Reply
Honored Social Butterfly

Schiff Supports Nunes Trump Claim on Surveillance

Adam Schiff’s Weak CNN Interview Supports Nunes, Trump Claims on Surveillance Rep. Adam Schiff (D-CA), the ranking member of the House Intelligence Committee, told CNN’s Jake Tapper on State of the Union on Sunday morning that he “can’t say whether anything was masked or unmasked properly” after visiting the White House on Friday to see the same the surveillance documents that committee chair Devin Nunes (R-CA) saw last month.

 

It was an unusually muted response from Schiff, and suggests that the documents substantiate Nunes’ claims that the Obama administration conducted surveillance on members of the Trump transition team, and unmasked the names of U.S. citizens improperly before the intelligence was disseminated throughout the government. He merely said that he did not “agree with the chairman’s characterization” of the documents, but did not elaborate or say Nunes was wrong.

 

Schiff also added that he remained upset that the documents had not been shared with him before Nunes shared them with the White House, and he raised suspicions about the way in which the White House had obtained the information.

 

In addition, Schiff backed off claims he made last month on MSNBC that there was “more than circumstantial” evidence of collusion between the Trump campaign and the Russian government. When Tapper asked him point-blank whether there was “collusion,” Schiff said: “I don’t think we can say anything definitively at this point.”

 

Schiff’s failure to contest Nunes’s claims directly, and his refusal to repeat his conclusions about Russian collusion, add subtle support to two arguments: first, the contention by two senior former Obama administration intelligence officials that there is no evidence of Trump campaign collusion with Russia; and second, the contention by President Donald Trump that he and his team were the victims of improper surveillance and leaks by the outgoing Obama administration.

 

READ MORE HERE:

 

 

VIMTSTL
0 Kudos
212 Views
33
Report
Honored Social Butterfly

Our current situation is that Trump had already admitted he got his information from a "lawyer on Fox news so go after him".   They later canned "the lawyer" for pushing   false news.  

 

Making a statement and then trying to find facts to support it is pushing falsh news. This is what Trump did.  

0 Kudos
271 Views
1
Report
Honored Social Butterfly


@Richva wrote:

Our current situation is that Trump had already admitted he got his information from a "lawyer on Fox news so go after him".   They later canned "the lawyer" for pushing   false news.  

 

Making a statement and then trying to find facts to support it is pushing falsh news. This is what Trump did.  


What does that mean? It sounds like you accept the fact that Nunes was right but would like to take the conversation away from that. Some call that "cats", others call it "look over there", and then there is the "straw man" school of thought.

0 Kudos
261 Views
0
Report
Trusted Social Butterfly

There IS an investigation going on. There may have to be another one and another one after that. So far, so-called 'leaks' have NOT produced conclusive evidence. The local 'spin-doctors busily spin away, diverting focus on real issues, taxing the endurance of the audience to a point where they lose both patience and energy to continue to refute the absurdities.  At which point, the 'spin-doctors' assert victory, for no-one continues to oppose what it is they say......tried and true tactics.  Got nothing whatsoever to do with Truth, Justice and The American Way....I think Superman said that.

 

0 Kudos
180 Views
0
Report
Trusted Social Butterfly

91,

 

 Masking issues? Ok, put that on the list of things the House Intelligence committee needs to investigate.

 

When it is done with its Russia Hacking investigation it can look into that. Ho hum.

 

As far as Trump's  Obama wire tapping accusation is concerned, a federal garnd jury should be looking at indighting him for that malisious false accusation "crime".

 

 

 

 

0 Kudos
172 Views
1
Report
Honored Social Butterfly


@alotofgrey wrote:

91,

 

 Masking issues? Ok, put that on the list of things the House Intelligence committee needs to investigate.

 

When it is done with its Russia Hacking investigation it can look into that. Ho hum.

 

As far as Trump's  Obama wire tapping accusation is concerned, a federal garnd jury should be looking at indighting him for that malisious false accusation "crime".

 

According to an article in US News, hacking cost American companies in excess of $445 billion annually. I sure hope someone is putting more attention into that than all this partisan bickering that seems to be merely attempting to hide why Hillary lost. 

 

 


 

0 Kudos
168 Views
0
Report
Honored Social Butterfly

Does it strike anyone else as odd that the chief investigator is in a position of needing support for statements he made in defense of one of the primary subjects of an investigation. 

 

We DO need to drain this swamp.

 

On the plus side, while Ryan will not pull Nunes from THIS committee, his handling of it will restrict Nunes to the most minor committee assignments possible in the future. 

Honored Social Butterfly


@Richva wrote:

Does it strike anyone else as odd that the chief investigator is in a position of needing support for statements he made in defense of one of the primary subjects of an investigation. 

 

We DO need to drain this swamp.

 

On the plus side, while Ryan will not pull Nunes from THIS committee, his handling of it will restrict Nunes to the most minor committee assignments possible in the future. 


Susan Rice. That may be the name that elevates Nunes to heights previously unthought of.

0 Kudos
165 Views
0
Report
Honored Social Butterfly

 Richva-do we expect anything else than departure from the norm when dealing with anyone connected with the Trump White House?

Gee, I miss having a real President!!
Honored Social Butterfly

Our Intel folks ALWAYS listen in on conversations between our adversaries and whoever they talk to, including retired 3-Star Generals who should know better....UNLESS they're only following orders. Just another in the ever growing list of similarities between the administration of Der lyingTrumper and Der Fuhrer.

 

As for Flynn being a "spy", what would you call someone who divuldges highly sensitive policy decisions that involve the security of our allies to an advisary who has already taken military action against those allies neighbors? If "spy" doesn't work for you, the only possible alternatives would be "traitor", "Quissling", "mole" and perhaps "idiot or "dupe", but Flynn doesn't appear dumb or naive.

 

If ex-General Flynn did NOT betray his country, what's he need immunity from?

0 Kudos
191 Views
13
Report
Honored Social Butterfly

from scout - If ex-General Flynn did NOT betray his country, what's he need immunity from?

 

If Hillary's staffers did not betray their country. what was their need for immunity? If her staffers didn't betray their country, why was "my lawyer" exemption needed?

 

Life in  a society run by lawyers.

0 Kudos
165 Views
12
Report
Honored Social Butterfly


@rk9152 wrote:

from scout - If ex-General Flynn did NOT betray his country, what's he need immunity from?

 

If Hillary's staffers did not betray their country. what was their need for immunity? If her staffers didn't betray their country, why was "my lawyer" exemption needed?

 

Life in  a society run by lawyers.


I keep remembering that famous quote from ex-General Flynn: "If they were not guilty, they would not be talking about immunity".   

0 Kudos
167 Views
11
Report
Honored Social Butterfly


@Richva wrote:

@rk9152 wrote:

from scout - If ex-General Flynn did NOT betray his country, what's he need immunity from?

 

If Hillary's staffers did not betray their country. what was their need for immunity? If her staffers didn't betray their country, why was "my lawyer" exemption needed?

 

Life in  a society run by lawyers.


I keep remembering that famous quote from ex-General Flynn: "If they were not guilty, they would not be talking about immunity".   


And the Hillary staffers....... the "smoke/fire" analogy crosses Party and ideological lines.

0 Kudos
170 Views
10
Report
Honored Social Butterfly


@rk9152 wrote:

@Richva wrote:

@rk9152 wrote:

from scout - If ex-General Flynn did NOT betray his country, what's he need immunity from?

 

If Hillary's staffers did not betray their country. what was their need for immunity? If her staffers didn't betray their country, why was "my lawyer" exemption needed?

 

Life in  a society run by lawyers.


I keep remembering that famous quote from ex-General Flynn: "If they were not guilty, they would not be talking about immunity".   


And the Hillary staffers....... the "smoke/fire" analogy crosses Party and ideological lines.


Or the "watch what you say because it might come back to bite you when you get caught".  Just trying to get to the bottom of this. We have gotten to the bottom of all the Hillary accusations. No issues. 

 

Now, we want to get to the bottom of the Trump Campaign's connections to Russia. We shall see if there are any issues. Not with the House Committee, of course. That will be tainted until an if Nunes steps down and he can't do that but I have hope for the Senate and FBI inquiries. 

 

Man, a lot can happen in just 100 days, eh? I posted Lindsey Grahm's comments on Flynn's actions below. 

 

Over the weekend, Graham said at a town hall that the situation with Flynn was “getting weirder by the day,” and implored his fellow Republicans to “stay focused” on the investigation into Russia’s attempt to influence the outcome of the presidential election. Graham, who has been critical of the Trump administration’s approach to Russian relations, said Monday that he wouldn’t give immunity to Flynn, and said that Trump’s tweet defending Flynn’s request for immunity was “inappropriate.”

“I don't know what [Flynn] has to offer,” Graham said. “I wouldn’t give immunity to somebody until I knew they had something to offer.”

0 Kudos
304 Views
6
Report
Honored Social Butterfly


@Richva wrote:

@rk9152 wrote:

@Richva wrote:

@rk9152 wrote:

from scout - If ex-General Flynn did NOT betray his country, what's he need immunity from?

 

If Hillary's staffers did not betray their country. what was their need for immunity? If her staffers didn't betray their country, why was "my lawyer" exemption needed?

 

Life in  a society run by lawyers.


I keep remembering that famous quote from ex-General Flynn: "If they were not guilty, they would not be talking about immunity".   


And the Hillary staffers....... the "smoke/fire" analogy crosses Party and ideological lines.


Or the "watch what you say because it might come back to bite you when you get caught".  Just trying to get to the bottom of this. We have gotten to the bottom of all the Hillary accusations. No issues. 

 

Now, we want to get to the bottom of the Trump Campaign's connections to Russia. We shall see if there are any issues. Not with the House Committee, of course. That will be tainted until an if Nunes steps down and he can't do that but I have hope for the Senate and FBI inquiries. 

 

Man, a lot can happen in just 100 days, eh? I posted Lindsey Grahm's comments on Flynn's actions below. 

 

Over the weekend, Graham said at a town hall that the situation with Flynn was “getting weirder by the day,” and implored his fellow Republicans to “stay focused” on the investigation into Russia’s attempt to influence the outcome of the presidential election. Graham, who has been critical of the Trump administration’s approach to Russian relations, said Monday that he wouldn’t give immunity to Flynn, and said that Trump’s tweet defending Flynn’s request for immunity was “inappropriate.”

“I don't know what [Flynn] has to offer,” Graham said. “I wouldn’t give immunity to somebody until I knew they had something to offer.”


We never really did get to the bottom of the Hillary investigation. Let's face it - yes she broke the law but we can't prove she intended to - is not innocence. The DOJ was politicized (the "Tarmac Summit"). The FBI's New York office was prevented from doing their investigation into the link between the SecState and the family business with regard to the flow of money from foreign nations.

0 Kudos
289 Views
2
Report
Honored Social Butterfly


@rk9152 wrote:

 


We never really did get to the bottom of the Hillary investigation. Let's face it - yes she broke the law but we can't prove she intended to - is not innocence. The DOJ was politicized (the "Tarmac Summit"). The FBI's New York office was prevented from doing their investigation into the link between the SecState and the family business with regard to the flow of money from foreign nations.


Once again ............... 'deflection' ................ 'look over here' .............. it's all the Right has to offer.


Man learns from history that man learns nothing from history.
Honored Social Butterfly


@ChasKy53 wrote:

@rk9152 wrote:

 


We never really did get to the bottom of the Hillary investigation. Let's face it - yes she broke the law but we can't prove she intended to - is not innocence. The DOJ was politicized (the "Tarmac Summit"). The FBI's New York office was prevented from doing their investigation into the link between the SecState and the family business with regard to the flow of money from foreign nations.


Once again ............... 'deflection' ................ 'look over here' .............. it's all the Right has to offer.


How typical - when a rational, logical answer is not available, claim "deflection......look over there" - you forgot "cats" and "straw man".

0 Kudos
279 Views
0
Report
Honored Social Butterfly

First off, the FBI investigated Hillary for YEARS and finally reported that she had done nothing wrong.

 

If you want a great run down on how Der Trumper's Trumpettes deal with the (for Republicans) very slipery concept of Truth, enjoy the following short video

0 Kudos
300 Views
2
Report
Honored Social Butterfly


@Olderscout66 wrote:

First off, the FBI investigated Hillary for YEARS and finally reported that she had done nothing wrong.

 

If you want a great run down on how Der Trumper's Trumpettes deal with the (for Republicans) very slipery concept of Truth, enjoy the following short video


Cool - Bill Maher as a source of unbiased news. And then a comment about "Der Trumper's Trumpettes" slipery(?) concept of Truth.

 

Strange, truly strange!!!!

0 Kudos
281 Views
1
Report
Honored Social Butterfly

rk9152: Cool - Bill Maher as a source of unbiased news.

 

 

It was not offered as "news". Where did you get that notion?

Honored Social Butterfly

RE:  Where there is smoke, there is fire comment.  Here's the BIGGEST difference between Secretary Clinton and Trump.

 

HILLARY--NOT UNDER FEDERAL INVESTIGATION

 

TRUMP--UNDER FEDERAL INVESTIGATION

Gee, I miss having a real President!!
0 Kudos
177 Views
1
Report
Honored Social Butterfly


@pc6063 wrote:

RE:  Where there is smoke, there is fire comment.  Here's the BIGGEST difference between Secretary Clinton and Trump.

 

HILLARY--NOT UNDER FEDERAL INVESTIGATION

 

TRUMP--UNDER FEDERAL INVESTIGATION


While it is true that under the previous Administration the FBI (like other federal agencies) became a private resource of King Obama, I believe that technically the FBI is still a federal agency.

0 Kudos
289 Views
0
Report
Honored Social Butterfly

Oh but, it was Flynn and the idiot in the WH who asked  over and over again on the campaign trail, 'Why would anyone who is innocent seek immunity.  Sooo...Why is Flynn seeking immunity, with idiot's blessing.

Gee, I miss having a real President!!
0 Kudos
171 Views
0
Report
Honored Social Butterfly

Rker- Nunes and Schiff  both said the same thing.  there was no evidence of any wiretapping as another guy named Comey also stated. This is  just another distraction.

you are right,

this whole thing is about Nunes running to the president with information that the White House itself provided him in the first place ,which,of course, is just another distraction and a way to get people's focus off the fact that our president and his cronies probably colluded with the Russians

Nunesrunning to the press and to the president may be considered obstruction of justice as well.

 Idiot Trump's call to "look for the leaks" (  A time honored tradition in politics,which by the way brought down Nixon with Watergate ) is again, just another thinly veiled ploy to get the public's focus off the collusion between Russia and his cronies.

Gee, I miss having a real President!!
Honored Social Butterfly


@pc6063 wrote:

Rker- Nunes and Schiff  both said the same thing.  there was no evidence of any wiretapping as another guy named Comey also stated. This is  just another distraction.

you are right,

this whole thing is about Nunes running to the president with information that the White House itself provided him in the first place ,which,of course, is just another distraction and a way to get people's focus off the fact that our president and his cronies probably colluded with the Russians

Nunesrunning to the press and to the president may be considered obstruction of justice as well.

 Idiot Trump's call to "look for the leaks" (  A time honored tradition in politics,which by the way brought down Nixon with Watergate ) is again, just another thinly veiled ploy to get the public's focus off the collusion between Russia and his cronies.


"Wiretapping" - is that the entire defense? Information was leaked, it had to be obtained somehow. This sounds like "It depends on what 'it' is".

 

Is there some proof of that "colluding" you claim??

0 Kudos
198 Views
0
Report
Recognized Social Butterfly

I think we need to know what Breitbart's definition of "support" is, because it is different than mine.  The fact that he refused to comment on an on-going investigation, does not mean he agrees with Nunez.  rk9152, you keep missing the point of WHY they were under surveillance in the first place. I guess you don't think our Intelligence Agencies should investigate individuals who they think might be spies, or they think might be collaborating with foreign governments.

0 Kudos
197 Views
4
Report
Honored Social Butterfly


@sp362 wrote:

I think we need to know what Breitbart's definition of "support" is, because it is different than mine.  The fact that he refused to comment on an on-going investigation, does not mean he agrees with Nunez.  rk9152, you keep missing the point of WHY they were under surveillance in the first place. I guess you don't think our Intelligence Agencies should investigate individuals who they think might be spies, or they think might be collaborating with foreign governments.


I am not missing any point. It is claimed that he was not under investigation by the Obama Administration. The claim is that the intel people were "tapping" others who called Flynn. I am anxious to here your proof that someone thought Flynn was a spy.

 

Then there is the "unmasking" and leaking by the Obama Administration for purely partisan political purposes. Do you support the politicization of our intel community along with the IRS and DoJ?

0 Kudos
196 Views
2
Report
Recognized Social Butterfly


@rk9152 wrote:

@sp362 wrote:

I think we need to know what Breitbart's definition of "support" is, because it is different than mine.  The fact that he refused to comment on an on-going investigation, does not mean he agrees with Nunez.  rk9152, you keep missing the point of WHY they were under surveillance in the first place. I guess you don't think our Intelligence Agencies should investigate individuals who they think might be spies, or they think might be collaborating with foreign governments.


I am not missing any point. It is claimed that he was not under investigation by the Obama Administration. The claim is that the intel people were "tapping" others who called Flynn. I am anxious to here your proof that someone thought Flynn was a spy.

 

Then there is the "unmasking" and leaking by the Obama Administration for purely partisan political purposes. Do you support the politicization of our intel community along with the IRS and DoJ?


Since they are still completing the investigation, nothing has been released.  You cannot base a decision on an incomplete investigation. 

 

The leaking is a different issue that is being investigated and nobody, including the agencies investigating, know who did it.  Now I will ask you where is your proof it was the Obama Administration, you don't have it, because the investigation has not been completed.

0 Kudos
197 Views
1
Report
Honored Social Butterfly


@sp362 wrote:

@rk9152 wrote:

@sp362 wrote:

I think we need to know what Breitbart's definition of "support" is, because it is different than mine.  The fact that he refused to comment on an on-going investigation, does not mean he agrees with Nunez.  rk9152, you keep missing the point of WHY they were under surveillance in the first place. I guess you don't think our Intelligence Agencies should investigate individuals who they think might be spies, or they think might be collaborating with foreign governments.


I am not missing any point. It is claimed that he was not under investigation by the Obama Administration. The claim is that the intel people were "tapping" others who called Flynn. I am anxious to here your proof that someone thought Flynn was a spy.

 

Then there is the "unmasking" and leaking by the Obama Administration for purely partisan political purposes. Do you support the politicization of our intel community along with the IRS and DoJ?


Since they are still completing the investigation, nothing has been released.  You cannot base a decision on an incomplete investigation. 

 

The leaking is a different issue that is being investigated and nobody, including the agencies investigating, know who did it.  Now I will ask you where is your proof it was the Obama Administration, you don't have it, because the investigation has not been completed.


Absolutely correct. Let's agree to not battle over talking points. Instead let's wait for the facts. I would ask your assistance in getting that idea across to those who love to post "tRump", stuff about "orange" and assumptions about Russia. Let's face it, we don't even know for sure that the hacking that revealed the DNC's corrupting of the primary process and the debate process came from the Russian's.

0 Kudos
164 Views
0
Report
Honored Social Butterfly

Excuse me !!! but what I heard from Nunes, is not what I have been reading here. either I am deaf or don't understand English well.

This is what I heard.

He stated that there was no evidence of wiretapping by Obama and what he saw was incidental documents that were done exposing (masked or unmasked) Us individuals.

Now, here I have seen this whole issue being  told according to the poster.

If Schiff saw that documents and only saw what Nunes had stated in the begining. what is the problem with that? wny make it more that it is.?

The big issue are not the documents but the fact that Nunes went to the WH and did not informed his own committee. that is all.  

no name
cancel
Showing results for 
Show  only  | Search instead for 
Did you mean: 
Users
Announcements

Does AARP donate to political parties or endorse candidates?

AARP is strictly non-partisan and always has been. We never endorse or donate to candidates, political parties or political action committees.

Learn more.

AARP Members Only Games

Play members only games, like FIll Ins, Lumeno, 2048 and a collaborative, multiplayer Let's Crossword.

Play Now
AARP Members Only Games Logos
AARP Rewards

Solve Crosswords. Earn Rewards. Activate AARP Rewards to earn points for games, quizzes and videos. Redeem for deals and discounts.

Get started with AARP Rewards now!
/html/assets/Rewards-program-badge-355x224.png