Connect with us

Nation

Schiff Blocks Release Of Declassified Russia Probe Transcripts, Keeping Americans In The Dark

Published

on

adam schiff

The Chairman of the House Intelligence Committee Rep. Adam Schiff is keeping the truth from the American people. He doesn’t want anyone – beyond those in Congress and the Intelligence Community – to have access to the closed door transcripts of witnesses that have been already been declassified regarding the FBI’s Russia probe.

Frustration is mounting against Schiff, D-CA, and so is patience among those in the administration, Congressional lawmakers and intelligence community who believe the American people have a right to see for themselves the testimony given by 53 witnesses behind closed doors during Congressional investigations into the FBI’s questionable actions and malfeasance during its investigation.

Schiff obviously wants to control what people see in a desperate bid to keep the discredited Russia collusion narrative alive

There’s a reason Schiff is fighting back, despite the unanimous bipartisan vote to release the transcripts in the fall of 2018. Schiff doesn’t want you to know the truth. The truth will destroy his credibility and the deceitful disinformation campaign he worked so hard to spread against President Donald Trump and his administration for years. This is the major reason why he has fought so diligently against his own committee’s vote and why he has scrambled behind the scenes on Capitol Hill to keep the documents, which should have been made public within weeks or months of the vote, from every seeing the light of day.

Many sources in the administration, who are familiar with the process, have said the same.

“It’s really concerning Adam Schiff is negating the bipartisan vote to release these transcripts to the public,” said an administration official, with knowledge of the declassification process. “He’s even going against his own prior statements about transparency. Schiff obviously wants to control what people see in a desperate bid to keep the discredited Russia collusion narrative alive.”

Schiff’s narrative, which is already laden with holes, will completely fall apart if the transcripts of the 53 witnesses in the FBI’s ‘so-called’ Russia collusion probe go public. According to sources, 43 of the transcripts have already been declassified. Ranking Republican member Devin Nunes has pointed the finger at Schiff, saying he is acting as a blockade in preventing the release of the documents. Nunes, who was a guest on the Sara Carter Show last month, also stressed the importance of making public the secret testimony of former Intelligence Community Inspector General Michael Atkinson, in which he discussed his controversial handling of the so-called whistleblower complaint regarding Trump and Ukraine. Nunes said, like the transcripts regarding the Russia hoax, Schiff is fighting to keep Atkinson’s testimony secret. Nunes, along with other senior Republican lawmakers, have an ongoing investigation into Atkinson. Without sharing details, Nunes said Atkinson either lied to members of Congress or he needed to ‘seriously’ clarify his statements.

Some of the testimony being kept from the public includes former Director of National Intelligence James Clapper, longtime Trump friend Roger Stone, as well as former Clinton campaign chairman John Podesta. There’s also testimony of former FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe and Perkins Coie lawyers Michael Sussman, a former DOJ lawyer who passed along alleged details about Russian interference to former FBI general counsel James Baker. Moreover, there is Don Jr’s testimony, former White House aide Hope Hicks and Marc Elias, the chairman who was the Clinton campaign’s general counsel that hired the embattled research firm Fusion GPS to investigate the debunked theory that Trump conspired with Russia.

Those transcripts have been kept from the public by Schiff, D-CA, because it is damaging to their “impeachment scam,” said Nunes on the podcast.

But pressure is mounting and more and more against Schiff.

Last week, John Solomon with Just The News, published a letter Schiff sent in 2019 to then DNI Dan Coats.

The letter specifically ordered that the witness transcripts not be shared with President Trump, nor the White House lawyers. He made this clear, even if the declassification process required sharing, Solomon noted.

“Under no circumstances shall ODNI, or any other element of the Intelligence Community (IC), share any HPSCI transcripts with the White House, President Trump or any persons associated with the White House or the President,” Schiff wrote in a March 26, 2019 letter to then-Director of National Intelligence Dan Coats.

“Such transcripts remain the sole property of HPSCI, and were transmitted to ODNI for the limited purpose of enabling a classification review by IC elements and the Department of Justice,” Schiff added.

On Friday, a senior intelligence official told the The Washington Examiner that “Schiff is thwarting the will of the House Intelligence Committee as expressed in the bipartisan vote in September 2018 to make these transcripts public. He has appointed himself arbiter of what the public should see and has refused to allow the White House to review its own equities, making declassification of 10 of the transcripts impossible. It’s difficult to imagine any motive other than Schiff is still trying to control the narrative on Russia collusion.”

Schiff, on the other hand, is deflecting and instead has attempted to accuse acting Director of National Intelligence Richard Grenell of ‘undermining critical intelligence functions.’ Nothing could be further from the truth, as I recently reported.

Grenell is in the process of restructuring the DNI. It is something that should have happened years ago. Further, Grenell has been overseeing changes that have had consequences for U.S. national security after numerous classified leaks have found their way to the media after private briefings to congressional members.

Grenell argued in a recent letter to Sen. Mark Warner, D-VA, that leaks to the media after classified intelligence briefings with lawmakers on foreign election interference have presented serious concerns and mounting challenges for the intelligence community. Grenell noted that those leaks give “our adversaries unnecessary advantage during a critical time for our nation,” stated the letter which was first published by SaraACarter.com. 

In fact, it is presumed that Schiff has leaked significant information and even lied about that information to the media. He manipulates information that public can’t see for themselves.

On one side, he argues for having access to more classified information but on the other side he wants to keep information that’s already been declassified from the public. All you have to do is ask why?

For nearly four years the Democrats and former senior officials from the Obama administration have done everything in their power to create a narrative that has divided our country and destroyed lives. Those officials have tainted agencies like the FBI, CIA and other intelligence services by weaponizing the system against political opponents.

Schiff has played a significant role in aiding those officials, like former CIA Director John Brennan, former FBI Director James Comey and others to do so.

If Schiff has nothing to hide and nothing to worry about then he needs to move out of the way. If he does have something to hide, he will continue to fight to keep the American public in the dark.

Here’s my message to Schiff: If you want transparency Chairman let’s have it, release your blockade on the 53 transcripts and let the American people decide for themselves.

You may like

Continue Reading
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

Media

WSJ: Corporate Dirty Pool in Washington’s Senate Race

Published

on

GettyImages 1241869045 scaled

The Wall Street Journal’s,  Kimberly A. Strassel wrote a piece identifying how the Democrats are so worried about Washington Senator Patty Murray’s re-election “that Seattle’s corporate heavyweights are playing dirty pool on her behalf.”

Murray, a leftwing progressive, has faced little competition while in office; until now. Tiffany Smiley, a Republican nurse and entrepreneur “is pummeling Ms. Murray from every direction and laying out her own detailed reform agenda” adds the WSJ.

A RealClearPolitics average has Ms. Murray winning by 8 points. Another poll has Smiley within 2 points. Regardless, It’s close enough that “Majority Leader Chuck Schumer recently transferred $500,000 of his own campaign cash to Ms. Murray’s campaign.”

Money from Schumer isn’t the only liberal panic dough. “Starbucks, the Seattle Times and the Seattle Seahawks—are actively attempting to sabotage the Smiley campaign, albeit in a distinctly underhanded fashion” writes the WSJ. “Their targets are two effective Smiley campaign ads.”

At the center of the fight are two of Smiley’s ads: “Game Day” and “Cup of Coffee.”

Strassel reports:

In “Game Day” the Republican is in a kitchen preparing to watch a football game, hitting Ms. Murray and Democrats for the spiraling cost of food. In “Cup of Coffee,” she stands in front of a derelict building. Barely visible at the top, and seen backward, is the store’s faded Starbucks sign. Ms. Smiley hits Ms. Murray for rising crime, while the ad flashes two Seattle Times headlines, one of which reads: “Starbucks to Close 5 Seattle Stores Over Safety Concerns.”

“Game Day” hit the airwaves Sept 1. Five days later, according to documents I obtained, the Smiley campaign received a terse email from the Seahawks claiming a trademark violation. The ad briefly shows Ms. Smiley’s husband, Scotty—a retired U.S. Army Ranger who was blinded by shrapnel in Iraq—expressing alarm that “even beer” prices are rising. You only see his shoulders above a tall couch—and if you get a magnifying glass you might make out a letter or two from the word “Seahawks.” The letter insisted the Smiley campaign “immediately cease” its “unauthorized commercial use.” Nothing like your local sports franchise dumping cease-and-desist orders on wounded veterans.

“Cup of Coffee” went live on Sept. 20. The next day, the Seattle Times sent an email to the “Jane Smiley” campaign—apparently without running it past its fact-checking desk—accusing it of “unauthorized use of The Seattle Times logo and two headlines” in violation of the paper’s “copyright and trademark.” It demanded the campaign remove any references to the paper not only in its own ad, but in an NBC News article about the ad’s launch.

Two days later, Starbucks sent a certified letter saying the campaign was appropriating its intellectual property, and complaining it might “create an unfounded association in the minds of consumers between Starbucks and your campaign.” It insisted the campaign either pull the ad or alter it to strip both the (barely visible, backward) sign and the Seattle Times headline referencing Starbucks.

One such letter may be the product of an overzealous lawyer, but three in a row looks like more than a coincidence. One might even wonder if some Murray staffer was putting bugs in Seattle business leaders’ ears. And while corporate political-action committees routinely play politics by making donations, it’s something else for individual companies to go to bat for a candidate via behind-the-scenes threats based on tenuous legal claims. These letters were bound to cost the Smiley campaign money and headaches and might have pushed it off the airwaves.

The campaign didn’t roll over. It made a painless accommodation to the “Game Day” ad, blurring the jersey colors to obscure anything distinct. In a legal letter sent Thursday to Starbucks, the campaign rebutted the company’s infringement claims, running through political speech protections and noting that no reasonable person would ever think a factual ad about shuttered Starbucks stores amounted to a coffee-chain endorsement. It suggested Starbucks focus on its own problems, like its recent union woes.

The Seattle Times also received a letter refuting its claims, but it got something in addition. The Smiley campaign on Thursday filed a Federal Election Commission complaint, charging the paper with providing the Murray campaign a prohibited in-kind contribution. It turns out that Ms. Murray has also used a Seattle Times headline in her ads. Her “First 2016 Ad” sports the newspaper’s logo under the headline: “Patty Murray’s and Paul Ryan’s Teamwork Is a Model for Congress.” It seems the Times has a different legal standard for candidates it endorses.

As the FEC complaint notes, the Smiley campaign would have to spend an estimated $5,000 to remove and update the ad—“costs that Patty Murray does not have to accrue.” It cites FEC regulations that provide “if a corporation makes its resources available for free, it must do so for all candidates.”

Don’t expect the Seattle corporate set to do anything on behalf of Ms. Smiley soon. But it shouldn’t be too much to ask that they do their politicking straight—and out in the open.

You may like

Continue Reading
Advertisement

Trending Now

Advertisement

Trending

Proudly Made In America | © 2022 M3 Media Management, LLC