Looks like Schiff is changing his tune. Remember, he saw the same documents as Nunes

WVPATX

Freshman
Jan 27, 2005
28,197
91
38
If Schiff can't say if anybody was masked or unmasked properly, that tells me that people were unmasked as Nunes stated. Last week Schiff says there was more than circumstantial evidence of collusion, he has changed that tune as well.


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.
 

DvlDog4WVU

All-Conference
Feb 2, 2008
46,688
1,758
113
If Schiff can't say if anybody was masked or unmasked properly, that tells me that people were unmasked as Nunes stated. Last week Schiff says there was more than circumstantial evidence of collusion, he has changed that tune as well.


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.
Subdued response is likely the most telling aspect. If he didn't come out of there guns blazing on the offensive, he didn't like what he saw.
 

WVPATX

Freshman
Jan 27, 2005
28,197
91
38
Subdued response is likely the most telling aspect. If he didn't come out of there guns blazing on the offensive, he didn't like what he saw.

The evidence seems to be piling up. The Fox News report of a high ranking intelligence official unmasking and leaking. The Democrat operative stating on Morning Joe that she asked White House officials to send intel up to The Hill and that is why this leaking is occurring. The Nunes press conference stating that multiple names were unmasked, possibly including Trump. Schiff's sudden turn on TV this morning after he saw the intel report (that Nunes saw) yesterday or the day before.
 

atlkvb

All-Conference
Jul 9, 2004
79,980
1,908
113
The evidence seems to be piling up. The Fox News report of a high ranking intelligence official unmasking and leaking. The Democrat operative stating on Morning Joe that she asked White House officials to send intel up to The Hill and that is why this leaking is occurring. The Nunes press conference stating that multiple names were unmasked, possibly including Trump. Schiff's sudden turn on TV this morning after he saw the intel report (that Nunes saw) yesterday or the day before.


The only 2 things we lack right now is directive and purpose. Who gave the orders to place the Trump team under surveillance (since we know they were) and what was the purpose?

Principles involved will have to fess up or face jail time for either obstruction of Justice or perjury. Not to mention violation of statutory U.S. Laws against espionage on American citizens.