I think we start out with a very healthy skepticism, we don't want to do anything that will interfere in any case that the Justice Department may decide to bring.

Adam Schiff

Categorized in : Top News

Abundantly and frequently, and in just about every way, when he says to the country 'we don't know,' that's a lie. When he says 'we had no contacts with the Russians,' that's a lie. When his son says 'I had no contacts with Wikileaks,' that's a lie. When General Flynn said 'I never discussed sanctions with the Russian ambassador,' that was a lie. And unfortunately, the list goes on and on.

Whether the additional party or parties present during the meeting with these top Trump campaign personnel at the time Donald Trump had seized the nomination were connected directly with Russia intelligence or not, it is clear the Kremlin got the message that Donald Trump welcomed the help of the Russian government in providing dirt on Hillary Clinton.

This is not putting America first, but continuing to propagate his own personal fiction at the country’s expense.

latest-headlines

The President's comments today, again casting doubt on whether Russia was behind the blatant interference in our election and suggesting – his own intelligence agencies to the contrary – that nobody really knows, continue to directly undermine U.S. interests.

I think that would be a terrible abdication of our global leadership when it comes to advocating for people who are the subject of persecution.

Enough is enough, Congress really needs to get to the bottom of t... by Adam Schiff

Enough is enough, Congress really needs to get to the bottom of this.

But nonetheless, he fired the top cop on that investigation, and I think no one believes this was about Hillary Clinton's emails, I think it was all about the Russia case.

I don't think anyone finds that credible, and certainly not after getting a completely different explanation yesterday or the day before.

I do think we need to learn more about the circumstances that led... by Adam Schiff

I do think we need to learn more about the circumstances that led to the director's firing.

For her to say Comey was guilty of some 'atrocity'? it's embarras... by Adam Schiff

For her to say Comey was guilty of some 'atrocity'? it's embarrassing.

We want to make sure the conclusions the intelligence community reached are supported by the underlying raw data. We also were obviously very interested in the US government response when we knew the Russians had hacked us, as well as the issue of whether US persons affiliated with the Trump campaign were coordinating in any way, i think the witnesses were responsive to those questions.

Director Comey testified that Director Comey choice was to ‘ conceal or speak ’ about the Hillary Clinton investigation in the latter two weeks of the campaign, this highly-loaded description meant to justify the decision Director Comey made in the waning days of the presidential campaign is a poor characterization of the choice Director Comey faced. Schiff said the.

latest-headlines

For far too long, Congress has abdicated its constitutional responsibility to authorize military action abroad, effectively ceding the war-making power to the Executive Branch.

Nevertheless, this missile strike and the military action of our forces already in Syria, have yet to be authorized by Congress, congress cannot abdicate its responsibility any longer and should vote on any use of force not made in self defense. This is necessary whether action is taken against terrorist groups or, as here, against regime capabilities.

The President, when I met with him, said that he is happy to have whoever we wanted review the documents. His staff has opposed that, they were opposed to even letting my own staff review the documents, my staff director, so we're still trying to get those documents for the full committee, we would like the White House's help if they are sincere about wanting to share this information and have the oversight functions performed, they are to be facilitating this.

I want the full committees to be able to see that, and we're meeting resistance, if these documents are so damning or so indicating of the President, as he suggests, why are they opposing efforts to provide them to the full committee? I think that's a question worthy of the White House answering.

The White House clearly only wanted one person to see these documents, and that person was our chairman.

If he's going to make accusations of criminality of anyone, he needs to show evidence to support that kind of a charge, obviously, that's not something he was either able or willing to do with respect to his accusations against Obama. It's not something I suspect he's going to be able to do with Susan Rice either.

This action is long overdue and follows an inexplicable series of events in which the White House played a role in selectively and surreptitiously providing the documents to our Chairman (Nunes), the White House has yet to explain why it attempted to conceal its role in the compilation of these materials. The White House is not a whistleblower and nothing that I was shown justifies such duplicitous conduct.

It certainly is an attempt to distract and to hide the origin of the materials, to hide the White House hand, the question is, of course, why? And I think the answer to the question is this effort to point the Congress in other directions, basically say, 'Don't look at me. Don't look at Russia. There is nothing to see here.'.