The ranking member of the House Intelligence Committee said Thursday that it was “hard to overstate the significance” of fired FBI Director James Comey’s testimony to the Senate Intelligence Committee.
Rep. Adam Schiff (D-CA), whose committee is leading its own investigation into Russian election meddling, wrote in a statement responding to Comey’s testimony that it “constitutes evidence of an intention to interfere or potentially obstruct at least a portion of the Russia investigation, if not more.”
Read Schiff’s full statement below:
“Today, former FBI Director James Comey testified that the President of the United States demanded his loyalty, and directed him to drop a criminal investigation into his former National Security Advisor, Michael Flynn. Director Comey further testified that he believes President Trump ultimately fired him in order to alter the course of the FBI’s Russia investigation. It is difficult to overstate the significance of this testimony.
“These discussions and others took place in one-on-one telephone conversions and meetings initiated by the President, or after the President cleared the room of other people. Director Comey wrote memoranda about his conversations with President Trump because he was worried that the President and his Administration would misrepresent them.
“In my view, this testimony constitutes evidence of an intention to interfere or potentially obstruct at least a portion of the Russia investigation, if not more. It will be important for Congress to obtain evidence to corroborate this testimony — the memoranda, certainly, as well as any tapes, if they exist. We should also interview those around Director Comey at the time of these contacts, to get their contemporaneous impressions of his conversations with the President and to supplement his testimony. Finally, we cannot accept the refusal of Directors Rogers and Coats to answer questions about whether they were asked to intervene with Comey on the Flynn case or any related matter. Similarly, we will need to ask Director Pompeo the same questions. These additional steps are vital to determining the ultimate significance of the President’s actions.”
Unless you’re a GOP’er. Then you wonder why he was picking on Russia and Donnie.
Me? I’m just waiting for the inevitable leaks from the closed session with Comey. That’s where the truth is…
Right now Sen. Collins (how Maine can stand her I’ll never know) on Toadie Todd’s show says that Comey leaked a work product to trigger a special counsel that never should have happened on Comey’s part. Is she high on something, or what? Her description of it being a work product sounds almost exactly like what Trump’s lawyer is arguing…pure bullshit.
It was held in a SCIF so the chances of any leaks getting out would be easily identifiable from that perspective I would imagine. But I hope like you, it happens.
His testimony wasn’t good news for John McCave, that much is certain.
It is a bit stunning that the tactic is to smear Comey as a “leaker.” Amazing attempt at distraction/deflection; guess what, it ain’t gonna work.