But what does that mean, exactly? We'll parse this out today, Chairman Schiff says.
Manafort giving polling data to Kilimnik }+ the sharing of campaign strategy etc.
Schiff: Mueller made no finding on collusion but the failure to establish conspiracy does not mean the absence of conspiracy
Opening remarks from witnesses coming up.
That Russia launched cyber attacks is unsurprising, he adds
If they're looking to obtain or pass information, they'll make sure there are numerous access points to do so.
That in itself is a great illustration of how the Russians work, she adds.
"Had he stayed with the campaign, I'm sure they would have continued to task him."
Tasking people, he agrees with Douglas, is the first step. It can take a few weeks to years, all depends on how they're going after a target.
OK. This statement by Ratcliffe isn't entirely honest.
In late April 2016, Mifsud told Papadopoulous, upon his return from Moscow, that the Russians had "dirt" on Clinton in the form of 1000s of emails.
Why would this raise flags? And what red flags would it raise, she asks.
"Validating, vetting people is a big deal. They will watch to see what information is given and given to the targeted individual."
Douglas: Pap said he was of no interest when he first met Mifsud, until he told him he was involved in the campaign.
Pap was an opportunity to establish a relationship for the future. He wasn't a heavy player in the campaign, and while it was very early on with his assignment, the Russians knew:
Sewell: Pap also met with the Russian Ministry of Foreign Affairs officials. What sort of risk does this pose?