tv Adam Schiff Calls Devin Nunes Surveillance Revelations Concerning CSPAN March 23, 2017 9:11am-9:31am EDT
which comes through the pain of a. i would refer you to that because it looks very similar to that. that would be the last way i can describe it. i deal not -- [inaudible] >> i'm not getting into that, but i have every indication is clear to send this report. i have to get in and vote. thank you. >> we don't know that guy. we don't know who did that unmasking and who would've been disseminated to. [inaudible] >> i don't know, i would define that health care bills that probably don't have to talk for a while. talk to others. >> the lead democrat on the intelligence committee, adam schiff, reacting to statements by intel committee chair devin nunes. this is 20 minutes. >> erie times.
>> good evening. i want to make a few comments about the chairman statements today. first called them i think it's gravely concerning two members of the committee that the chairman would receive information that is pertinent to the scope of our investigation and instead of sharing the information with the committee, would share that information with the white house. the committee has still not received the intercepts or other information the chairman was referring to and therefore it is really impossible for us to evaluate any of the merits of what the chairman has said. but i can say this. the chairman will need to decide whether he is the chairman of an independent investigation into combat, which includes allegations of potential coordination between the charm campaign and the russian 30s going to act as a surrogate of the white house because they cannot do both.
unfortunately, the actions that today throw great doubt into the ability of both the chairman of the committee to conduct the investigation the way it ought to be conduct it. have expressed these concerns with the chairman. i only learned about this the way that all of you did when the chairman briefed the press and briefing his own committee members then that is a deep, deep problem. i think it does underscore the importance of establishing an independent commission. a body that is fully independent of any political considerations including those that may emanate from the white house. i was certainly gave me a lot of confidence that in addition to whatever worker committee does in the senate intelligence committee does that there's a truly independent body that is looking into the grave issues that have been raised. second, with respect to the
intercepts themselves that the chairman reference, those have not been provided to the committee for evaluation. based on what the chairman of said on the basis of my conversation with the chairman, i can say this. there are still no evidence that the president was wiretapped by his predecessor. president trump's claims that he will remain as useless today as they were yesterday and they were the day before but the direct is that the fbi and nsa made without any basis in fact. if the incident today is an indication that after making a baseless claim, the president aggregated the damage by implicating the british and a potential plot on behalf of president obama and now is attempting the investigation. with the effort of trying to
provide substance to the claim that may damage the wrecking ball and bat being their own committee. what i understand from the chairman as he has reviewed an ersatz of foreign intelligence. what i understand from the chairman is there is no indication that surveillance was anything but awful. what people need to understand about foreign intelligence gathering and incidental collection exists where the name to two foreign spies, for example, talking to each other on foreign soil or two representatives of a foreign government and they mention a u.s. person, that is incidental collection. it doesn't necessarily mean there's a call from a foreign party to a u.s. person. even the mention of u.s. person is incidental collection in the name of the mast. if there is a call with the u.s. person or u.s. person identities are involved at all, those names
are masked. but there are proper procedures for unmasking the name. the intelligence agencies understand the significance of the intercepts and they cannot do that. you can properly unmask the name. the chairman has provided no evidence that any names i mast grandmaster properly and of course about the ability to the committee to look at the intercepts, we are not in a position to evaluate whether procedures were followed or not file a period moreover, as i understand from my conversation with the chairman, most of the names in the intercepts were in fact massed in the chairman's concern was that he could still figure it out the identities of some parties even though the names are masked. that doesn't mean that the masking was improper. and so, again, it's impossible to evaluate whether they are sitting there in terms of the center says about the committee being able to look at them and thus far come and share has not provided evidence to the
committee. this is deeply troubling along many levels. but among the most significant levels is a brilliant piece or ability to do this investigation the way we should. i've been part of investigations conducted properly given the house intelligence committee investigated benghazi and i've been part of investigations that were not such as the bad guys the select committee. it is my hope that our investigation could be conduct it properly. it is still my hope that this investigation should be conducted properly and the actions of the chair or that very much in doubt and i'd be happy to respond to your questions. >> two questions. but the democrats next step here? you planning on pulling out of the investigation the way of the benghazi inquiry. the chair mending as -- did chairman devin nunes reveal any?
we stayed on the benghazi select committee, though we knew from the outset that it is essentially going to be a political instrument to tear down secretary clinton's numbers. we will have to analyze with the development means. i do think that if there is any chance remains for us to conduct this investigation, we need to do it. as i said earlier in the week, we could do a tremendous service to the country if we are able to a credible investigation and at the end of the day provide a report to the american people that if democrats and republicans on the same page. if you have a chairman who is interacting with the white house and sharing information in the white house and people around the white house or the subject of investigation and doing so before sharing up at the committee for is a profound doubt over whether that can be done credibly.
>> to the chairman reveal any classified information? >> well, it certainly -- and certainly inappropriate for us to be discussing whether specific people or the subject of collection or incidental collection to any degree that can double to the targets of that surveillance may be. so i'm not prepared to say that what the chairman said was classified or unclassified. i can say that it is beyond the regular chair receive any evidence in the scope of an investigation clearly at the chairman is right about the content here, it's been the scope of the issues we are lucky not about whether masking procedures are followed and things have been bleak. and i would -- i would say that the most profound concern here i
have is that these actions simply raise enormous doubt about whether the committee can do its work. i think that more than anything else i've seen, this makes the most profound case for the formation of independent commission. >> to follow-up on this question, on monday we heard quite a bit about committee members about improper unmasking of individuals collect in a more and surveillance. what is the fundamental difference between what the chairman did today and with the complaints were on monday? >> first of all, with respect to what we discuss on monday, we could discuss concrete things. if there was a specific ends, we can ask the questions about it. here we have no information of who was masked or unmasked. based on what the chairman told me, the names were masked apart
from a single name which wasn't necessarily anyone connected with the trump organization. the concern the chair raised me with the names that were masked, he believed were associated with the president to his associates. >> the unmask the president? >> i don't know. again, this is the problem. this is the precise problem when the information is not shared with the committee itself. we will be seeking this information. we will be evaluating it and once we it and once we got a chance to review it, i will issue a statement about but i think it says and what i think it doesn't say. here, we are operating here say on here is a mess is simply not a way to conduct an investigation. >> on that point can have the committee been briefed about intercepts in general or have you had any background knowledge about these intercepts? were you aware of these
intercepts? do members of the committee have information? >> it's impossible to know because we don't know what intercepts the chairman is referring to. again, my assumption from what the chair said is that these are intercepts that we don't have. but he also said this doesn't relate to the russian investigation. if it doesn't relate to the russian investigation, if they were lawfully conduct it and he said there's no reason to believe they weren't, we wouldn't have them as a part of the investigation. we have made a request of the intelligence agencies for information about their masking procedures. if indeed it's within the scope of a request comments information we should be getting. if that's true and i thank the chairman indicated he got the information he received is within the scope of what we've asked for, and if a significant
question that within the information we've asked for agencies will be delivering to us later this week, then why make this statement to the press before we have it? it begs more questions frankly than it answers. >> is there any reason to believe -- is there any reason to believe that members were present? >> again, you would have to have the chairman because he's the only one on the committee that i'm aware of that has been able to see this. [inaudible] >> i do want to characterize precisely what the chairs that end i think if you look at what he has said publicly, it is not very clear because he has used words like they have been or might be and how can we evaluate the strength of that information. we just can't. again, this underscores weight
is not how you conduct an investigation. you don't take information the committee hasn't seen and presented orally to the press and to the white house before the committee has a chance to back chance to back weather is even significant. >> the committee reported -- >> what assurance is [inaudible] >> well, i express my grave concern and i'm not sure that at this point we are likely to get those kind of assurances. certainly we are going to have a much more like a discussion on this when we meet as a committee. but it cost quite a profound cloud over our ability to do our work. and i do think that the concern over russian intervention in our election as the one that permeates the congress and its
concern that democrats have been concerned that republicans have. and i have to ink that most of the members of the house wants a bipartisan investigation to be done. but this is not the way to do it. i [inaudible] you criticize the chairman right now for a more formal -- [inaudible] in light of what happened. >> is not a situation where you can pursue something like that. you know, we still have a very important job to do even apart from this investigation. for right now, the country is counting on us because in the house of representatives, we are the only investigation there is. if we don't do it, no one is going to do it. perhaps the white house would like it that way. but the american people want
there to be a credible investigation. if we are not going to conduct it, we need to have an independent commission do it. if the chairman is going to continue to go to the white house rather than its own committee, there's no way we can conduct the investigation. >> did he tell you how or where -- was that to him? >> i don't have a lot of details on it. the most i think he was able to say is that it was shared with him about, so it doesn't appear to have been shared even with other republican members of this committee. so all of us are in the dark and that makes it the chairman did today all the more extraordinary. >> do you have any concerns about the way he got this information or where it came from? he said he doesn't have the document by no-space they are. >> obviously there's a lot of questions. if this came from people within the intelligence community, then
you are looking at sort of a channel for a leak to the press, which raises the whole another category of concerns. if this is within the intelligence community not to be shared with us by the intelligence community. i don't know if that is the source of it. i [inaudible] >> you would have to ask the chairman. again, we have no idea where these documents came from, whether they even show what they purport to show. even if they do on the basis of what the chairman said, the underlying fact is still the same. there is no evidence to support the president's contention that he was wiretapped by his predecessor. i am not sure what the point of this extraordinary process is and i have to hope that this is not part of a broader campaign by the white house and to deflect from the director's
testimony earlier this week. but again, not having seen the documents, not having the chairman share those documents that democrats or republicans on the committee, there's simply no way for us to evaluate. [inaudible] >> i have no idea. there's no way for us to know. >> it seems that the decision about independent commission is in the hands of paul ryan. have you talked to him about that and you have any plans to do so? >> is certainly intend to do so. the request has been made by our minority leader as well as the entire membership of the democratic membership of the house of representatives in the form of sponsorship, legislation by my colleague compared falwell and elijah cummings. we have certainly made it clear where many weeks that we have to follow the model we did after 9/11, where we do an investigation to our intelligence communities in
committees, but we also have a truly independent commission. there are two reasons why i think the commission now is more essential than ever. the first is a commission would have a dedicated research solely on this issue an investigation of this magnitude really justifies that kind of investment. the second, it takes it completely out of the political round and today's event show why that is sent so. the commission like the 9/11 commission wouldn't have one of its chairs go to the white house with new information and we just cannot continue along that kind of a pat. though i think more than anything else, today's events have underscored the imperative of an independent commission. >> to the chairman give you an indication of why he went to the
white house before he came to an information? >> know? >> now and that's a good question for the chairman. i certainly did express make an errand that is simply not only to connect a credible investigation. >> did he tell you when -- [inaudible] >> on this thursday morning, the u.s. senate about to begin their session. lawmakers expected to debate a resolution repealing an sec rule that limits personal data collection by internet providers. votes on this could happen later. live senate coverage here on c-span2. the chaplain: let us pray. lord, god evidence heaven and earth, today teach our lawmakers to do things your way embracing your