Gang of 8 uproar is overheated rhetoric

Click here to view original web page at

I know it’s hard to believe but Adam Schiff is upset with who attended Thursday’s Gang of 8 meeting on Capitol Hill. Schiff released a statement saying “Emmet Flood’s presence and statement at the outset of both meetings today was completely inappropriate. Although he did not participate in the meetings which followed, as the White House’s attorney handling the Special Counsel’s investigation, his involvement — in any capacity — was entirely improper, and I made this clear to him.”

What’s understated is the fact that Flood made “brief remarks before the meetings started to relay the President’s desire for as much openness as possible under the law.” The White House statement also said “They also conveyed the President’s understanding of the need to protect human intelligence services and the importance of communication between the branches of government.” Schiff confirmed that by saying that Flood “did not participate in the meetings which followed.”

If President Trump’s lawyer didn’t participate in the substantive part of either meeting, what’s the big deal? It isn’t like Flood was handed confidential information by Trey Gowdy or Devin Nunes.

After the meeting, Schiff said, “Today’s Gang of 8 briefing was conducted to ensure protection of sources and methods. Nothing we heard today has changed our view that there is no evidence to support any allegation that the FBI or any intelligence agency placed a spy in the Trump campaign or other wise to failed follow appropriate procedures and protocols.”

That statement’s got a ton of weasel words in it. An informant isn’t the same thing as a spy. Second, Schiff didn’t say that the FBI didn’t use the informant to gather information about the campaign. They don’t have to plant someone inside the campaign to gather lots of information. Third, Schiff left open the possibility that they could’ve used an informant to gather information while following “appropriate procedures and protocols.”