Its closed session, going under way in just a little bit. Here on cspan3, we are going to take you live now to a briefing by the house Intelligence Ranking democrat, adam schiff, on an investigation that the committ committees involved. He just came to the podium. In association with the committee, who would share that information with the white house. The committee has still not received the intercepts or other information that the chairman was referring to. And, therefore, it is really impossible for us to evaluate any of the merits of what the chairman has said. But i can say this. The chairman will need to decide whether he is the chairman of an independent investigation into conduct which includes allegations of potential coordination between the Trump Campaign and the russians, or he is going to act as a surrogate of the white house. Because he cannot do both. And unfortunately, i think the actions of today throw great doubt into the ability of both the chairman and the committee to conduct the investigation the way it ought to be conducted. I have expressed these grave concerns with the chairman. I only learned about this the way that all of you did. When the chairman briefed the press in advance of briefing his own committee members. And that is a deep, deep problem. I think it does underscore the importance of establishing an independent commission, a body that is fully independent of any political considerations, including those that may emanate from the white house. That would certainly give me a lot of confidence that in addition to whatever work our committee does and the Senate Intelligence committee does, that there is truly an independent body that is looking into the grave issues that had been raised. Second, with respect to the intercepts themselves that the chairman referenced, those have not been provided to the committee for evaluation. But on the basis of what the chairman has said, and on the basis of my conversation with the chairman, i can say this. There is still no evidence that the president was wiretapped by his predecessor. President trumps claims that he was will remain as baseless today as they were yesterday. And they were the day before when the directors of the fbi and nsa testified that they were made without any basis in fact. If the incident today is an indication that after making the baseless claim, the president then aggravated the damage by implicating the british in a potential plot to have the british surveil him on behalf of president obama, and now is attempting to interfere in the congressional investigation, again, with the effort of trying to provide some substance to a claim without substance, then the damage, the wrecking ball of this allegation has just claimed another victim, that being our own committee. What i understand from the chairman is that he has reviewed intercepts of foreign intelligence. And what i understand from the chairman is theres no indication that that surveillance was anything but lawful. And what people need to understand about foreign intelligence gathering and incidental collection is, if we are listening to two foreign spies, for example, talking to each other on foreign soil, or two representatives of a foreign government, and they mention a u. S. Person, that is incidental collection. It doesnt necessarily mean theres a call from a Foreign Party to a u. S. Person. Even the mention of a u. S. Person is incidental collection. And that name would be masked. If there is a call with a u. S. Person, or person identities are involved at all, those names are masked. But there are proper procedures for unmasking a name. When it is necessary for the intelligence agencies to understand the significance of the intercept, and they cannot do that when the names are masked, you can properly unmask the name. The chairman has provided no evidence that any names that were unmasked were unmasked inproperly. Of course, without the ability for the committee to look at the intercepts, were not in a position to evaluate whether the procedures were followed or not followed. Moreover, as i understand from my conversation with the chairman, most of the names in the intercepts were in fact masked, and the chairmans concern was that he could still figure out the identities of some of the parties even though the names were masked. Well, that doesnt mean that the masking was improper. And so again, its impossible to evaluate whether theres any there of the intercepts without the committee able to look at them, thus, the chair has not provided this evidence to the committee. So this is deeply troubling along many levels. But among the most significant levels is, it really impedes our ability to do this investigation the way we should. Ive been part of investigations that were conducted properly. When the house Intelligence Committee investigated benghazi, and ive been part of investigation that is were not, such as the benghazi select committee. It was my hope that our investigation could be conducted properly. Its still my hope that this investigation should be conducted properly, but unfortunately the actions of the chair throw that very much in doubt. And i would be happy to respond to your questions. Yes . Two questions. One, what are the democrats next step . Are you planning to pull out of the investigation like you did in the benghazi query . And number two, did the chairman reveal any classified information by disclosures to the press today. We actually stayed on the benghazi select committee, though we knew from the outset that it was essentially going to be a political instrument to tear down secretary clintons numbers. And, of course, we will have to analyze what this development means. I do think that if there is any chance remaining for us to conduct this investigation, we need to do it. As i said earlier in the week, we could do a Tremendous Service to the country if were able to do a credible investigation. And at the end of the day, provide a report to the American People that has democrats and republicans on the same page. But if you have a chairman who is interacting with the white house, and sharing information with the white house when people around the white house are the subject of the investigation, and doing so before sharing it with the committee, it throws a profound doubt over whether that can be done credibly. Did chairman nunez reveal any classified information today . Well, its certainly inappropriate for us to be discussing whether specific people were the subject of collection, or incidental collection to any degree that can divulge who the targets of that surveillance may be. So im not prepared to say that what the chairman said was classified or unclassified. I can say that it is beyond a regular to receive any evidence thats within the scope of an investigation, and clearly if the chairman is right about the content here, its one of the scope of the issues were looking at whether procedures are being followed and things are being leaked. And i would say that the most profound concern here i have is that these actions simply raise enormous doubt about whether the committee can do its work. And i think that more than anything else ive seen, this makes the most profound case for the formation of an independent commission. But to follow up on this question, on monday we heard quite a bit about, from several committee members, about improper unmasking of individuals who were collected in warranted surveillance. What is the fundamental difference between what the chairman did today and what the complaints were on monday . First of all, with respect to what we were discussing on monday, we could actually discuss concrete things. We could you know, if there were a specific instance where there was an unmasking that we were concerned about, we could ask the questions about if, here we have no information about who was masked or who was unmasked. And indeed, based on what the chairman told me, the names were masked, apart from a single name which wasnt necessarily anyone connected with the trump organization. The concern the chair raised with me was that, the names that were masked, he believed were associated with the president or his associates. Did he unmask the president today . I dont know. You know, again, this is the problem. This is the precise problem, when the information is not shared with the committee itself. We will be seeking this information. We will be evaluating it, and once weve had a chance to review it, i will issue a statement about what i think it says and what i think it doesnt say. Here were operating on hearsay on hearsay. And this is simply not a way to conduct an investigation. Yes . On that point, had the committee been previously briefed about the intercepts in general, or had you had any background knowledge about these intercepts . You say you dont have these intercepts, but were you aware of these intercepts . Do members of the committee have information about those . Its impossible to know. Because we dont know what intercepts the chairman is referring to. So again, my assumption from what the chair said is that these are intercepts that we dont have. But he also said this doesnt relate to the russian investigation. So if it doesnt relate to the russian investigation, if they were lawfully conducted, and he said theres no reason to believe they werent, then we wouldnt have them as a part of the investigation. Now, we have made a request of the intelligence agencies for information about their masking procedures. If indeed its within the scope of our request, then its information we should be getting. And if thats true, and i think the chairman indicated he thought that the information hed received is within the scope of what weve asked for, then its a significant question that if this is within the information weve asked for, that the agencies are going to be delivering to us later this week, then why make the statement to the press before we have it. It just begs more questions, frankly, than it answers. Yes . Is there any reason to believe that the president or members of his family were people present in these documents . You know, again, you would have to ask the chairman. Because hes the only one on the committee that im aware of thats been able to see this. Has he expressed that to you . Did he say, i think these people are involved . I dont want to characterize precisely what the chair said. I think if you look at what he has said publicly, its not very clear, because hes used words like, may have been, or it might be, and how can we evaluate the strength of that information. We just cant. And again, this just underscores why this is not how you conduct an investigation. You dont take information that the committee hasnt seen and present it orally to the press and to the white house before the committee has a chance to vet whether its even significant. Kn[ inaudible ] . Im sorry . [ inaudible ] . You know, i have to say, i expressed my grave concerns about how this was handled. And im not sure that at this point were likely to get those kind of assurances. Certainly were going to have a much more lengthy discussion of this when we meet as a committee. But it casts quite a profound cloud over our ability to do our work. And i do think that the concern over russian intervention in our election is one that permeates the congress. And its a concern the democrats have, and its a concern that republicans have. And i have to think that most of the members of the house want a bipartisan investigation to be done. But this is not the way to do it. Yes . Did the chairman tell you how or where or in what way you were aware of the existence . Are you doing any more formal venturing in light of what happened . This is not a situation i think where you can pursue Something Like that. You know, we still have a very important job to do, even apart from this investigation. But right now, the country is counting on us, because in the house of representatives, were the only investigation there is. If we dont do it, no one is going to do it. Now, perhaps the white house would like it that way. But the American People, i think, want there to be a credible investigation. And if were not going to conduct it, then we need to have an independent commission do it. And if the chairman is going to continue to go to the white house rather than his own committee, theres no way we can conduct this investigation. Did he tell you how or where, or what led him to be able to do i dont have a lot of details on it. The most i think he was able to say is that it was shared with him alone. So it doesnt appear to have been even shared with the other members of the republican committee. So all of us are in the dark. And that makes what the chairman did today all the more extraordinary. Yes . Do you have any concerns about the way in which he got this information . You say he doesnt have the documents in his possession, but he knows where they are. Obviously, there are a lot of questions. If this came from people within the Intelligence Community, then youre looking at sort of a channel for a leak to the press, which raises a whole nother category of concerns. If this is part of the Intelligence Community, it ought to be shared with the Intelligence Community. Im not sure thats the source of it. And you said he also called the nsa and i think the fbi. Youd have to ask the chairman. Again, we have no idea where these documents came from, where they even show what they purport to show. But even if they do on the basis of what the chairman said, the underlying fact is still the same. Theres no evidence to support the president s contention that he was wiretapped by his predecessor. Im not sure of what the point of this extraordinary process is, and i have to hope that this is not part of a Broader Campaign by the white house aimed to deflect from the directors testimony earlier this week. But again, not having seen the documents, not having the chairman share those documents with either democrats or republicans on the committee, theres simply no way for us to evaluate. Do you have any idea of how many names were masked or unmasked . I have no idea. Dozens . Theres no way for us to know. Yes . It seems like the decision about an independent commission is in the hands of paul ryan. Have you talked to him about that . And do you have any plans to do so, if not . I certainly intend to do so. The request has been made by our minority leader, as well as the entire membership of the democratic membership of the house of representatives in the form of sponsorship of legislation by my swalwell and elijah cummings. Weve certainly made it clear for many weeks, that we ought to follow the model we did after 9 11 where we do an investigation through our Intelligence Committees, but we truly have an independent commission. There are two reasons why i think the commission now is more essential than ever. The first is that a commission would have a dedicated staff and resources focused solely on this issue. An investigation of this magnitude really justifies that kind of investment. But second, it takes it completely out of the political realm. Todays event shows why that is just so essential. A Commission Like the 9 11 commission wouldnt have one of its chairs go to the white house when it obtained new information. And we just cannot continue along that kind of a path. So i think more than anything else, todays events have underscored the imperative of an independent commission. Did he tell you yes . Did the chairman give you any indication why he decided to go to the white house before he came to you with any information . No. And thats a good question for the chairman. I certainly did express my concern that that is simply not the way to conduct a credible investigation. Thank you. Thats adam schiff, the ranks democrat on the house committee. Devon nunez to the white house today, after announcing to reporters about incidental not wiretapping, but eavesdropping of members of the trump Transition Team. This is the headline in bloomberg. Republican nunes tries to give cover on the wiretapping claim. The Intelligence Community collected multiple conversations involving members of trumps Transition Team during legal surveillance of foreign targets after he won the election last year. The president telling reporters that the white house later, quote, i somewhat do feel vindicated by the latest development. The intercepted communications were not captured through wiretaps. Congressman nunes this morning spoke to reporters, and well show that to you in just a moment, before he headed to the white house. But just to let you know about our coverage of the Senate Judiciary committee on this third day of the hearing for neil gorsuch for the supreme court. The committee itself has gone into a closed session. And they should be wrapping up about 6 00 eastern or so. A third round of questions anticipated at least by some senators. We will have live coverage here on cspan3 once they resume. In the meantime, lets show you that briefing by nunes this morning. This is at the Capitol Visitor Center on capitol hill before he went down to the white house to speak with president trump. Good morning. Or good afternoon, everyone. As promised, im going to continue toee