Something changed between Shiff's first interview on CNN and his interview on

[shraby]

MSNBC.
He hadn't seen what Nunes had leaked to Trump when he was on CNN, and when talking later he stated there was direct evidence of collusion.

Was what Nunes saw was the evidence of collusion and HAD to pass it on to trump and didn't trust anything but conveying the info in person?

Is the investigation by the alphabet soup going into full speed now that there is direct evidence? Are arrests going to be made soon?

Gots to go get some popcorn with extra butter.

[MFM008]

1. Scoot over

[Dem2]

2. "somewhat" vindicated

"I'm going to jail"

[Moostache]

6. Oh please be true....

Please be true!!!
Please be true!!!
Please be true!!!
Please be true!!!
Please be true!!!
Please be true!!!

[Horse with no Name]

3. He distinctly said he didn't see what Nunes saw

with that being said....I'm not sure what changed either.

[rzemanfl]

4. The rules. n/t

[Horse with no Name]

5. There is that. n/t

[Recursion]

7. Yup yup yup

"Actually, no, Chuck," Schiff said. "I can tell you that the case is more than that. And I can't go into the particulars, but there is more than circumstantial evidence now … I will say that there is evidence that is not circumstantial, and is very much worthy of investigation."

That's a Rubicon, that was just crossed. Things will speed up now.

[volstork]

11. Batten down the hatches!

The wind is whipping up into a hurricane!

[KittyWampus]

8. Sorry, you're wrong. I saw both and he has NOT seen what Nunes was speaking about. He then on MSNBC

referred to what his Committee has already seen.

He explained about Nunes- he has not seen what is being referred to and that it may be like "two Chinese businessmen under FBI surveillance talking and mentioning the name Donald Trump. Incidental and nothing to do with Russia.

He then went on to say that there is more than circumstantial evidence but wouldn't go any further.

So he did confirm there's direct evidence but that comment had nothing to do with what Nunes said or alleges to have seen.

[shraby]

9. My thinking is it had to do much with the reaction Nunes had to what he saw.

Did the alphabet soup pull a sting to bring more out in the open?

[Kablooie]

10. If Nunes delivered serious evidence to Trump without informing the Intelligence Committee...

wouldn't that be serious felony?
Interfering with a federal investigation?

[Norbert9]

14. Meh, what's a felony committed by a high ranking republican when Sessions is AG?

[wiggs]

12. The Nunes intelligence reports may or may not have been what Nunes and Trump talked about.

There doesn't seem to be much to them, based on his own words.

However, maybe he needed an excuse to see Trump and warn him of the DIRECT evidence that is maybe new. And maybe it couldn't be done with intermediaries because the intermediaries are implicated? Maybe Trump has to throw someone under the bus and Nunes didn't want them to know in advance?

There's a lot more here than meets the eye. Beyond irregular...and why?

[Norbert9]

13. Every time there is a reason to get my hopes up, I do

Please let it end ASAFP