Criminal law, Media, Politics

Schiff Under Fire For Denying Any Knowledge Of FBI Abuses

Various commentators, including Fox News senior political analyst Brit Hume, have expressed disbelief with the statement of House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff, D-Calif., on Fox News Sunday that he had no idea of the extensive FISA abuse found by Inspector General Michael Horowitz. I share that view. Schiff’s predecessor at the House Intelligence Committee, Devin Nunes, raised many of these abuses which were adamantly denied by Schiff for months. The media for its part virtually mocked such claims as conspiracy theories and false news. Now the media and Schiff is claiming total surprise by the findings (if they acknowledge them at all). The lack of media scrutiny over Schiff’s denial is breathtaking and explains why many voters do not trust reporting over the various investigations.

In his interview on “Fox News Sunday,” Schiff told Chris Wallace there were “serious abuses of FISA that I was unaware of . . . Had I known of them, Chris, yes, I would’ve called out the FBI at the same time. But I think it’s only fair to judge what we knew at the time.”

That is one of the more extraordinary statements to come out of these scandals. Schiff spent two years swatting back these claims and was repeatedly confronted with them by their prior Chair of the Committee. Schiff not only showed little interest in confirming the allegations but assured the public that they were meritless. Yet, the media has, again, simply taken his statement as somehow manifestly true.

Hume took after Schiff over the statement:

“One of the most striking things about this IG report … is how closely it mirrors what the Devin Nunes investigation — when Nunes was still chairman and Schiff was ranking member on the intelligence committee — what Nunes found and what he said about the FISA abuses, and so on — to which, this very same Adam Schiff issued a report and rebuttal, which disputed the Nunes findings — findings now confirmed by the IG report.”

For those of us who have been commenting on these controversies, there have been ample reports about the omissions in the FISA application and the lack of evidence supporting the allegations against figures like Carter Page, the subject of a recent column.

What is equally disturbing and baffling is President Donald Trump’s most recent attack on Fox for even interviewing figures like Schiff. Even if one puts aside the continued attacks on the free press and its obligation to hear all sides of these controversies, President Trump could at least recognize that such interviews tend to expose inconsistencies and falsehoods. Wallace supplied a probing and substantive interview — precisely what Trump has argued is missing in much of the coverage.

535 thoughts on “Schiff Under Fire For Denying Any Knowledge Of FBI Abuses”

      1. David – that’s wonderful. May the Democrat Party be relived by such departures 100 million more times, just in time for 2020.

  4. If ever any politician ever had that deer in the headlights look, it’s a Schiff.

  6. “Treason doth never prosper: what ’s the reason? Why, if it prosper, none dare call it treason.”

    – John Harrington
    ______________

    Schiff shall not prosper in his abject treason.

  7. Here’s the rub: This President has been continually assaulted since he walked down the escalator to proclaim his candidacy. He ran on the mandate to “drain the swamp.” This swamp is full of very fat gators, whether it be law makers or law enforcement. I believe I speak for those who voted for him in 2016 when I say very few men could hold up to the 3+ year fight he has endured. His outspoken sensitivity to opposition is understandable to those who agree.

    1. The Donald is a kleptocrat attempting to create a kakistocracy.

      So far he has ruined farmers’ overseas markets, caused other pain with crazy tariffs, and is doing his best to starve small children.

      I could go on, but will refrain.

        1. I am reminded of the account of an inner city unemployed young man when offered a job for a starting wage: “I can steal more than that!”

          1. David:

            Of course that man could steal more than minimum wage. He’ll end up in jail, unemployable, throwing his opportunities away. The easy way out has a poor outcome.

            Or, he could take that entry level, minimum wage job. He could show up every day. If it’s sweeping floors, that floor will be pristine. If it’s handing out burgers, he will do so with a smile, efficiently, and be helpful.

            He will learn skills, and get an outstanding reputation. Opportunities will open for him. He’ll only be at that minimum wage job for a year, and if he does better than average, he’ll be promoted long before then. He’ll have a good life he can be proud of.

            My own grandfather left home as a teenager during the Great Depression. There were too many mouths to feed. He most certainly was not too proud to work. He traveled from state to state. He was a janitor in a hotel, a cowboy, and did many odd jobs. He ended up comfortably middle class.

            My other grandfather had to leave home, too. He lied about his age to join the Army. He, too, ended up comfortably middle class.

            So it’s pretty sad when any young person brags about being able to steal more than an entry level job is worth. All they’re doing is putting themself in a cage.

            1. From the entire report I feel quite certain that he was already adept at “stealing more than that”. Your account would bore him to tears

              1. David – that’s the problem. People in his position are busily ruining their lives. Going nowhere. Smoking weed. Making fun of studious kids who stay out of trouble and make something of themselves.

                Then they blame some old white guy, or the 1%, for their problems.

                Never do they wonder what they could do to improve their situation.

        1. Unfortunately it farts more as I grow older.

          However, I have a sharp tongue.

      3. you’re full of garbage. fair trade with CHina is probably his best policy and that’s the one you’re whining about. sad!

    3. You’re right, Phyllis, Betsy DeVos is one of the fattest swamp gators we”ve ever seen. In fact, Trump has appointed former industry lobbyists to all the regulatory agencies.

      1. Betsy DeVos didn’t have to work. She was financially set. But she cared very deeply about childhood education. It troubled her that poor kids did not have access to better education than that meager education afforded in their local public school. If a child lived near a failing school, their future was very limited by the indifferent education they would receive.

        So she championed school choice. Empowering parents to be able to choose where to send their children.

        Therefore, the teachers union hated her, slandered her, and attacked her character, as they do anyone who is school choice. They will start caring about kids when they pay union dues.

        I see a lot of people parrot the character assasination, and even sexist comments, promoted by the gangster tactics of the unions. I’ve seen unions harass her on the news, and block her visits to schools. It’s very sad. One can agree or disagree with her policies or approach. Yet she is a woman who chose to subject herself to these attacks because she wants to improve the education of kids in America.

        More than half of school children are not reading at grade level. Many high school students get passed along, and graduate without being able to read or express themselves.

        And yet, look at how our country treats those who seek to really improve education, and empower parents.

        1. Karen, Michigan schools got even worse after DeVos involved herself. She has no formal credentials in education. She’s just a rich buttinksky meddling in education. As Education Secretary, DeVos has been a tool for For-Profit Colleges.

  9. Matt Taibbi once again scores biggly

    Someone is not telling the truth, Vol. 1:
    The Horowitz report is not kind to former CIA chief John Brennan.

    Brennan in May of 2017 testified before Congress that he was “aware of intelligence and information about contacts between Russian officials and U.S. persons” that “served as the basis for the FBI investigation.”

    Horowitz contradicts this:

    We also asked those FBI officials involved . . . whether the FBI received any other information, such as from members of the USIC, that the FBI relied upon to predicate Crossfire Hurricane. All of them told us that there was no such information. . . . We also asked [James] Comey and [Andrew] McCabe about then-CIA Director John Brennan’s statements. . . . Comey told us that while Brennan shared intelligence . . . [he] did not provide any information that predicated or prompted the FBI to open Crossfire Hurricane.

    If Brennan was not the “basis” for Crossfire Hurricane, his testimony was wrong. Alternatively, if Brennan did pass information that contributed to starting Crossfire Hurricane, that would mean senior FBI officials were not truthful with Horowitz. Something isn’t right here.

    https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-features/horowitz-report-russia-investigation-questions-remaining-928081/

    1. Continuing Matt Taibbi

      Someone is not telling the truth, Vol. 2:

      In a related problem, Horowitz on pages 75-76 of his report says former Attorney General Loretta Lynch told his office that “in the spring of 2016, Comey and [former Deputy Director Andrew] McCabe pulled her aside and provided information about Carter Page, which Lynch believed they learned from another member of the Intelligence Community.”

      Comey and McCabe both denied this, telling Horowitz they did not remember being told about Carter Page. With regard to Lynch’s recollection of a conversation, Comey said “he did not think it was possible for such conversation to have occurred in the spring of 2016 because the FBI did not receive the [tip from Alexander Downer] concerning Papadopoulos until late July.”

      To recap: The attorney general recalled being told about Page by the FBI in the spring of 2016, and believed the information came from another intelligence service. The former head of the CIA testified he gave information to the FBI that was the “basis” for Crossfire Hurricane. Top FBI officials said they didn’t remember any of this, and insisted the investigation began with the Downer tip in July of 2016.

      Three different stories, still, from officials at the CIA, FBI, and Justice Department.

      1. Who was COS, London under John Brennan?

        Clue: It wasn’t Christopher Steele.
        ____________________________________

        The Obama Coup D’etat in America is the most egregious abuse of power and the most prodigious scandal in American political history.

        The co-conspirators are:

        Bill Taylor, Eric Ciaramella, Rosenstein, Mueller/Team, Andrew Weissmann, Comey,

        Christopher Wray, McCabe, Strozk, Page, Laycock, Kadzic, Yates, Baker, Bruce Ohr,

        Nellie Ohr, Priestap, Kortan, Campbell, Sir Richard Dearlove, Steele, Simpson,

        Joseph Mifsud, Alexander Downer, Stefan “The Walrus” Halper, Azra Turk, Kerry,

        Hillary, Huma, Mills, Brennan, Gina Haspel, Clapper, Lerner, Farkas, Power, Lynch,

        Rice, Jarrett, Holder, Brazile, Sessions (patsy), Nadler, Schiff, Obama et al.

        1. “We know that Brennan has lied to Congress on a host of topics, including events surrounding the spy op on Trump’s campaign and presidency.

          Haspel’s longstanding loyalty to Brennan ranks her among the two or three worst personnel choices made by President Trump.

          Her loyalty to Brennan is more than a little relevant to Durham’s investigation because, as noted above, Haspel was the CIA’s Chief of Station (COS) in London from 2014-2017. It was during the latter two years of her tenure there when all of the FBI/CIA spying operation on Trump and his campaign occurred.”

          – Jed Babbin

    2. Matt Taibbi

      Are media corrections forthcoming?

      The Horowitz report makes clear that multiple news cycles over the past few years were dominated by reports that were either incorrect or lacking factual foundation.

      These included assertions by multiple outlets that the Steele dossier was not central to the FBI’s efforts to secure a warrant on Page; that the FBI found Christopher Steele and his dossier “credible”; that tales of FISA abuse were a conspiracy theory (one of many claims Mother Jones called “bullshit”); that the memo written by Devin Nunes on the subject was wrong and had been “debunked”; that Russians “blocked” Trump from nominating Mitt Romney as secretary of state; that Trump lawyer Michael Cohen was in Prague (presumably to meet Russian hackers); that a “pee tape” existed; that Russia’s Alfa Bank and the Trump campaign were communicating via a secret server; that the FISA warrant on Page must have been producing good intelligence in order to be renewed three times; and many other things.

      The Washington Post is one of the few outlets to start the process of reassessing its coverage, noting in a fact check that a “fair amount” of the Nunes memo had been “vindicated” by Horowitz. Ari Melber of MSNBC also called out James Comey for being “over his skis” on the “pee tape.” These are first steps, but Horowitz’s findings suggest a much broader thematic media FUBAR that’s still being ignored.

      Horowitz makes clear that the dossier by Steele was the linchpin — if not the only foundation — for the FBI’s Trump-Russia conspiracy case. As one FBI agent says in the report, “The minute we put the [Steele election reporting] in there, it goes from what you’d expect the FBI to be collecting in a counterintelligence context to direct allegations about collusion with the Trump campaign.”

      But the FBI had serious reasons to doubt this “election reporting” by January of 2017, when it learned Steele’s primary source disagreed with his findings, describing the most explosive claims as coming from a conversation “over beers” made in “jest.” Worse, the FBI knew this source was a “boaster” prone to embellishment. FBI teams were unable to corroborate Steele’s nonpublic findings.

      Yet reporters kept taking the bait on the key idea that Steele was an in-the-know superspy whose conspiracy/blackmail claims were taken seriously by investigators. Credulous reports originating from this premise — about Comey’s “bombshell” delivery of Steele’s compromise claims to Trump, or news that a court found “probable cause” to believe Page was a foreign agent, or even in hagiographic portraits of Steele as a real-life George Smiley — now look like fruit from a poisoned tree. Was it eaten knowingly or unknowingly?

      If reporters were burned, they should be angry, and corrections should be forthcoming. If there isn’t an effort to reverse the wrong coverage, it will look like certain outlets (particularly cable channels) were complicit in knowingly giving oceans of airtime to shaky stories. It’s a bad look either way, but door number two is worse.

      https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-features/horowitz-report-russia-investigation-questions-remaining-928081/

  10. Latest count of untruth utterances or scribblings from The Donald is over 15,000. Since taking office.

  11. So you’re saying that Schiff knew about FISA problems independently of partisan Nunes “investigation” prior to IG report? That’s not the incredible claim you’re making, is it? Regardless, perhaps, of the possibility that such abuses occurred to which I’m sure the Hon. Adam Schiff would have conceded. One heck of a prof.

  12. Mr. Truly,
    Many thanks to you, for shining a bright light on this whole mess. Maybe the folks in the D.C. elites indeed the American citizenry, will see what you and many of us see. Thanks, again.

  13. So, Turley who rarely finds fault with Trump, and the president’s followers, who countenance his constant lying and bragging, jump on Schiff – who like Comey – recognizes facts and acts accordingly, in this case apologizing for past mistakes. They not only honor facts but are big enough for apologies, something Trump is incapable of. The IG report was – according to Nunes, Trump and his followers – going to lay bare a top down Deep State conspiracy, something it definitely did not do. When do they go on Chris Wallace and apologize?

    1. If you think Turley “rarely finds fault with Trump” then you have not read the blog. Perhaps you’ve been skipping straight to the comments section.

      If you think Trump owes anyone an apology after the Horowitz report, then you didn’t read that, either.

      1. Turley rarely criticizes Trump, and usually for Miss Manners nonsense and not for his subversion of our constitution – see recent blanket obstruction of Congress.

        Trump owes an apology for claiming a top down Deep State conspiracy and spying on his campaign. The Horowitz report found neither.

    2. The IG report was – according to Nunes, Trump and his followers – going to lay bare a top down Deep State conspiracy, something it definitely did not do.

      False. We stated it would be the IG and the Durham reports that would do that. And the IG was going to be the least of the findings. Be patient, that day of reckoning will come and I guarantee apologies will not be sufficient for all the bad actors.

      1. So, Olly, you don’t expect a heartfelt apology from Trump anytime soon?
        Byethebook may be waiting a long time for that Trump apology.

    4. Schiff uses his extensive failings as a Hollywood script writer to invent stories and his own convenient non-truths. His most recent script failings have been: ‘Trump-Russia collusion’ (Shifty declared numerous times the evidence was clear, but the real professionals found nothing): ‘Obstruction of Justice’ which he stated was obviously evident, but like all of his scripts, abandoned by all reasonable minds; the paper to contradict the Nunes memo turned out to be an embarrassing listing of formulated lies; the latest failed scripts have been ‘bribery’ and ‘extortion’ but as much as Big Ligner promised there was clear and obvious evidence, those public lies failed to be included in the impeachment; and there are many more failings to come from the Glendale Goniff.

      Schiff has tried to use the old Wall Street adage about putting some lipstick and make-up on a pig and trying to sell it. Adam has not only proven to be a frequently failed script writer, but he is also a horrible make-up artist.

  15. Trump Implies Nunes Was Unfairly Maligned

    But Nunes Was Aggressively Pro-Trump

    In March of 2017, when the Russia Probe was in its earliest stages, Nunes made an unusual trip to the White House to give an unannounced news conference. Nunes then made several conspiracy-like claims that sounded like they were written by Trump himself. Therefore if mainstream media hasn’t given Nunes the respect conservatives think he deserves, there are reasons.

    https://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/how-the-white-house-and-republicans-blew-up-the-house-russia-investigation

    1. What a fool Peter Shill Hill is. The Horowitz report showed that what Nunes said was true and what you said about Nunes for years was false. You lied then and you lie now. You can’t even admit you were wrong. Some would say you are garbage. Garbage can be recycled. You can’t.

      1. Peter Shill is still defending the Russian investigation.
        That alone is reason to light a candle for the poor boy and hope he comes to Jesus real soon….

        maybe Kwanza?

        🎅🏽

      2. No, Alan, Horowtz’s report showed no such thing. It said the FBI investigation was justified. Mueller never exonerated Trump.

        1. Phillip:

          Please read Professor Turley’s blog posts about the Horowitz Report.

          It takes next to nothing to start an investigation. Therefore, it is within their purview to follow up on any leads. That initial 5 minutes was fine.

          What was found at fault was:

          #1 The FBI lied when they said the dossier did not form the basis of the FISA warrant.
          #2 The FBI hid from the FISA court that the dossier was paid for by Hillary Clinton
          #3 The FBI altered an email from the CIA confirming that Page worked with them, and had already informed them of his contact with the Russians. An agent has been charged with a crime for that.
          #4 The FBI found out that the sub source said it was all bar talk, and a comment on a blog post, never to be taken seriously. Certainly not to be presented as fact.
          #5 MI6 warned the FBI that Steele had bad judgement, and was politically motivated. The FBI did not disclose that to the FISA court
          #6 Comey did not disclose any of this to the American people in his position as head of the FBI, nor later in his moments of solitude, with a photographer, in the woods.
          #7 Illegal unmasking
          #8 Lying about Trump’s campaign not being surveilled

          The list just goes on and on.

          Do you not understand this, or is it deliberate?

          I am frankly shocked that there are so many true believers who rapidly readjust their ethics to claim this is OK. Republicans criticize Trump when it’s warranted. I will never understand this terrible absence of conscience.

          1. Karen, Trump invited all the investigations by continually dismissing Russian interference as ‘fake news’ and serving Putin’s interests every chance he got. And now Trumpers like you want to claim that Horowitz (and Mueller) have ‘exonerated Trump when they have done no such thing.

            1. Trump invited all the investigations…

              That’s 3rd world totalitarianism right there. Weaponizing our federal agencies to target our citizens they suspect have asked for it is not something sane people brag about.

              Antifa approves of your message.

            2. Huh. Trump denying that he was a Russian asset brought the investigations upon himself?

              Blaming the victim.

              I wonder how many Demcorats will ever have that Red Pill moment, when they realize how badly they have behaved towards Trump in particular, and Republicans in general for the past few decades.

              I wonder if any of them feel bad for calling Trump an antisemite? For calling him a Russian asset? Racist? Fascist? The list is extensive. And I wonder if at some point in their lives, all the terrible names they’ve been calling Republicans will flash before their eyes. I wonder if they’ll feel bad. How much amnesia can their minds handle before they snap out of it?

        2. It said the FBI investigation was justified.

          Once again, FALSE. The IG determined, based on the limited scope of his investigation, that there was a proper predicate (justification) for the FBI to open the investigation. That is a very low bar. The evidence in his report shows as of January 17th, 2017, they no longer had justification to keep it open, especially renewals of the FISA applications. You’ll have another opportunity to whiff on the facts once the Durham report is released. Then we can have another conversation about what was justified and what abuse of power really looks like.

          1. Olly, after Trump fired Comey, he called the Russian Ambassador to the Oval Office to assure him, as cameras rolled, that Comey was gone. For that one moment alone, Trump deserved the Mueller Probe.

            1. May 3, 2017 “The Department of Justice has authorized me to confirm” the existence of a broader investigation into potential collusion between Russia and the Trump campaign, Comey said. “We’re not going to say another word about it until we’re done.”

              Look on the calendar. May comes after January. Had Mueller exercised any competent leadership over his agency, the investigation would have been closed down 3 months before. This was always a trap and 2.5 years later, Mueller didn’t find the evidence he was desperately searching for.

              But according to you, Trump invited this abuse.

        3. Mueller did exonerate Trump of colluding with the Russians, trying to get Russian hacked emails, etc, and Mueller never condemned Trump of anything.

          The IG’s report clearly showed Nunes was correct and Schiff attempt to contradict was totally incorrect. Imagining otherwise is Hillary-like fantasy

        4. Peter Shill, learn to read and learn to listen. With such a low bar to start an investigation one has difficulty stating the onset of the investigation wasn’t justified. But then the story is quite the opposite. Horowitz says other things and even though his conclusions are seriously limited he demonstrated major errors and stated the major players could not be vindicated by his investigation. The number of actions taken that are forbidden by the rules was horrendous. Horowitz cleared no one and showed how bad things were. However he didn’t draw conclusions either because that is not his job or he didn’t want to. Durham and Barr will do that and criminal investigations have already started. Mueller doesn’t exonerate. People have gone over that detail over and over again but you are quite slow.

          You should have stayed in class and learned how to read.

        5. Peter, I should have added that Nunes reported things correctly and the Horowitz report and Nunes are almost in total agreement. Schiff lied.

    2. https://www.cnbc.com/2018/04/27/house-intel-panel-releases-final-report-on-russian-election-interference-marking-end-of-its-politically-charged-probe.html
      It was premature in March 2017 to declare that Nunes “blew up” the House Intelligence Committee’s investigation into the 2016 election.
      The article mentions witnesses that were not heard at the time— John Brennan and Sally Yates—- who did testify to that committee a month or two after the New Yorker article.
      The conclusions of that House Committee about lack of coordination between the Trump campaign and Russia were similar to the results of the report by Mueller.
      The House Intelligence Committee’s report came out about a year before the Mueller Report. It was one thing to try to dismiss the House report as a whitewash by Nunes; it was a lot tougher to dismiss similar conclusions reported a year later by the Mueller investigation.

      1. Anonymous, Trump was ‘not’ exonerated by Mueller. That’s a bogus talking point that Trumpers keep asserting as ‘fact’ when it is no such thing.

        1. Trump was ‘not’ exonerated

          That’s a bogus talking point you and your ilk assert. Mueller doesn’t exonerate anyone. He looks for evidence of guilt. When he can’t find anything, the individual under investigation remains innocent.

          1. OLLY
            Thank you!

            The he said , she said …… Repeating the false charges will eventually sink in and you can never remove it.

            Hitler was black headed brown eyed. He used a Jewish blonde haired blue eyed baby as his poster child. He declared the blonde was superior and they believed what they wanted to. His followers died believing the lie.

            The truth was stated and an opinion piece in the paper declared it was false. Now these people say the debunked theory and refer to the opinion piece. It must be debunked because they respect the writer OR the truth is still the truth.

            Schiff would play the same recorded message every time the floor returned to him. After hearing it a 100 times the witness suddenly understands things as his does and agrees with him.

            The phone call should have never been made public. The investigation the president ask for is on going. There is obstruction but not by him. Oh forgive me that’s a debunked theory.

            1. Repeating the false charges will eventually sink in and you can never remove it.

              Thanks G. Your comment reminded me of the following quote. There are many, many variations of this sentiment.

              A lie will go round the world while truth is pulling its boots on.

              In this era, where communications are nearly instantaneous, lies have a distinct advantage over the truth. We’ve seen it’s effectiveness in the MSM as well as social media. Will there ever be sufficient consequences to eradicate or at least diminish this practice?

        2. P. Skene,
          Did I say that Trump was exonerated by Mueller? You have a habit of responding to what a person did not say, rather than actually dealing with what actually was said.
          My earlier comment was about the old New Yorker article that you linked, not about whether Mueller “exonerated” Trump.

          1. You have a habit of responding to what a person did not say, rather than actually dealing with what actually was said.

            He does that…all the time. That’s why I question the functionality of the left half of his brain. Even when I respond to a comment he’s made, questioning him on the reason and logic that went into it typically produces nothing. And if he does respond, it is completely off point like you’ve seen here.

  18. “The lack of media scrutiny over Schiff’s denial is breathtaking and explains why many voters do not trust reporting over the various investigations.”
    ***************************

    It’s only “breathtaking” if you cling to the outdated notion that the media is an objective source of news rather than the public relations arm of the DNC. Once you accept that fact, the world of “journalism” falls neatly into place.

    Since 2017, Trump has endured 90% negative press rising as high as 93%: https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/byron-york-harvard-study-cnn-nbc-trump-coverage-93-percent-negative

    And it continues today: https://www.newsbusters.org/blogs/nb/rich-noyes/2019/01/15/networks-trashed-trump-90-negative-spin-2018-did-it-matter

  19. “President Trump could at least recognize that such interviews tend to expose inconsistencies and falsehoods.”

    ‘Tend to” is not the right metric. ‘Sometimes’ or ‘occasionally’ is more realistic.

    The media actually has to have a goal of seeking truth.

  20. I suspect it was another of those ‘least untrue’ statements our duly elected representatives are so good at spewing.

    From the Intercept:

    “This system of unlimited domestic spying was built by both parties, which only rouse themselves to object when the power lies in the other side’s hands. Just last year, the vast majority of the GOP caucus joined with a minority of Democrats led by Nancy Pelosi and Adam Schiff to hand President Trump all-new domestic spying powers while blocking crucial reforms and safeguards to prevent abuse.”

Comments are closed.