Questions for Adam Schiff


Since even Chris Hayes tonight wasn’t focused enough about this latest Trump “dossier” topic to be able to ask our local congressman enough pointed questions about what he might know as a member of the House Intelligence Committee, we will:

— Do our intelligence people have evidence of their own that the independent British dossier of note might be largely accurate? Could that be why a summary of it was included in the presidential briefing?

— We’ve been told that the Russians did not affect the election by hacking into any voting machines. But no one seems to have asked a related question. Is there any evidence that they tried?

Schiff of course can’t answer these questions. But how come no one is asking them?


In response to a question this morning from Andrea Mitchell about whether it was a mistake or not for the intelligence agencies to submit information about this Trump dossier in their official briefing because it was “unverified,” Schiff only said that that’s what they did, and so they obviously thought it was important for the President and Trump and Biden to know what was out there because it could be verified or not in the future.

It was obvious that Schiff was bemused at Mitchell’s presumption that this dossier information was not verified. She’s also previously referred to it (without good reason) as “disinformation,” which shows exactly where she’s coming from politically. Schiff wouldn’t answer her directly, but his smile gave it away. He knows.




Filed under Uncategorized

33 responses to “Questions for Adam Schiff

  1. Just Sayin' ...

    I was in line at the 99 cents store and I think I heard that Republican Bob Frutos was just endorsed by Democrat Adam SCHIFF. This might be a good time for Bob to stop calling him Adam SHIFT.

  2. Some additional questions for Adam Schiff here:

    • semichorus

      While we’re at it, here’s another one:

      If those surveillance tapes on Trump exist, do our own people have copies of them?

      Bet they do. And Schiff might know, or could find out.

      Our spy agencies are competent. So nothing would surprise me about what they’ve seen/received on Donald Trump. No wonder Trump lashes out at them.

      • Em

        Interesting that while Russia may or may not have become involved in the national election it has become proven fact that the Burbank Hospitality tax was misused to influence a Burbank ballot measure on the national election ballot. Frutos and Schiff have some explaining to do for sure.

        • Anonymous

          Frutos answered one question re the Hospitality Association’s donation: He had no prior knowledge of the donation. For the dense among you, he did not know it was going to happen before it happened. He said this after Rogers said the same thing: he did not know it was GOING to happen.

          Oh, and there is no “if” regarding the Russian’s intervention. The only question is how extensive it was.

          • semichorus

            I think he and Will and others helped to create an excited atmosphere of civic expedience about the issue. So in that sense they have some responsibility.

          • 91505

            And there is no ‘if’ when it comes to interference with our measure B election by the city with the misuse of taxpayer tunds.

            • Anonymous

              There is EVERY “if” regarding who did this thing. Thus far it is the BHA and the Yes campaign. None of whom are “the city”.

              • semichorus

                The city fathers inspired the anything goes philosophy.

              • WRONG. The City facilitates this entity and is DEEPLY involved with how it operates.

                1) City employees administer the public funds which are assessed by the city, both deposits and expenses.

                2) Patrick Prescott the Community Development Director of the City of Burbank is on the Board of the BHA and in the next few days you will hear how he basically runs the meetings. He wasn’t at the meeting where this illegal transfer was proposed but he is still culpable under the law as are ALL the other board members. You have to assume he knew about any expenditures soon after (if not before) and said nothing just as Will Rogers said nothing and didn’t report this. This would all be examined under a proper investigation and you can bet I am working to make this happen.

                3) The address for the BHA is City Admin building.

                4) As I stated, Patrick basically runs the meeting or at least gives significant advice throughout. So YES it is the city.

          • Even though wrongdoing has been established by the City Attorney the 4 pro-airport council members refuse to allow a disestablishment hearing. That’s their biggest failure and I’m not giving up on the issue. We have other courses of action ahead. This will last long through the February election.

  3. Anonymous

    I think Shiff should be investigating Fruitoes and not endorsing him, wasn’t Fruitoes one of the supporters of Measure B and on that note gained by the 50K donation that tried to influence the election illegally ? I believe that part of what the 50k did was pay to print the Fruitoes name on mailers.

    • Anonymous

      Sigh. Frutos had no prior knowledge of the donation. He did not know it was going to happen.

      • Gary

        IF Frutos had no knowledge then the question is why didn’t he. Frutos was running all around supporting what he called his airport deal, Frutos was proudly listed as a supporter and Frutos was a councilmember responsible for oversight of tax funds. Further Frutos was saying he was keeping his eye on the ball to make sure everything was on the up and up with the airport deal. Seems to me like trusting Frutos is not a good idea.

      • Norm

        Sigh Frutos is in the pocket of big development. Residents get lip service while developers get deals from Frutos.

      • Now that he knows what happened, he’s refusing to call those responsible to the podium. He’s protecting his airport pals Lucy Burghdorf, Sunder Ramani and of course Tom Flavin among others. When Bob talks about the BHA being a private non-profit he’s being intentionally deceptive. Later this weekend we’ll have something fun to report on the matter. This isn’t going away folks.

        • semichorus

          Good point. If he’d wanted an investigatory hearing on it he could have suggested one. He didn’t. Same with Rogers.

          The best venue for this would be a private party lawsuit. With extensive depositions. It’d be fun to watch all of the principals scurry around trying to hide the fact that this “donation” had been previously discussed (i.e., that there was an actual conspiracy to break the law in a rush job.)

      • Anonymous

        That may be so, but he had NOTHING to do with the $50k donation.

    • Not a Frutos Supporter

      Speaking of the 50K, this lady nailed it. Bravo!

      • 91505

        She did nail it and Frutos failed to monitor what is going on with the airport deal that HE supported. I agree these were intentional acts.

        • Anonymous

          Frutos was supposed to be EVERYWHERE? Watching over everything?

          Fatuous nonsense.

          • Anonymous

            Frutos was a major player in the airport deal. Frutos said he was keeping his eye on what was going on. Yes Frutos said he was watching what was going on so was that just one more lie from ly’n Bob ?

  4. Carol

    Maybe Russia made “Shift” endorse Bob Frutos

Leave a Reply- (comments take a while to appear)

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s