Representative Adam Schiff (D-CA) told “very fake news” CNN that he “can’t say whether anything was masked or unmasked properly” after viewing the very same surveillance documents that Rep. Devin Nunes (R-Ca) saw in March. The key question is whether Schiff meant “won’t” instead of “can’t.”
Take a look at the interview below.
Schiff, a member of the house Intelligence Committee, claims that Nunes’ remarks were nothing more than a distraction from the Democrats non-existant evidence Russian collusion claims regarding the Trump administration.
He was upset that the information was not shared with him before it was shared with the White House and questioned the methods of the White House in obtaining the information.
“I would tell people, whenever they see the president use the word ‘fake,’ it ought to set off alarm bells,” Schiff said.
“[Trump’s] tweets tell the story, and the story is ‘Look over there at leaks,’ and ‘Look over there at anything the Obama administration, we can claim, did wrong on incidental collection or anything else ― but whatever you do, under no circumstances look here at me or at Russia,’” Schiff continued. “I think that’s really what’s going on.”
Obviously, he was referencing Trump’s tweets, such as the one he sent out on Sunday morning.
The real story turns out to be SURVEILLANCE and LEAKING! Find the leakers.
— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) April 2, 2017
Right, and what evidence do you actually have Rep. Schiff that President Trump and his transition team were colluding with the Russians, or should we consider you to be diverting from your former party leader and usurper of the White House Barack Hussein Obama Soetoro Sobarkah’s illegal surveillance of Trump and his team? Hello pot, this is kettle.
Shiff would also back off the earlier claims he made last month when he appeared on MSNBC and claimed to have “more than circumstantial” evidence of collusion between Russia and the Trump campaign.
In fact, when asked by Tapper whether there was collusion, Schiff admitted, “I don’t think we can say anything definitively at this point. “It’s too early in the investigation.”
Seriously? Too early in the investigation? Sir, the investigation has been going on since July 2016!
Nothing definite at this point? But Rep. Schiff, you joined with the likes of Maxine Waters practically claiming that you had evidence of your claims when you said, “I don’t want to get into specifics but I will say that there is evidence that is not circumstantial and is very much worthy of an investigation.”
I’m going to call BS on this and you don’t have squat. I’m not necessarily a Trump supporter, but seriously, at least when I went after Barack Hussein Obama Soetoro Sobarkah, there was mounting, documented evidence!
Senior Editor-at-Large for Breitbart Joel Pollack commented, and I agree with his assessment, “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.”
Sundance at The Conservative Treehouse adds, “As anticipated, by reviewing the evidence of Obama’s surveillance activity Adam Schiff is now muted in his claim such surveillance and unmasking did not occur. Schiff has a severe case of visible dry mouth as he attempts to use more obtuse claims to talk around the issue(s). Schiff’s parseltongue now focuses on ‘process’ as his ability to deny has evaporated.”
Indeed, the Democrats have nothing, nada, zilch. If they did, they would produce it so we could deal with it.