats can't come up with a law that the president broke. I really don't know why I'm surprised that you're shilling for Google. You've lied over and over here. I guess your thought is: "why not get paid for it?" You've sold your soul, and that is the tragedy.
1
@DethFiesta , again, you posted no link. Post the PDF you used. You can't, cause you're lying. I never said there was no call durations. I said "there was one call time of one minute, when either Parnez or his wife called Nunes, and likely left a one minute voicemail. The other two calls have a call time of 1 second combined. There is no 8 and half minute call between the two numbers. So when Nunes called back, twice, he never spoke to anyone, and never left a voicemail. There's one call where someone actually spoke. You've never seen the report. You're not fooling anyone. You're desperately trying to convince yourself. Let the people see for themselves. You're duplicitous and deceptive, and you proved it here. I feel very sorry for you.
1
@DethFiesta , you've called me names this whole time. I've been very respectful, even in the face of your ad hominem attacks. You accused me of being stupid and on drugs. I said you lied and you're a paid by Google to lie and shill. What you just did, it's called projection and hypocrisy. I'm not surprised by your behavior anymore. I know who you are, and everyone who reads this will know who you are. Let's let the people decide, something you're terrified of. This is why we are going thru impeachment. Democrats are terrified to face an election.
1
@DethFiesta , your behavior is called desperate, and pathetic. Make your popcorn, and let the people decide. I'm not afraid of the results. You clearly are. You've lied over and over, despite our documented conversation. And you've yet to even address: no bribery, no extortion, and no quid pro quo in the articles of impeachment. You just repeat more lies. Again, I'm not surprised. I know who you are now. Everyone who reads this will know. Let the record speak for itself. I'm not afraid of the truth. You're running from it. Let the people decide.
1
@DethFiesta , no, that's another lie. Ad hominem attacks are personal. You attacked me personally calling me stupid and a drug addict. I attacked your behavior, and then You proved yourself a liar and shill. I didn't do that. You did. Yes, you're afraid of the now guaranteed re-election of Trump. You guys have no evidence of crimes. You just hate him so much that you can't let the people decide. Hence: impeachment. Let the record stand for itself. I'm not afraid of the truth. You are.
1
@DethFiesta , bribery would have been it's own article, if evidence was present. It's not. Bribery is an impeachable crime according to the Constitution, but it applies specifically to a foreign country bribing a President to essentially give America over to foreign control. You'd have to be asserting Ukraine bought the presidency, and as such, they run America. It would have to be Ukraine, because there is no mention of Russia in regards to the 2 articles of impeachment Democrats presented.
1
@DethFiesta , you've been laughing at me with EMOJIS since you began commenting and making fun of me. I did download the report. I read it. You did not. I provided links. You did not. You've lied over and over. I have not. You keep attacking me personally. I haven't attacked you, just your behavior. Truth and facts will out. I stand on the side of truth. You choose not to. I'll pray for you.
1
@DethFiesta , I never said Turley was a fact witness. I specifically said, "Democrats were allowed 3 legal opinions. Republicans allowed 1 legal opinion. Turley was their choice". That's another lie you told. I didn't call you names. You called me stupid and accused me of being on drugs. I never said anything so vindictive and aggressive to you. You just keep lying. Again this behavior is desperate and pathetic.
1
@DethFiesta , you never provided any links. I've got different accounts and devices: my husband's account, my 2 daughters' accounts. You verbally refused to post links and lied about posting them. My links are visible from all accounts and devices. The record can speak for itself. I'm not scared. You are. Now you're just harassing me and lying out of desperation. I will pray for you. I'm serious. Your behavior is very disturbing, and speaks for itself.
1
@DethFiesta , Turley did contradict the supposed "facts". He specifically said the "facts" were not proven. You're lying again.
1
@DethFiesta , all you have to do is provide a link. You can't. YouTube isn't capable of screenshots.
1
@DethFiesta , let the record speak for itself. Our conversation is documented. All you've written here are lies, conjecture, and ad hominem attacks. Again, your continued behavior is now harassment, but I'm not surprised anymore. Praying for you.
1
@DethFiesta , why haven't you posted your screenshot then? I posted my link already. You're pretending you can't see it. Yes, the record speaks for itself. You've lied over and over. I haven't. You've attacked me personally. I've only attacked your behavior. You've employed lies and conjecture as your foundational argument. I've employed truth. And yes, you're harassing me. I've asked you to let the record speak for itself. You won't let that happen. You keep addressing me with lies and personal attacks. Why would you do that, unless you were afraid of what the record reflects?
1
@DethFiesta , all you seem to be able to do is lie. Please stop addressing me with this kind of blatant propaganda and outright deception.
1
@DethFiesta , I'm not angry. I haven't said anything in anger. I'm sad for you, because I'm looking at you lie from 4 different accounts, on four different devices. All my links are visible on all accounts and devices. Yours aren't. Please stop addressing me with these lies. I've asked you to stop. You refuse. This is the textbook definition of harassment.
1
@DethFiesta , I'm not afraid to stand on the record provided. You are.
1
@DethFiesta, If you posted what you claimed to, you wouldn't need to describe it, as you have tried to do; quite unconvincingly, I might add. We would all be able to see it without your blatant lies to herald your supposed comments. The record speaks for itself.
1
@bruceguyman6540 , whether or not you believe him is an opinion. You need facts to convict someone.
1
@bruceguyman6540 , you have no evidence of lies. Just because you're a defendant accused of a crime, like Parnez, doesn't mean the government can look at your phone calls without a warrant. That's the law.
1
@bruceguyman6540 , there's evidence he was not in Ukraine, at the time Schiff alleges. Why should he step down?
1
@bruceguyman6540 , he was not in Ukraine at the time Schiff alleges. There is further proof he never spoke to Shokin.
1
@bruceguyman6540 , witness testifying? I'm not seeing any facts of a crime. I'm seeing a partisan witness making assumptions as to what Trump is thinking. How can they know that without the president's testimony?
1
@Subterfugeo , Just because you're a defendant accused of a crime, like Parnez, doesn't mean the government can look at your phone calls without a warrant. That's the law. If police aquire evidence without a warrant, it cannot be used in a court of law as proof of guilt. That falls under the statue of " fruit from the poisonous tree". Schiff isn't law enforcement. He cannot request a warrant from a judge. He can subpeona records as part of his power as intelligence committee chair, but he didn't do that. Why? Now if this goes to Court against Nunes, this evidence cannot be used, because it was not obtained by legal means. No warrant or subpeona was used to collect these call records. That is unlawful.
1