Oh, the irony!
U.S. Rep. Adam Schiff, D-Calif., was so busy expressing his indignation over the House Intelligence Committee disclosing classified information in releasing the FISA memo that he apparently didn’t realize he was disclosing classified information.
Of course, the Democratic lawmaker’s concerns about the memo proved to be a lot of hot air, but Schiff’s own actions appear to be an entirely different story.
Harvard lawyer debunks Dem claims about FISA memo: ‘I don’t see it… in 50 years of doing these kinds of cases’ https://t.co/eyIcbqeLom pic.twitter.com/BIiq8XsNUJ
— Conservative News (@BIZPACReview) February 4, 2018
In a press release refuting parts of the memo, Schiff cited still-classified Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court filings, the Washington Examiner reported.
“The Majority suggests that the FBI failed to alert the court as to Mr. [Christopher] Steele’s potential political motivations or the political motivations of those who hired him, but this is not accurate,” Schiff said in the release. “The GOP memo also claims that a Yahoo News article was used to corroborate Steele, but this is not at all why the article was referenced.”
Steven Aftergood, director of the government secrecy project at the Federation of American Scientists, told the newspaper it’s possible those refutations revealed classified information.
In addition to the press release, Schiff “took multiple reporters by the hand and offered his insight” into the memo’s allegations against Justice Department and FBI officials, Law & Crime reported.
He again noted that the memo’s assertion of Steele‘s political motivations were “not accurate.”
“But in the performance of Schiff’s schtick – protecting the nation’s largely unaccountable intelligence agencies from any sort of oversight – Schiff may have released classified information himself,” wrote Colin Kalmbacher.
He noted that when Rep. Schiff told reporters Steele’s “likely political motivation” was revealed to the FISA Court, the ranking member of the House Intelligence committee may have “revealed distinct information, potentially classified information.”
There’s lots of debate among the experts over the gray-ness of the potential violation, so don’t expect prosecution any time soon
DONATE TO BIZPAC REVIEW
Please help us! If you are fed up with letting radical big tech execs, phony fact-checkers, tyrannical liberals and a lying mainstream media have unprecedented power over your news please consider making a donation to BPR to help us fight them. Now is the time. Truth has never been more critical!
Tom@bizpacreview.com
The longest-tenured writer at BizPac Review, Tom grew up in Maryland before moving to Central Florida as a young teen. It is in the Sunshine State that he honed both his passion for politics and his writing skills.
Comment
We have no tolerance for comments containing violence, racism, profanity, vulgarity, doxing, or discourteous behavior. If a comment is spam, instead of replying to it please click the ∨ icon below and to the right of that comment. Thank you for partnering with us to maintain fruitful conversation.
