He was all over tv a few weeks back claiming he had "circumstantial evidence" of Trump's complicity with the Russians. I'd like to see it.
Adam Schiff has been on the White House grounds all afternoon viewing documents. Are they the same documents Nunes saw? What will he be able to say when he's done? The plot thickens.
Only baby boomers are interested in Russian spy dramas.
What really amazes me is all the reporting about things like Nunes was at the WHITE HOUSE!!! He's colluding. When in fact, as part of his job, he's there all the time and he wasn't actually at the White House. Just on the campus. The reason is that the data he needed to view could only be seen at two places. 1. At the whistleblowers agency or 2. the White House.
The sad thing is the entire Russia hacked our election might be 100% fake news. I could right now put my VPN on at it would show what ever site I go to that I'm in Russia. Does that make me a Russian hacker? The FBI didn't actually check the server, they took the word of a "legit" independent company because the DNC refused repeated requests for the intelligence agencies to check those servers. Why? The only reason is that they had some felony level shit on there they didn't want to get out.
Idiots in Congress that know nothing of the cyber world, claiming they where "hacked" (Rubio) Making themselves look like complete morons.
Trump continues to Tweet to egg this shit on. HE has the proof. He's the GD President. He's just allowing the ants to scurry around exposing themselves as nutters.
The miscalculation that they made was that Hillary lost. None of this would have ever come out if she had simply beaten the TV show Persona... She lost, it likely had zero to do with Russians, but they needed something. Like Hillary said, if they lost they'd all be swings from nooses. You think that was cause she wasn't shady as fuck?
I have no interest in rebutting the whole thing and don't have the time or energy. So I'll just say the entirely of your last post is utter bullshit.
I read, that he looked ashen and sweaty and had no comment.
Later he issued a written comment.
You really should wait to read what he actually said before making dumb comments. It just makes you look like a fool. Well, a bigger fool.
Just wondering. Claimed he had it connecting Trump to Russia weeks ago. What's holding him back?
Dems are never going to let this go. They are going to string it on and on and on until Schumer gets Pelosi's cock out of his ass....which will be never.
It's all Dems have left and both sides are trying to claim victory.
I think eventually Comey, Rogers and Clapper are going to be questioned under oath and heads will then roll and someone is going to jail.
I think his silence says a lot....the docs have nothing to do with Russia...must not indicate any problems with Trump supporters.....
You and General Grant don't seem to understand the nature of Congressional investigations. Of course, you might come by that for good reason given all the leaks from the Benghazi committee investigations, and Nunes's stunts! 
yes, if the info was damning to Trump I'm sure it would not be leaked
Many right-wingers, and most if not all conspiracy theorists, like Trump, use it!
Schiff has been running around everywhere until most recently claiming he had "circumstantial" evidence confirming Trump was in cahoots with the Russians. Where is it? He's demanding Nunes show his hand. Why doesn't he show his? Is it cos his hand is empty?
For someone so distraught with the state of this board just a few months back, you surely have shown your true stripes haven't you? Just a top notch partisan hack who's on occasion blind to reality.
I agree with you 100% but there's plenty of real and fake circumstantial evidence. With Schiff making claims as this stage that he has "hard" evidence he should be recusing himself.
It was that he was out all over the media popping off that he had it. Nunes does the same about the unmasking issue and he's pilloried. Go figure. 🙄
He said he was supposedly shown exactly what Nunes was shown. Was it circumstantial then, or only when a Dem sees it?
He was all over tv a few weeks back claiming he had "circumstantial evidence" of Trump's complicity with the Russians. I'd like to see it.
you are not on the committee, so don't hold your breath.
That said, they BOTH need to STFU and do their jobs wouldn't you say?
I believe the "circumstantial" refers to the collusion with Russians, not the recent disclosures to Nunes and now Sciff.
Rep. Adam Schiff, the top Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee, said Friday he still has deep concerns about the Trump administration’s handling of classified intelligence following a trip to the White House to review key documents for himself.
Schiff issued a brief statement after viewing the documents, which had previously been made available only to House Intelligence Committee Chairman Devin Nunes (R-Calif.).
“It was represented to me that these are precisely the same materials that were provided to the Chairman over a week ago,” Schiff said. "Nothing I could see today warranted a departure from the normal review procedures, and these materials should now be provided to the full membership of both committees.”
The California Democrat added, “The White House has yet to explain why senior White House staff apparently shared these materials with but one member of either committee, only for their contents to be briefed back to the White House."
So he had "deep concerns". Nothing about Russia, nothing about what he saw. About the handling of the information. He also lied again. The information didn't come from senior White House staff. He knows that is a lie. This information came from a whistle blower. He's crying about process.
How could you possibly know the info "didn't come from senior White House staff?" And that it came from a "whistle blower?" You are only pretending to know. Or wishing. There have been two names named and one is on the White House legal staff and the other on the staff of the NSC and based in one of the buildings on the White House grounds. Saying they are not senior White House staff is a classic distinction without a difference.
Funny also about how Trump has been railing against leakers, but when they leak something you think may be beneficial you dub them a whistle blower. Too funny.
If the leaks where from the white house staff, why did he need to meet with the President? The next day. He originally met his source on the White House campus. (that doesn't mean at the White House) the day before he gave the press conference.
An official with clearance providing information to someone with clearance isn't a leak. Nunes has just about the highest level security clearance in the government. He oversee the agencies. It's his committee.
Nunes didn't out his sources and never would. I'm probably wrong about the sources but at least one named wasn't a senior administration person. The Lawyer, which will be present and was present when Horseschiff read the documents is to ensure he doesn't reveal classified information and so he can't fucking lie about what he read. His reaction/statement, was a nothing burger. Certainly didn't deny or refute what Nunes said. Without any type of denial I guess it must be true. Obama and his administration unmasked members of Trumps organization and "spied" on them.
Funny also about how Trump has been railing against leakers, but when they leak something you think may be beneficial you dub them a whistle blower. Too funny.
Because it made no sense. Unless it was part of a ham-handed charade orchestrated by the White House.
As for the leaking issue, I was referring to Nunes talking about nebulous information that had been shared with him. He didn't say who shared it and some Republicans said it was a whistle blower. Whistle-blowers leak, hence the assumption that's what was meant.
And your conclusion that "Obama and his adminstration unmasked members of Trump's organization and "spied" on them," is completely unsubstantiated. You have no facts. None.
I've been following the stories, and I've not heard such a report!
Schiff should resign from the investigation after his innuendo. It's far worse than what Nunes did.
So when someone comits a crime and gets caught... burn the person(s) who said "hey, they just committed a crime"... omg
What crime was committed? Other then the unmasking.
By who?
Not speculation. A real provable crime.