Quotes from the news wire:
We know this comes from the Kremlin.
Found on FOX News 3 months ago
Apparently he believes I was very effective in exposing his misconduct, Donald Trump’s misconduct. And that’s what they’re trying to stop, so, I think that he benefits from having these smears repeated. And that’s part of what he gains from it. But this is a pretext, and nothing more.
And I don’t accept the premise that this has anything to do with the conduct of any of the Democratic members. This is merely the weakness of Kevin McCarthy’s speakership, that he’s so reliant on these extreme members.
I think it's important to point out that the Biden approach was very different in the sense that it looks, as far as we can tell, that it was inadvertent, that these documents were in these locations, when they were discovered, they were immediately provided to the archives or to the Justice Department. There was no effort to hold on to them, no effort to conceal them, no effort to obstruct the Justice Department's investigation.
I don’t think we can exclude the possibility without knowing more of the facts, we have asked for an assessment in the intelligence community of the Mar-a-Lago documents. I think we ought to get that same assessment of the documents found in the [Penn Biden Center] as well as the home of President Biden.
I’d like to know what these documents were. I’d like to know what the [special counsel’s] assessment is, whether there was any risk of exposure and what the harm would be and whether any mitigation needs to be done, i think that would be appropriate and consistent with what we requested in the case of Mar-a-Lago.
Late last year, multiple news organizations reported that mobile phones used by U.S. diplomats in Uganda had been compromised by NASA's Pegasus tool, it is my belief that we are very likely looking at the tip of the iceberg and that other U.S. government personnel have had their devices compromised, whether by a nation state using NSA services or tools offered by one of its lesser known but equally potent competitors.
Found on FOX News 6 months ago
The work you're doing to support our Democratic institutions, the infrastructure of our elections, the rule of law, the rule of law applies to everyone equally could not be more important, it's been such a pleasure to meet so many of you and thank you for all you're doing to support my wonderful colleague.
Found on FOX News 8 months ago
I was encouraged to hear it. And I hope it meant what it sounded like it meant.
State of the Union, i assume that is being undertaken, and I have every expectation that it will be shared with us. So I look forward to that.
I hope it meant what it sounded like it meant. We have been in discussion with the vice president's counsel for some time. So he knows of our interest in having him come before House Intelligence Chairman Adam Schiff, and I am confident that if he is truly willing, that there was a way to work out any executive privilege or separation of powers issues. There is, of course, nothing precluding the vice president should he decide to come before Congress, and I would hope given the severity of the issues we're addressing here and attack on our capital, and attack on our very democracy, that he would be willing to come in.
Hopefully( the unsealing) will give the public a sense of why the Justice Department made the decision they did. I have great confidence that Attorney General Merrick Garland considered all of the factors in making the decision.
( He's) certainly a possibility, we're not excluding anyone or anything at this point.
We want to know what Ginni Thomas knows, what Ginni Thomas involvement was in this plot to overturn the election, ginni Thomas has said that Ginni Thomas is willing to come in and testify voluntarily. We're glad to hear that.
I wouldn’t go and shake his hand, until Saudi Arabia makes a radical change in terms of its human rights, I wouldn’t want anything to do with him.
Found on FOX News 11 months ago
January 6 will be remembered as one of the darkest days in our nation's history. Yet, more than a year later, the threat to our democracy is as grave as ever. January 6 was not a day in isolation, but the violent culmination of multiple efforts to overturn the last presidential election and interfere with the peaceful transfer of power for the first time in our history, the former President and his allies have spent every day since January 6 attempting to rewrite history about that bloody attack on our nation's Capitol. That's why these public hearings are so essential -- to show the American people exactly how January 6 came about, who is responsible, and most critically, what we can and must do to prevent another attack on our democracy.
This seems to be something that goes beyond,' Attorney General Merrick Garland have to have more than a reasonable doubt before Attorney General Merrick Garland indict the king,' to' Attorney General Merrick Garland can't even start an investigation into credible allegations of criminality of the king, i don't think the Founders would have ever countenanced that. In fact, I think they would have been aghast at that.
I don't think the Founders would have ever countenanced that. In fact, I think they would have been aghast at that.
They're going to act irresponsibly no matter what.
If you or I were on that call and recorded we'd be under investigation I not indicted by now for a criminal referral to defraud the people of Georgia and the people of the country.
He clearly is waiving any claim he has to keep confidential his communications with the former President or what happened in the White House, after all, if he can say it in a book, why he can't he say it before Congress in an investigation ?
I think we will probably make a decision this week on our course of conduct with that particular witness and maybe others.
We have been moving very quickly to make these decisions and I'm confident we'll move very quickly with respect to Mark Meadows also.
If Justice Department doesn't hold Steve Bannon accountable, Justice Department only lends credence to the idea that some people are above the law and that can not be true in this country.
I think we are completely of one mind that if people refuse to respond to questions, refuse to produce documents without justification, that we will hold them in criminal contempt and refer them to the Trump Justice Department, and unlike the last four years we expect Trump Justice Department to adhere to the principle that no one's above the law.
Put simply, our diversity is our greatest national strength. And it is a strength we need to leverage in support of the mission of the [IC].
I think it’s also fair to say that no one predicted such a rapid collapse and complete collapse of the Afghan government forces.
He’s scared, and I think his boss is scared. They didn’t want this commission and this select committee to go forward. They certainly didn’t want it to go forward as it is on a bipartisan basis, and they don’t want the country to know exactly what they were involved in. And Kevin McCarthy lives to do whatever Trump wants. But he is trying to threaten these companies, and it shows yet again why this man, Kevin McCarthy, can never be allowed to go anywhere near the speaker’s office.
It's hard for me to imagine all of that can be accomplished between now and the end of the month.
We should approach these questions without preconceptions to encourage a thorough, systematized analysis of the potential national security and flight safety risks posed by unidentified aerial phenomena, whether they are the result of a foreign adversary, atmospheric or other aerial phenomena, space debris, or something else entirely.
These are gross abuses of the independence of the Justice Department, and we don't know how far they run. And our new Attorney General has to find out.
I applaud the decision of the Attorney General to request an Inspector General investigation, and the IG’s commitment to proceed and probe the abuse of the department’s investigatory powers against Congress and the press.
It certainly appears that they were using the Justice Department to go after the president’s political enemies. There’s a lot we don’t know, obviously.
Found on Reuters 1 year ago
We now can see the veneer has been torn away, just why Secretary Mike Pompeo and Donald Trump do not want any of these documents provided to Congress.
Ifwe do not and if they do not.
This is the extent that they aregoing to try to undermine therights and freedoms that areguaranteed to every one of us, andit's incredibly dangerous.
Christopher Wray became FBI director at a moment of tremendous turmoil for the bureau and the country, and he has served with great professionalism and integrity. I am glad to see that President Biden intends to keep Director Wray in his position.
This is obviously the most serious crime against our country and Constitution of any president in history, and the fact that it took place in the last month doesn't make it less serious.
That will be the speaker's decision, I will leave the strategy to her and to Jamie Raskin and that incredibly talented team.
Instead of rewarding this great service, President Trump is retaliating against Director Chris Krebs and other officials who did their duty. It's pathetic, but sadly predictable that upholding and protecting our democratic processes would be cause for firing.
Theyre going to put it in writing now instead of giving an oral briefing. That doesnt make any sense unless the goal is not to allow members of Congress, the representatives of the American people, to ask questions.
Concealing the truth is concealing Russians are again intervening to help the president in his reelection.
Last month, in a bid to prevent informing the American people and its elected representatives about Russian efforts to help President President Trump and hurt Joe Biden, the Trump Administration announced that it would cease briefing Congress in person, and rely on written products alone. But if written products are being altered for political reasons, or worse withheld entirely, how can the American people trust that this Administration will inform voters on how foreign powers are trying to influence them, or where the threats really come from, and protect National Security — particularly when it contradicts the President's preferred narrative or personal political interests ? In short, they can't, and that's dangerous.
That's just a plain, false statement by the Attorney General. A flat-out false statement.
The new bulletin from the DHS Office of Intelligence and Analysis underscores two concerning facts : First, as the Intelligence Community confirmed last month, Russia is once again seeking to interfere in our elections and sow distrust in our democratic process. And second, among the range of measures it is pursuing, Russia is echoing destructive and false narratives around vote by mail that President Donald Trump and Donald Trump enablers, including Attorney General Attorney General Bill Barr, have been aggressively promoting, this bulletin further demonstrates why the ODNI's cancelation of in-person briefings on election security for Congress is so dangerous — Congress must be able to directly question and engage with the intelligence community professionals with the responsibility for protecting President Trump and his enablers elections from foreign interference.
They weren't concerned about leaks after the last briefing or they wouldn't have come back to offer another briefing. Something changed, Dana, what changed is, of course, the President, probably in another fit, saying I don't want Congress informed. Because the last time that Congress was informed, the director of national intelligence had to put out another statement to acknowledge the fact the Russians are helping President Donald Trump again.
We're going to protect information from being leaked for political purpose. It's happened too much and I won't stand for it.
In light of recent public reports, we are concerned that Brian Murphy may have provided incomplete and potentially misleading information to Committee staff during our recent oversight engagement, we will be expanding our oversight even further in the coming days. We expect full and timely compliance from the Department and the Office of Intelligence and Analysis.
Because the addendum is not public, today's vote is no substitute for action by the Administration and intelligence community to more fully brief the American people on what foreign powers may be doing to influence the election and do so in real time, we must not have another presidential election marred by foreign interference when there was more we could do to prevent it, deter it and expose it to the American people.
We do think the IC( intelligence community) and the administration should brief the American people with much greater specificity, but no we don't intend to release the documents.
The President has the constitutional authority to confer pardons and commutations, but that power is not unlimited, and was provided to remedy injustices, not to cover up for a president or shield The President from potential criminal liability.
Now we see in the book that Donald Trump wasn't just calling on China to investigate the Bidens, it shows a whole different level of unfitness for office.
I think we have to take the allegations of the President's conduct seriously because they're all too consistent with what we showed during the trial.
Instead, he saved it for a book, bolton may be an author, but he's no patriot.
The transcripts also reveal why Michael Flynn was properly the subject of a counterintelligence investigation and how the DOJ's effort to dismiss the case against Michael Flynn is so transparently political and destructive to the interests of justice, as a result of lying to both the FBI and the Vice President, Michael Flynn posed a severe counterintelligence risk because the Russians knew the real contents of Flynn's communications and that Michael Flynn lied about them to the some of the most senior officials in the U.S. government.
People have lost confidence in its neutrality that justice is blind. Instead they think justice bends to Donald Trump's will.
[ They ] satthere and helped Adam Schiff perpetrate this fraud. Next time Im [ on Hannity ] I will give you the names of the reporters.
House Intelligence Committee has, in a sense, hijacked what should have been an uncontroversial straightforward review of congressional transcripts to identify and redact any classified information, and attempted to expand it into an unsolicited after the fact review for information purportedly protected by executive privilege.
The three expiring provisions that this bill would re-authorize are vitally important to protecting national security.
I do not take a position on the proper prison term for Mr. Stone, but it would be a blatant abuse of power if President Trump has in fact intervened to reverse the recommendations of career prosecutors at the Department of Justice, doing so would send an unmistakable message that President Trump will protect those who lie to Congress to cover up his own misconduct, and that the attorney general will join him in that effort.
Doing so would send an unmistakable message that President Trump will protect those who lie to Congress to cover up his own misconduct, and that the attorney general will join him in that effort.
He will have to explain at some point why he is willing to put this in a book but not in an affidavit under oath.
We did approach John Bolton's counsel, asked if John Bolton would be willing to submit an affidavit under oath, describing what he observed in terms of the president's Ukraine misconduct -- and he refused.
If The Senate on Friday allows President Trump's obstruction to stand, The Senate on Friday effectively nullifies the impeachment power, the Senate on Friday will allow future presidents to decide whether they want their misconduct to be investigated or not, whether they would like to participate in an impeachment investigation or not.
It makes it all the more essential to call the man who spoke directly with the President, that the President confided in and said he was holding up this aid because he wanted Ukraine to conduct these political investigations that would help in the next election, don't wait for the book.
You can't do anything about it because if John Bolton views it as in John Bolton personal interest, that's just fine. John Bolton's allowed to do it. None of the founders would have accepted that kind of reasoning.
If Adam Schiff have any question about whether the motive was mixed or not mixed, ask Ambassador Bolton.
Iwould not say that it leads to a loss of confidence in the chief justice.
This is someone whos likely to exaggerate the dangerous impulses of the president towardbelligerence, his proclivity to act without thinking, and his love of conspiracy theories, and Ill, you know, just add one data point to what you were talking about earlier, John Bolton once suggested on Fox News that the Russian hack of the DNC [Democratic National Committee] was a false flag operation that had been conducted by the Obama administration.
And Ill, you know, just add one data point to what you were talking about earlier, John Bolton once suggested on Fox News that the Russian hack of the DNC [Democratic National Committee] was a false flag operation that had been conducted by the Obama administration.
This is someone whos likely to exaggerate the dangerous impulses of the president towardbelligerence, John Bolton proclivity to act without thinking, and John Bolton love of conspiracy theories, and Ill, you know, just add one data point to what you were talking about earlier, John Bolton once suggested on Fox News that the Russian hack of the DNC [ Democratic National Committee ] was a false flag operation that had been conducted by the Barack Obama administration.
First of all, I dont know who the whistleblower is, i havent met them or communicated with him in any way. The conspiracy theory, which I think was outlined earlier, that the whistleblower colluded with the Intel Committee staff to hatch an impeachment inquiry is a complete and total fiction.
This is someone whos likely to exaggerate the dangerous impulses of the president towardbelligerence, John Boltons proclivity to act without thinking, and John Boltons love of conspiracy theories, and Ill, you know, just add one data point to what you were talking about earlier, John Boltons once suggested on Fox News that the Russian hack of the DNC [ Democratic National Committee ] was a false flag operation that had been conducted by the Barack Obama administration.
I think for the senators, and Im just not talking about the four that have been so much the focus of attention, for every senator, Democrat and Republican, I dont know how you can explain that you wanted a search for the truth in this trial and say you dont want to hear from a witness who had a direct conversation about the central allegation in the articles of impeachment.
House Democrats is who House Democrats is, that will not change, and nor will the danger associated with House Democrats.
I don't think, frankly, that we could have made as effective a case for John Bolton's testimony as the President's own lawyers.
A fair trial involves witnesses and it involves documents.
What may be personal, though, and I think I have to be very candid about this, is I made the argument that it's going to require moral courage to stand up to this President, and this is a wrathful and vindictive president.
I discovered something very significant by mocking the President and that is for a man who loves to mock others, he does not like to be mocked. As it turns out, he's got a pretty thin skin. Who would have thought it ? never mind that I said I wasn't using his words before I said, and I wasn't using his words after I said it, and I said I was making a parody of his words --' It's an outrage ! He mocked the President, that Schiff ! Terrible !'.
What matters is whether he is a danger to the country, because he will do it again. And none of us can have confidence, based on his record, that he will not do it again, because he is telling us every day that he will.
I implore you, give America a fair trial. She's worth it.
CBS News reported last night that a Trump confidante said that GOP senators were warned: vote against your president ... and your head will be on a pike, i hope it's not true. But I was struck by the irony of the idea, when we're talking about a president who would make himself a monarch, that whoever that was would use the terminology of a penalty that was imposed by a monarch, a head on a pike.
'Thank God,' Putin said, 'Thank God nobody is accusing us anymore of interfering in U.S. elections, now they're accusing Ukraine,' 'Thank God,' Putin says.
I'm not sure the Chief Justice is fully aware of just how rare it is, how extraordinary it is, for the House members to be able to command the attention of senators sitting silently for hours, or even for minutes, for that matter, of course, it doesn't hurt that the morning starts out every day with the sergeant at arms warning you that, if you don't, you will be imprisoned.
I just want to thank you keeping an open mind about all of the issues that we are presenting, that's all that we can ask for.
If we're really serious about modeling this proceeding after the President Bill Clinton in particular.There trial, the President Bill Clinton in particular.There precedent is one where all the documents had been provided, up front, where all the witnesses had testified, up front, prior to the trial. That is not being replicated by the McConnell resolution -- not in any way, not in any shape, not in any form, far from it.
As one witness put it during our impeachment inquiry, the United States aids Ukraine and her people so that we can fight Russia over there, and we dont have to fight Russia here, the presidents misconduct can not be decided at the ballot box, for we can not be assured that the vote will be fairly won.
So these lawyers are saying he should, and those lawyers are saying he shouldn't, they can't have it both ways.
It does not prescribe a process for a fair trial, and the American people desperately want to believe that the Senate will give both the president and the House of Representatives a fair trial, we will be appealing as managers to the senators today to live up to the oath they have just taken, to do impartial justice and to hold a fair trial.
You are not appellate court judges, oK, one of you is.
I'll say something even more concerning to me, and that is the intelligence community is beginning to withhold documents from Congress on the issue of Ukraine. They appear to be succumbing to pressure from President Donald Trump administration.
This is going to be a partisan resolution by Mitch McConnell, and I'm sure it will be drafted with the House Intelligence lawyers to give the President every advantage, i will say this, though. It's going to be hard for Senate GOP to ignore information that comes into the public record and say we're not going to consider that, even though Senate GOP's directly relevant, even though Senate GOP's directly incriminating.
We are still going through, because the volume is so large, the materials we received... so it's entirely possible there will be new and important evidence that comes out of the information that we've been receiving.
I don't think that's at all the desired motivation here, the desire is to get a commitment from the Senate that they're going to have a fair trial. Fair to the President, yes, but fair to the American people.
The President and The President men plot on. The danger persists. The risk is real. Our democracy is at peril, but we are not without a remedy prescribed by the founders for just these circumstances. Impeachment. The only question is will we use it or have we fallen prey to another evil that the founders forewarned, the excess of factualism, the elevation of party over country.
But for the courage of someone willing to blow the whistle, he would have gotten away with it, instead, he got caught. He tried to cheat, and he got caught.
The evidence of the president's misconduct is overwhelming and uncontested.
I can tell you as a former prosecutor House Intelligence Committee's always been you know, my strategy, in a charging decision, and an impeachment in the House is essentially a charging decision, to charge those that there's the strongest and most overwhelming evidence, and not try to charge everything even though you could charge other things.
Tellingly, the Minority dismisses this as just part of the President's' outside the beltway' thinking, it is more accurately, outside the law and constitution, and a violation of The President oath of office.
There is nothing to testify about. I think if President Donald Trump or President Donald Trump allies in the Senate persist it means they are not serious about what they are doing, what would I offer in terms of testimony that I heard Dr.( Fiona) Hill in open hearing say such and such ? That is not pertinent. The only reason for them to go through with this is to mollify President Donald Trump and that is not a good reason to try to call a member of Congress as a witness.
We don't foreclose the possibility of more depositions, more hearings. We are in the process of getting more documents all the time. So that investigative work is being done.
What we're not prepared to do is wait months and months while the administration plays a game of 'rope a dope' in an effort to try to stall. We're not willing to go down that road.
Even as we compile this report, even as we submit evidence to the Judiciary Committee, we're going to continue our investigation.
Ultimately though one thing is clear, because we have adduced so much evidence of guilt of this President, so much evidence of serious misconduct, any privilege the President would have would be vitiated by this crime fraud exception. So that will give way, and if it doesn't to quote my colleague Chairman (Jerry) Nadler, it will mean that either Justice Roberts or the Supreme Court itself is not really a conservative justice or court, merely a partisan one. And I have to hope that is not the case for the country's sake.
Now there's been more obstruction of Congress that goes beyond Ukraine. There's also the obstruction of justice that Mueller wrote about so extensively. And there are other violations of the Constitution that we will need to consider, i'm not at this point, Jake, prepared to say what I will recommend.
We now can see the veneer has been torn away, just why Secretary Pompeo and Donald Trump do not want any of these documents provided to Congress.
It goes right to the heart of the issue of bribery as well as other potential high crimes and misdemeanors, but we also have heard for the first time that knowledge of this scheme was pervasive.
It goes right to the heart of the issue of bribery as well as other potential high crimes and misdemeanors.
The whistleblower has the right, the statutory right to anonymity, these proceedings will not be used to out the whistleblower.
Today's witnesses, like those who testified last week, are here because they were subpoenaed to appear, not because they are for or against impeachment.
I note that you have shed blood for America, and we owe you an immense debt of gratitude.
The gentlewoman will suspend, ... this week...
Now the President in real time is attacking United States, what effect do United States think United States has on other witnesses' willingness to come forward and expose wrongdoing ?
The question before us is not whether Donald Trump could recall an American ambassador with a stellar reputation for fighting corruption in Ukraine, but why would Donald Trump want to ? the powers of the presidency are immense, but they are not absolute and can not be used for a corrupt purpose.
I don't think any decision has been made on the ultimate question about whether articles of impeachment should be brought.
The questions presented by this impeachment inquiry are whether President Trump sought to exploit that ally's vulnerability and invite Ukraine's interference in our elections, our answer to these questions will affect not only the future of this presidency, but the future of the presidency itself.
The committee... will not facilitate efforts by President Trump and his allies in Congress to threaten, intimidate and retaliate against the whistleblower who courageously raised the initial alarm.
We expect the witnesses who have been subpoenaed to come in this afternoon, at White House instruction, also to be no-shows. This will only further add to the body of evidence on a potential obstruction of Congress charge against the president.
They have the right to remain anonymous.
He deserves better than that scandalous attack.
I don't want to comment on Mr. Kupperman beyond what we said in the letter.
We're trying to work expeditiously but we're also trying to be methodical in our work. And I think we're making rapid progress against our goal.
These witnesses have defied the White House efforts to prevent their testimony by following the lawful requirements of subpoenas, the President has urged The President acolytes in Congress to use other means to try to prevent their testimony, but they won't be successful.
The President's allies in Congress are trying to make it even more difficult for these witnesses to cooperate but we're grateful that the witness is a real professional and has come forward, notwithstanding the obstacles.
Were it not for the fact that at least some witnesses have given us documents, we would not know that there is a paper record of efforts to condition this meeting and perhaps condition military support itself on these political investigations, we know from the additional witnesses who have come forward that there are additional documents that they have provided the State Department but have not been given to Congress.
We know from the additional witnesses who have come forward that there are additional documents that they have provided the State Department but have not been given to Congress, and so the evidence of obstruction of Congress continues to mount.
We dont need the whistleblower, who wasnt on the call, to tell us what took place during the call. We have the best evidence of that.
Republicans would like nothing better because they view their role as defending the President, being the President's lawyers.
Our primary interest right now is making sure that that person is protected.
The failure to produce this witness, the failure to produce these documents we consider yet additional strong evidence of obstruction of the constitutional functions of Congress.
It's hard to imagine a more corrupt course of conduct.
We're not fooling around here.
We are deeply concerned about Secretary Pompeo's effort now to potentially interfere with witnesses whose testimony is needed before our committee, many of whom are mentioned in the whistleblower complaint.
And we want to make it abundantly clear that any effort by the secretary, by the president or anyone else to interfere with the congress' ability to call before it relevant witnesses will be considered obstruction of the lawful functions of congress.
We will move as expeditiously as possible, but we have to see what witnesses are going to make themselves available and what witnesses are going to require compulsion.
Senior White House officials will move as expeditiously as possible, but Senior White House officials have to see what witnesses are going to make themselves available and what witnesses are going to require compulsion.
I'm hoping that these witnesses will choose to cooperate, will volunteer. But I have to say I am deeply worried now that the president, on the eve of our hearing or during our hearing, was threatening these witnesses.
The President of Ukraine brought up The President of Ukraine country's need for military assistance and immediately thereafter the President of the United States said, I have a favor I want to ask of you,' and would not let the subject go. There was only one message that that president of Ukraine got from that call.
This is how a mafia boss talks, what have you done for us? Weve done so much for you. But theres not much reciprocity. I have a favor I want to ask you. And what is that favor? Of course, the favor is to investigate his political rival. A classic mafia-like shakedown a foreign leader.
I think that what this courageous individual has done has exposed serious wrongdoing, we will do everything possible to protect you.
The complaint... certainly provides information for the committee to follow up.
I think that what this courageous individual has done has exposed serious wrongdoing, i think the travesty is that this complaint was withheld as long as it was because it was an urgent matter. It is an urgent matter. And there was simply no basis to keep this from the committee.
We have been informed by the whistleblowers counsel that their client would like to speak to House Intelligence Committee and has requested guidance from the Acting DNI [ Director of National Intelligence ] as to how to do so, were in touch with counsel and look forward to the whistleblowers testimony as soon as this week.
In light of your notice of intent to the acting director of national intelligence, The Intelligence Committee requests a voluntary interview with your client on Thursday, Sept. 26, 2019, in the afternoon, following the public testimony of acting Director Maguire before The Intelligence Committee. The Intelligence Committee is prepared to work with you to identify a secure location and format that preserves your clients privacy and ensure protection from reprisalor threat of reprisal.
Why doesnt the president just say, Release the whistleblower complaint. Clearly hes afraid for the public to see, this would be the most profound violation of the presidential oath of office, certainly during this presidency, which says a lot, but perhaps during any presidency. There is no privilege that covers corruption. There is no privilege to engage in underhanded discussions.
I don't know whether the White House is directly involved, because we can't get an answer to that question, but we do know that they are making some claim that a privilege may apply.
I hope that the director of national intelligence will reconsider because it's my understanding that by law he can provide this to us and by law he's required to provide this to us.
These losses of leadership, coupled with a President determined to weed out anyone who may dare disagree, represent one of the most challenging moments for the Intelligence Community, it will be up to the Congress to ensure that Intelligence Community continues to provide independent analysis and judgement to policy makers, and always speak truth to power.
Impeachment might not be a great idea.
Most Americans in their busy lives haven't had the opportunity to read that report, and it is a pretty dry, prosecutorial work product. We want Bob Mueller to bring it to life... It's a pretty damning set of facts.
While I understand Robert Mueller reluctance to answer hypotheticals or deviate from the carefully worded conclusions Robert Mueller drew on Robert Mueller charging decisions, there are, nevertheless, a great many questions Robert Mueller can answer that go beyond the report, including any counterintelligence issues and classified matters that were not addressed in Robert Mueller findings.
I don't think a two-year investigation of this magnitude, followed by a written report and a 10-minute statement without questions, satisfactorily answers the many, many questions we have about the investigation.
We speed toward the 2020 elections in an environment in which there are new technologies like deepfakes that are potentially hugely disruptive, and even less attributable than a hacking and dumping operation, and we are not nearly as prepared as we should be.
The problem is that we are struggling, even in the midst of this solid evidence, to persuade our allies to join us in any kind of a response and it shows just how isolated the United States has become.
It is increasingly difficult for the public to determine what is true.
While President Donald J. Trump stonewalls the public from learning the truth about President Donald J. Trump obstruction of justice, President Donald J. Trump and William Barr conspire to weaponize law enforcement and classified information against their political enemies, the coverup has entered a new and dangerous phase. This is un-American.
They want to see our democracy survive.
If the only way that we can do our oversight is through an impeachment proceeding, then maybe we have to go down that road.
But I think it'll be important to show the American people, this was a decision made reluctantly, this was a decision forced upon us, rather than something we were eager to embrace.
But he (Trump) may get us there, he certainly seems to be trying and maybe this is his perverse way of dividing us more ... he thinks that's to his political advantage, but it's certainly not to the country's advantage.
Look, I think if you fine someone $25,000 a day to their person until they comply, it gets their attention. ...I don't know how many are going to want to take that risk for Donald Trump.
John Bolton's views on Iran are well known, if President Trump does not wish to stumble into a new and devastating military conflict, I hope that President Trump will listen to the counsel of other advisers and seek to reduce tensions.
House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff, D-Calif., arrives for a Democratic Caucus meeting in Washington back in March. Adam Schiff, the focus of Republicans' post-Mueller ire, says Mueller's conclusion would not affect his own committee's counterintelligence probes. ( AP Photo/J. Scott Applewhite) As both the special counsel and the Department of Justice have recognized, the Congress has a vital constitutional role in evaluating misconduct by the executive branch, including the president, and to assess and refine laws that address the sweeping and systematic invasion of our democracy by Russia, we therefore need these materials in order to do our job.
You might say that's all OK. You might say that's just what you need to do to win, but I don't think it's OK. I think it's immoral, I think it's unethical, I think it's unpatriotic, and yes, I think it's corrupt, and evidence of collusion.
What the Barr letter says is Mueller could not establish a criminal conspiracy. ... It doesn't meant there's not evidence. There is, i think these interactions with the Russians that I enumerated earlier are evidence of... collusion. But that whether that amounts to proof beyond a reasonable doubt of a crime, the crime of conspiracy, I've always said is a different question.
From the public, you might think its okay that there was only disappointment after that meeting [at the Trump Tower] was that the dirt they received on Hillary Clinton wasnt better, you might think thats okay. I think its immoral. I think its unethical. I think its unpatriotic. And yes, I think its corrupt and evidence of collusion.
If they are not answered, we are going to have to answer them.
An electorate that is being acclimated to the idea that we're all entitled to different truths, that makes our democracy very vulnerable.
Today's decision underscores the need for Congress to make this reporting mandatory, something I intend to pursue through the Intelligence Authorization Act this year.
That was a deal that stood to make him more money than any other deal in his life and it was a deal where he was pursuing help from the Kremlin, from (Russian President Vladimir) Putin himself, at a time when Putin was seeking relief from sanctions.
This is, I think, the result of a president who is not prepared for these kind of negotiations, a staff that is not well-prepared and that is essentially flying by the seat of its pants, and it has real-world consequences, those reactors continue to spin on, producing more material that can threaten us and our allies.
Those reactors continue to spin on, producing more material that can threaten us and our allies.
I think we all feel it was a very productive interview today where he was able to shed light on a lot of issues that are very important to our investigation. We were able to drill down in great detail.
President Trump's decision to walk away from the summit with North Korea without an agreement was preferable to making a bad deal.
The algorithms which power social media platforms as well as Amazon's recommendations are not designed to distinguish quality information from misinformation or misleading information, and as a result harmful anti-vaccine messages have been able to thrive and spread, every online platform, including Amazon, must act responsibly and ensure that they do not contribute to this growing public health catastrophe.
Did they go beyond what National Enquirer publisher David Pecker told us about Trump Tower into other areas as well ? who would have been aware of the false testimony that National Enquirer publisher David Pecker was giving ? What other light can National Enquirer publisher David Pecker shed now that National Enquirer publisher David Pecker's cooperating on issues of obstruction of justice or collusion ? What more could National Enquirer publisher David Pecker tell us about the Trump Tower New York meeting or any other issues relevant to Robert Mueller investigation. We think National Enquirer publisher David Pecker has a lot to offer.
I think that's a good division of labor which will allow the public to get information about the President's conduct, but will also ensure that we can get complete answers to our questions in Senate Intelligence Committee and that we also respect the equities of the Justice Department and our own investigative needs.
We will obviously subpoena the report.
We have a long tradition of hiring out of the intelligence community, out of the National Security Council, and if the president is worried about our hiring any former administration people maybe he should work on being a better employer.
Our job involves making sure that the policy of the United States is being driven by the national interest - not by any financial entanglement, financial leverage or other form of compromise.
Congress has a duty to expose foreign interference, hold Russia to account, ensure that U.S. officials - including the President - are serving the national interest and, if not, are held accountable.
We wanted to get the phone records to determine, was Donald Trump talking to his son about this meeting, it's an obvious investigative step, but one North Carolina Republican were unwilling to take because they were afraid of where the evidence might lead.
Transparency continues to be the most effective tool in combating the malign behavior of foreign adversaries who intend to mislead and divide the American public through social media, ..., Facebooks takedown of Iran-linked malign influence pages and accounts is further evidence that such deceptive campaigns are worldwide in ambition. This requires a level of vigilance about disinformation operations that we could not have predicted only a few years ago.
These attacks on Mr. Cohen's family must stop.
They are very detailed and I think he's going to need a much better defense than the one you just heard.
We are determined the public is going to know exactly what Donald Trump did, what his family did, what his campaign did, what the Russians did and what we need to do to protect the country.
Now, there may be parts of the report that have to be redacted because they involved classified information or they involve grand jury material.
For the last two years, I have been warning the Justice Department, as The Trump lawyers have been turning over tens of thousands, hundreds of thousands of pages of investigative files in Hillary Clinton e-mail investigation, that whatever precedent The Trump lawyers were going to set, The Trump lawyers were going to have to live by.
It will be incumbent upon Congress to maintain pressure on the Treasury to explain its reversal of course and why Deripaska or his companies are suddenly deserving of this relief.
That's a non-starter and I think what The President needs to do more than anything else as The President's painted The President into a corner on this thing is figure out how to un-paint The President into a corner. We need to re-open the government.
If Harry Truman couldn't nationalize the steel industry during wartime, this President doesn't have the power to declare an emergency and build a multibillion-dollar wall on the border. So, that's a nonstarter.
Look, if Harry Truman couldn't nationalize the steel industry during wartime, this President doesn't have the power to declare an emergency and build a multibillion dollar wall on the border, so that's a non-starter.
We just can't afford to do business that way.
We are very eager to have him come and testify.
If Mr. Cohen misled the Congress about the President's business dealings in Russia deep into the campaign, it also means that the President misled the country about his business dealings, and that the Russians were apparently attempting to gain financial leverage over the potential President of the United States.
This is not transparency, only a further subterfuge.
These documents affirm that our nation faced a profound counterintelligence threat prior to the 2016 election, and the Department of Justice and The FBI took appropriate steps to investigate whether any U.S. persons were acting as an agent of a foreign power.
They won't even agree to pay for any investigation that is not of the investigators themselves, that's the only thing they're willing to investigate.
They have been leading the charge basically to require the Justice Department to give them materials that can be leaked or fed or misrepresented, like the infamous Nunes memorandum, in the service of the president, and in the meantime, they do enormous damage to these institutions. Ultimately, they will be held accountable.
One trip and it's' mission accomplished,' Mr. President ? North Korea still has all North Korea nuclear missiles, and we only got a vague promise of future denuclearization from a regime that can't be trusted.
Mr. President? North Korea still has all its nuclear missiles, and we only got a vague promise of future denuclearization from a regime that can't be trusted.
Nothing we heard today has changed our view that there is no evidence to support any allegation that the FBI or any intelligence agency placed a spy in the Trump campaign.
We need to consider that the military challenge is part of a larger national strategy by China to project its power and to secure its national interests by whatever means necessary.
I've expressed my concerns to them with prior requests that( House Republicans) are going to keep asking until they get' no' for an answer because they just want to have a fight with the Justice Department, the Justice Department is going to be in a no-win situation.
The legal problem for the president is telling false statements about this is evidence of a consciousness of guilt, seemed abundantly clear he was denying knowledge of this payment, both past and present. Why would he be doing that unless he was aware that what he had done was wrong, what he had done was a violation of campaign law?
Clearly, there's an expectation there on the Russian side that they may now have success with the Magnitsky Act, given that the prior meeting and communications dealt with the offer of help, it certainly seems like the Russians were ready for payback.
As I understand it, this particular conversation for which they were claiming privilege took place after the emails became public, and, was therefore focused more on the reaction to the publication of the emails.
The Republicans haven't stopped the investigation, it's just the Russia piece they don't want to do anymore.
I can only conclude that he views his mission as protecting the President.
What bothered them was that we were exposing their malfeasance.
They are now doing a complete about-face and have flip-flopped on this.
All of that bares the issue of collusion, and of course, one of the most important parts of an investigation is putting the pieces together.
And of course, one of the most important parts of an investigation is putting the pieces together.
Our work goes on, nonetheless.
The FBI had ample reason to believe that Carter Page was acting as an agent of a foreign power based on Carter Page history, including the fact that Carter Page had previously been a target of Russian recruitment, Carter Page travel to Russia, and other information, the renewals of FISA were also appropriate and based on new information obtained by law enforcement.
The president decided the public deserved to see the Nunes memo before he ’d even read it, so he ought to be similarly eager for the American people to see this memo. Given the Adam Schiff memo is based on the same underlying documents as the Republican’s partisan memo, there should be no question as to whether or not the president will approve the new memo’s release. If Adam Schiff refuses, the American people will be forced to wonder : what is the president trying to hide ?
There was a bias, but the evidence was so overwhelming, the application was granted anyway.
With this latest gambit, however, the Majority seeks to selectively and misleadingly characterize classified information in an effort to protect the President at any cost.
Regrettably, it has been necessary for Democrats to draft our own memorandum, setting out the relevant facts and exposing the misleading character of the Republicans ’ document so that members of the House are not left with an erroneous impression of the dedicated professionals at the FBI and DOJ.
In light of the selective leaks of Mr. Simpson’s testimony and misleading manner in which Fusion GPS’ role has been characterized, I support releasing the transcript.
It appears Republicans want to conduct just enough interviews to give the impression of a serious investigation.
I think there's a hope that if they can impeach Christopher Steele, and they can impeach the FBI and DOJ, maybe they can impeach the whole Russia investigation.
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.
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 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 to the director's firing.
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.
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.'.
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.
Whenever they see the President use the word 'fake,' it ought to set off alarm bells.
If that was designed to hide the origin of the materials, that raises profound questions about just what the White House is doing that need to be answered, i have asked the White House for their assistance in answering those questions.
We're doing our best to try and get the investigation back on track, we're in the process of exchanging witness lists and are going to see if by the end of the day we can agree on at least a common set of initial witnesses.
Ultimately the speaker and the chair decide who they want to run this investigation and they'll have to articulate why and how they feel that can be done credibly, but our job is to do everything in our power to be responsible to go forward and be constructive and that's what we're doing.
I think that we certainly had agreement today that the witnesses that we feel are appropriate, they won't stand in our way, and we feel the same way about witnesses they want to call, so I think that was an encouraging sign.
It certainly was a part of our discussion, but beyond what we agreed to do, or hope to achieve to do by the end of the day, I really don't want to get into specifics.
We are scheduled to talk tomorrow, i hope that we can somehow get back on track. ... The chairman is going to have to find a way to lift this cloud.
I can only conclude that it really doesn't show what it's being purported to show.
I can't overlook if the chairman of our committee is going to freelance in this way.
You'd have to go back to Watergate to find something truly analogous, and we need to find away to bring back that bipartisan ethic and commitment to this investigation.
We certainly welcome the director to come back, but not in lieu of a public hearing.
Whether the White House's desire to avoid a public claim of executive privilege to keep her from providing the full truth on what happened contributed to the decision to cancel today's hearing, we do not know, but we would urge that the open hearing be rescheduled without further delay and that Ms. Yates be permitted to testify freely and openly.
We've reached the point, after the events of this week, where it would be very difficult to maintain the credibility of the investigation if the chairman did not recuse himself from matters involving either the Trump campaign or the Trump transition team of which he was a member, the questions are profound enough that I think we need to move past it, and ideally that would mean the chairman ought to recuse himself, not only from the investigation involving potential coordination or collusion between the Trump campaign and the Russians, but also any oversight of minimization issues affecting the Trump transition since he was a member of that Trump transition team.
The questions are profound enough that I think we need to move past it, and ideally that would mean the chairman ought to recuse himself, not only from the investigation involving potential coordination or collusion between the Trump campaign and the Russians, but also any oversight of minimization issues affecting the Trump transition since he was a member of that Trump transition team.
After much consideration, and in light of the Chairman's admission that he met with his source of information at the White House, I believe that the Chairman should recuse himself from any further involvement in the Russia investigation, as well as any involvement in oversight of matters pertaining to any incidental collection of the Trump transition, as he was also a key member of the transition team.
This is not a recommendation I make lightly, as the chairman and I have worked together well for several years; and I take this step with the knowledge of the solemn responsibility we have on the Intelligence Committee to provide oversight on all intelligence matters, not just to conduct the investigation.
Democrats feel that if we're not engaged in this investigation, no one will be, there are some, I'm sure in this building, who would like nothing more than this investigation to go away.
We still really want this investigation to be non-partisan, and what the chairman did this week makes that very hard.
We continue to get new information that, I think, paints a more complete picture of at least what we know at the outset of our investigation.
If we are listening to two foreign spies, for example, talking to each other on foreign soil or two representatives of a foreign government, and they mention a US person -- that is incidental collection.
I would certainly like to have Flynn come in, but I haven't talked to the chairman about dates or witness order or any of those issues yet.
The unclassified intelligence assessment doesn't discuss the issue of US person coordination with the Russians, and I assume that's because, at the time of the report in January of this year, that was under an investigation that you have now disclosed, is that right?
Then, later in August, Stone does something truly remarkable, when he predicts that John Podesta's personal emails will soon be published. 'Trust me, it will soon be Podesta's time in the barrel. #Crooked Hillary,'.
Is it possible that all of these events and reports are completely unrelated. ... Yes, it is possible, it is also possible, maybe more than possible, that they are not coincidental, not disconnected and not unrelated and that the Russians used the same techniques to corrupt US persons that they employed in Europe and elsewhere. We simply don't know, not yet, and we owe it to the country to find out.
Many of Trump's campaign personnel, including the President himself, have ties to Russia and Russian interests. This is, of course, no crime.
There is direct evidence, I think, of deception and that’s where we begin the investigation.
The wrecking ball it created now has banged into our British allies and our German allies, it's continuing to grow in terms of damage, and he needs to put an end to this, now maybe this is the way he conducted his real estate business, with half-truths and sometimes no-truths and a lot of bluster. That, in my opinion, is no way to run a business. But it's an even worse way to run a country.
At the outset of the investigation, there was circumstantial evidence of collusion. There was direct evidence, I think, of deception, and that's where we begin the investigation.
And that's where we begin the investigation.
It's one thing if the President has a detailed and thoughtful conversation with the intelligence community about what to declassify, what to release to the public, but if, on the other hand, this was simply the President looking for an opportunity to attack his predecessor, and giving little thought to the consequences of what he might be disclosing, that is a big problem.
This is not something that should be done off-the-cuff by the President of the United States just looking for a cheap shot at his predecessor.
It concerns me greatly that this President, after criticizing so many others about leaking potentially classified information should be discussing things that may very well be classified in such a cavalier fashion.
We're going to be able to ask the director of the FBI … is there any truth of this? Have they seen any evidence of this? and I think on March 20, if not before, we'll be able to put this to rest.
If we don't confront him on this, you can expect he's going to make other equally false claims in the future and this is not only hurting him but it's hurting the presidency, it's hurting our credibility around the world.
I think what Sean Spicer and the President wanted was to take this spurious claim and try to bury it in a closed hearing in the intelligence committee. We're not going to allow that to happen. We're going to air this very publicly.
The President has asked our committee to investigate this, mr. President, we accept.
We know that country of origin is a poor predictor of a propensity to commit acts of terror. If it were, Pakistan has been a far more problematic source of attack planning and would be at the top of the President's list, but that country merits not even a mention in the order.
If they say they are going to conduct this investigation by the book, I believe that's what's going to happen.
I think both of them wish their airplanes had never come anywhere near each other.
Whether this attack was also ISIS-directed, remains to be determined. I ’m confident that we will know much more in the coming hours and days.
At this point, we still can't corroborate the theory that terrorism brought it down or there was some structural problem with the plane, certainly, the backdrop is suggestive of terrorism in the sense that we have the Russian plane in Sharm el-Sheikh and we have the aspiration we've seen time and time again, not only of ISIL( Islamic State) now but of AQAP( al Qaeda), still very potent and still very determined to bring down aircraft.
If terrorism was indeed the cause, it would reveal a whole new level of vulnerability to aircraft – not only from those flights originating in the Middle East, but to those departing from the heart of Europe and with, at least in theory, far better airport defenses.
The consensus of Syria experts is that the civil war cannot end so long as Bashar al-Assad remains in power, now, with his protector leaving, Assad may have to be more amenable to a phasing out of his rule.
Addressing the use of social media by terrorists will require a sustained and cooperative effort between the technology sector, the Intelligence Community, and law enforcement.
It's important to remember that none of these emails had any classification markings at the time they were sent, and Secretary Clinton and her staff were responding to world events in real time without the benefit of months of analysis after the fact.
Well, this was in the context of do we go after [Syrian President Bashar] Assad or do we go after ISIS; can we do both? And her answer was basically we need to do both, and now for the first time we have a political process at the United Nations that ought to bring an end to both.
If someone is brought in for an interview, for example, and is asked about their views on things, but as posted things that are completely contrary to the interview, frankly, I have much more faith in what they posted than what they say in the course of an interview.
There are things that may have alerted law enforcement to an issue with Farook, but I don’t know that we know enough to say that these were apparent without the advantage of hindsight.
I think [FBI Director James Comey] stated publicly in the past that there have been contacts with people of interest to the bureau but not to read too much into that.
I … think that ISIS may have concluded that the best way to defeat airport defenses is not to go through them, but to go around them with the help of somebody on the inside, and if that's the case, I think there are probably at least a dozen airports in the region and beyond that are vulnerable to the same kind of approach, which is exactly why we have to harden those defenses.
I continue to believe that we must not commit ground combat forces to the fight in Syria or Iraq.
We don't know what we're looking for, we can't put an end date on it because we don't know what this committee is supposed to look for. Apart from damaging Hillary Clinton, it has no reason for existence.
We know that these radical Islamic groups like al Qaeda and ISIS would love to get their hands on radioactive materials to fashion some sort of bomb, we've had a number of scenarios since the collapse of the Soviet Union where there have been sales or purported sales.
Should they get this material and go to Times Square or the financial district, they could render these areas uninhabitable for some time.
They don't trust her because what they found out about the server and everything else, would you ever have found that out had you not gathered the information from Benghazi Select Committee?
The agency advised those affected to monitor their bank accounts for unusual activity, and to request a credit report along with other safeguards against fraud. The Associated Press, which first reported the breach, cited officials saying that the breach could potentially affect every federal agency. One key question is whether intelligence agency employee information was stolen. This is an attack against the nation, said Ken Ammon, chief strategy officer of software security company Xceedium, who added that the stolen information could be used to impersonate or blackmail federal employees with access to sensitive information. The FBI said in a statement that The FBI was working with interagency partners to investigate the breach, while the DHS said it was continuing to monitor federal networks for suspicious activity and is working aggressively to investigate the extent of the breach. Responding to news of the breach, Congressman Adam Schiff, D-Calif., called on Senate Intelligence Committee to pass cybersecurity legislation passed by the House earlier in the year. This bill will not be a panacea for the broad cyber threats we face, but it is one important piece of armor in our defenses that must be put in place – now.
I don’t think we’re winning, but I would n’t say we’re losing either.
I don't think it signals a wholsesale effort to mount lots of special operations efforts like we had in Afghanistan and Iraq.
The risks go up the more you conduct these kinds of operations, the more you see the potential of being pulled in.
The longer we go into this conflict without a resolution, the more members become comfortable with the status quo and failure to act ... that would be an appalling result.
I'm very skeptical about our ability to rewrite the 2001 authorization after we go through a debate on the ISIL operation, i'm not sure we have the appetite to go through another round.
It is my hope that the administration will be willing to accept important limits in a new authorization as well as the sunset or repeal of the old [ authorizations ], as this will be necessary to ensure strong bipartisan support and meet the goals the president set last summer of refining and repealing the prior authorizations.
Now, after learning that we have been excluded from parts of the investigation, and that the majority has held secret interviews with key witnesses and withheld information. I fear this skepticism may have been all too justified.
The sectarian dynamic is likely to become far more problematic, and we learned in Iraq, that's a recipe for disaster.
It's tough though, particularly when we don't have great intelligence in places like Syria to identify what's happened to Americans who have gone overseas to fight, very opaque and difficult to track. That problem is magnified a hundred times in Europe, where people can travel freely with a passport.
I think you end up funding other hostage taking and the cycle just perpetuates itself, so I think our decision is the right one, rather, try to rescue our hostages than pay ransoms, and, of course, prospectively trying to keep our people out of harm's way. I think that is really the right policy, as painful as it is, and as enormously agonizing as it is for the families of these hostages.
Quote of the Day Today's Quote | Archive
Would you like us to send you a FREE inspiring quote delivered to your inbox daily?
Use the citation below to add this author page to your bibliography:
"Adam Schiff Quotes." Quotes.net. STANDS4 LLC, 2023. Web. 30 May 2023. <https://www.quotes.net/authors/Adam+Schiff+Quotes>.
Share your thoughts on Adam Schiff's quotes with the community:
We're doing our best to make sure our content is useful, accurate and safe.
If by any chance you spot an inappropriate comment while navigating through our website please use this form to let us know, and we'll take care of it shortly.
You need to be logged in to favorite.