Partly Cloudy
H 79° L 65°
  • clear-night
    Current Conditions
    Partly Cloudy. H 79° L 65°
  • cloudy-day
    Partly Cloudy. H 79° L 65°
  • cloudy-day
    Mostly Cloudy. H 79° L 65°

Morning show on-demand

00:00 | 00:00


Home team on-demand

00:00 | 00:00


The crossover on-demand

00:00 | 00:00

Adam Schiff’s opening statement: There is ‘direct evidence of deception' between Trump’s campaign and Russia

Adam Schiff’s opening statement: There is ‘direct evidence of deception' between Trump’s campaign and Russia

Photo Credit: AP Photo/Cliff Owen, File
FILE - In this Tuesday, March 7, 2017, file photo, House Intelligence Committee Ranking Member Adam Schiff, D-Calif., speaks with reporters about the committee's investigation into Russia's involvement in the recent U.S. presidential election, on Capitol Hill in Washington. On Sunday, March 19, 2017, Schiff and House Intelligence Committee Chairman Devin Nunes, R-Calif., were among a number of lawmakers who said on news shows they had seen no evidence that the Obama administration ordered wiretaps on Donald Trump during the campaign.

Adam Schiff’s opening statement: There is ‘direct evidence of deception' between Trump’s campaign and Russia

Rep. Adam Schiff, (D-Calif.), laid out a case against Donald Trump and his associates Monday during the House Intelligence Committee’s hearing on Russian interference in the presidential election. 

Here is Schiff’s opening statement:

 “Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I want to thank Director Comey and Admiral Rogers for appearing before us today as the committee holds this first open hearing into the interference campaign waged against our 2016 Presidential election.

Last summer, at the height of a bitterly contested and hugely consequential Presidential campaign, a foreign, adversarial power intervened in an effort to weaken our democracy, and to influence the outcome for one candidate and against the other. That foreign adversary was, of course, Russia, and it acted through its intelligence agencies and upon the direct instructions of its autocratic ruler, Vladimir Putin, in order to help Donald J. Trump become the 45th President of the United States.

The Russian “active measures” campaign may have begun as early as 2015, when Russian intelligence services launched a series of spearphishing attacks designed to penetrate the computers of a broad array of Washington-based Democratic and Republican party organizations, think tanks and other entities. This continued at least through winter of 2016.

While at first, the hacking may have been intended solely for the collection of foreign intelligence, in mid-2016, the Russians “weaponized” the stolen data and used platforms established by their intel services, such as DC Leaks and existing third party channels like Wikileaks, to dump the documents.

The stolen documents were almost uniformly damaging to the candidate Putin despised, Hillary Clinton and, by forcing her campaign to constantly respond to the daily drip of disclosures, the releases greatly benefited Donald Trump’s campaign.

None of these facts is seriously in question and they are reflected in the consensus conclusions of all our intelligence agencies.

We will never know whether the Russian intervention was determinative in such a close election. Indeed, it is unknowable in a campaign in which so many small changes could have dictated a different result. More importantly, and for the purposes of our investigation, it simply does not matter. What does matter is this: the Russians successfully meddled in our democracy, and our intelligence agencies have concluded that they will do so again.

Ours is not the first democracy to be attacked by the Russians in this way. Russian intelligence has been similarly interfering in the internal and political affairs of our European and other allies for decades. What is striking here is the degree to which the Russians were willing to undertake such an audacious and risky action against the most powerful nation on earth. That ought to be a warning to us, that if we thought that the Russians would not dare to so blatantly interfere in our affairs, we were wrong. And if we do not do our very best to understand how the Russians accomplished this unprecedented attack on our democracy and what we need to do to protect ourselves in the future, we will have only ourselves to blame.

We know a lot about the Russian operation, about the way they amplified the damage their hacking and dumping of stolen documents was causing through the use of slick propaganda like RT, the Kremlin’s media arm. But there is also a lot we do not know.

Most important, we do not yet know whether the Russians had the help of U.S. citizens, including people associated with the Trump campaign. Many of Trump’s campaign personnel, including the President himself, have ties to Russia and Russian interests. This is, of course, no crime. On the other hand, if the Trump campaign, or anybody associated with it, aided or abetted the Russians, it would not only be a serious crime, it would also represent one of the most shocking betrayals of our democracy in history.

In Europe, where the Russians have a much longer history of political interference, they have used a variety of techniques to undermine democracy. They have employed the hacking and dumping of documents and slick propaganda as they clearly did here, but they have also used bribery, blackmail, compromising material, and financial entanglement to secure needed cooperation from individual citizens of targeted countries.

The issue of U.S. person involvement is only one of the important matters that the Chairman and I have agreed to investigate and which is memorialized in the detailed and bipartisan scope of investigation we have signed. We will also examine whether the intelligence community’s public assessment of the Russian operation is supported by the raw intelligence, whether the U.S. Government responded properly or missed the opportunity to stop this Russian attack much earlier, and whether the leak of information about Michael Flynn or others is indicative of a systemic problem. We have also reviewed whether there was any evidence to support President Trump’s claim that he was wiretapped by President Obama in Trump Tower – and found no evidence whatsoever to support that slanderous accusation – and we hope that Director Comey can now put that matter permanently to rest.

Today, most of my Democratic colleagues will be exploring with you the potential involvement of U.S. persons in the Russian attack on our democracy. It is not that we feel the other issues are not important – they are very important – but rather because this issue is least understood by the public. We realize, of course, that you may not be able to answer many of our questions in open session. You may or may not be willing to disclose even whether there is any investigation. But we hope to present to you and the public why we believe this matter is of such gravity that it demands a thorough investigation, not only by us, as we intend to do, but by the FBI as well.

Let me give you a little preview of what I expect you will be asked by our members.

Whether the Russian active measures campaign began as nothing more than an attempt to gather intelligence, or was always intended to be more than that, we do not know, and is one of the questions we hope to answer. But we do know this: the months of July and August 2016 appear to have been pivotal. It was at this time that the Russians began using the information they had stolen to help Donald Trump and harm Hillary Clinton. And so the question is why? What was happening in July/August of last year? And were U.S. persons involved?

Here are some of the matters, drawn from public sources alone, since that is all we can discuss in this setting, that concern us and should concern all Americans.

In early July, Carter Page, someone candidate Trump identified as one of his national security advisors, travels to Moscow on a trip approved by the Trump campaign. While in Moscow, he gives a speech critical of the United States and other western countries for what he believes is a hypocritical focus on democratization and efforts to fight corruption.

According to Christopher Steele, a former British intelligence officer who is reportedly held in high regard by U.S. Intelligence, Russian sources tell him that Page has also had a secret meeting with Igor Sechin (SEH-CHIN), CEO of Russian gas giant Rosneft. Sechin is reported to be a former KGB agent and close friend of Putin’s. According to Steele’s Russian sources, Page is offered brokerage fees by Sechin on a deal involving a 19 percent share of the company. According to Reuters, the sale of a 19.5 percent share in Rosneft later takes place, with unknown purchasers and unknown brokerage fees.

Also, according to Steele’s Russian sources, the Trump campaign is offered documents damaging to Hillary Clinton, which the Russians would publish through an outlet that gives them deniability, like Wikileaks. The hacked documents would be in exchange for a Trump Administration policy that de-emphasizes Russia’s invasion of Ukraine and instead focuses on criticizing NATO countries for not paying their fare share – policies which, even as recently as the President’s meeting last week with Angela Merkel, have now presciently come to pass.

In the middle of July, Paul Manafort, the Trump campaign manager and someone who was long on the payroll of Pro-Russian Ukrainian interests, attends the Republican Party convention. Carter Page, back from Moscow, also attends the convention. According to Steele, it was Manafort who chose Page to serve as a go-between for the Trump campaign and Russian interests. Ambassador Kislyak, who presides over a Russian embassy in which diplomatic personnel would later be expelled as likely spies, also attends the Republican Party convention and meets with Carter Page and additional Trump Advisors JD Gordon and Walid Phares. It was JD Gordon who approved Page’s trip to Moscow. Ambassador Kislyak also meets with Trump campaign national security chair and now Attorney General Jeff Sessions. Sessions would later deny meeting with Russian officials during his Senate confirmation hearing.

Just prior to the convention, the Republican Party platform is changed, removing a section that supports the provision of “lethal defensive weapons” to Ukraine, an action that would be contrary to Russian interests. Manafort categorically denies involvement by the Trump campaign in altering the platform. But the Republican Party delegate who offered the language in support of providing defensive weapons to Ukraine states that it was removed at the insistence of the Trump campaign. Later, JD Gordon admits opposing the inclusion of the provision at the time it was being debated and prior to its being removed.

Later in July, and after the convention, the first stolen emails detrimental to Hillary Clinton appear on Wikileaks. A hacker who goes by the moniker Guccifer 2.0 claims responsibility for hacking the DNC and giving the documents to Wikileaks. But leading private cyber security firms including CrowdStrike, Mandiant, and ThreatConnect review the evidence of the hack and conclude with high certainty that it was the work of APT28 and APT29, who were known to be Russian intelligence services. The U.S. Intelligence community also later confirms that the documents were in fact stolen by Russian intelligence and Guccifer 2.0 acted as a front. Also in late July, candidate Trump praises Wikileaks, says he loves them, and openly appeals to the Russians to hack his opponents’ emails, telling them that they will be richly rewarded by the press.

On August 8th, Roger Stone, a longtime Trump political advisor and self-proclaimed political dirty trickster, boasts in a speech that he “has communicated with Assange,” and that more documents would be coming, including an “October surprise.” In the middle of August, he also communicates with the Russian cutout Guccifer 2.0, and authors a Breitbart piece denying Guccifer’s links to Russian intelligence. Then, later in August, Stone does something truly remarkable, when he predicts that John Podesta’s personal emails will soon be published. “Trust me, it will soon be Podesta’s time in the barrel. #Crooked Hillary.”

In the weeks that follow, Stone shows a remarkable prescience: “I have total confidence that @wikileaks and my hero Julian Assange will educate the American people soon. #Lockherup. “Payload coming,” he predicts, and two days later, it does. Wikileaks releases its first batch of Podesta emails. The release of John Podesta’s emails would then continue on a daily basis up to election day.

On Election Day in November, Donald Trump wins. Donald Trump appoints one of his high profile surrogates, Michael Flynn, to be his national security advisor. Michael Flynn has been paid by the Kremlin’s propaganda outfit, RT, and other Russian entities in the past. In December, Michael Flynn has a secret conversation with Ambassador Kislyak about sanctions imposed by President Obama on Russia over its hacking designed to help the Trump campaign. Michael Flynn lies about this secret conversation. The Vice President, unknowingly, then assures the country that no such conversation ever happened. The President is informed Flynn has lied, and Pence has misled the country. The President does nothing. Two weeks later, the press reveals that Flynn has lied and the President is forced to fire Mr. Flynn. The President then praises the man who lied, Flynn, and castigates the press for exposing the lie.

Now, is it possible that the removal of the Ukraine provision from the GOP platform was a coincidence? Is it a coincidence that Jeff Sessions failed to tell the Senate about his meetings with the Russian Ambassador, not only at the convention, but a more private meeting in his office and at a time when the U.S. election was under attack by the Russians? Is it a coincidence that Michael Flynn would lie about a conversation he had with the same Russian Ambassador Kislyak about the most pressing issue facing both countries at the time they spoke – the U.S. imposition of sanctions over Russian hacking of our election designed to help Donald Trump? Is it a coincidence that the Russian gas company Rosneft sold a 19 percent share after former British Intelligence Officer Steele was told by Russian sources that Carter Page was offered fees on a deal of just that size? Is it a coincidence that Steele’s Russian sources also affirmed that Russia had stolen documents hurtful to Secretary Clinton that it would utilize in exchange for pro-Russian policies that would later come to pass? Is it a coincidence that Roger Stone predicted that John Podesta would be the victim of a Russian hack and have his private emails published, and did so even before Mr. Podesta himself was fully aware that his private emails would be exposed?

Is it possible that all of these events and reports are completely unrelated, and nothing more than an entirely unhappy coincidence? Yes, it is possible. But it is also possible, maybe more than possible, that they are not coincidental, not disconnected and not unrelated, and that the Russians used the same techniques to corrupt U.S. persons that they have employed in Europe and elsewhere. We simply don’t know, not yet, and we owe it to the country to find out.

Director Comey, what you see on the dais in front of you, in the form of this small number of members and staff is all we have to commit to this investigation. This is it. We are not supported by hundreds or thousands of agents and investigators, with offices around the world. It is just us and our Senate counterparts. And in addition to this investigation, we still have our day job, which involves overseeing some of the largest and most important agencies in the country, agencies, which, by the way, are trained to keep secrets.

I point this out for two reasons: First, because we cannot do this work alone. Nor should we. We believe these issues are so important that the FBI must devote its resources to investigating each of them thoroughly; to do any less would be negligent in the protection of our country. We also need your full cooperation with our own investigation, so that we have the benefit of what you may know, and so that we may coordinate our efforts in the discharge of both our responsibilities. And second, I raise this because I believe that we would benefit from the work of an independent commission that can devote the staff and resources to this investigation that we do not have, and that can be completely removed from any political considerations. This should not be a substitute for the work that we, in the intelligence committees should and must do, but as an important complement to our efforts, just as was the case after 9/11.

The stakes are nothing less than the future of liberal democracy.

We are engaged in a new war of ideas, not communism versus capitalism, but authoritarianism versus democracy and representative government. And in this struggle, our adversary sees our political process as a legitimate field of battle.

Only by understanding what the Russians did can we inoculate ourselves from the further Russian interference we know is coming. Only then can we help protect our European allies who are, as we speak, enduring similar Russian interference in their own elections.

Finally, I want to say a word about our own committee investigation. You will undoubtedly observe in the questions and comments that our members make during today's hearing, that the members of both parties share a common concern over the Russian attack on our democracy, but bring a different perspective on the significance of certain issues, or the quantum of evidence we have seen in the earliest stages of this investigation. That is to be expected. The question most people have is whether we can really conduct this investigation in the kind of thorough and nonpartisan manner that the seriousness of the issues merit, or whether the enormous political consequences of our work will make that impossible. The truth is, I don’t know the answer. But I do know this: If this committee can do its work properly, if we can pursue the facts wherever they lead, unafraid to compel witnesses to testify, to hear what they have to say, to learn what we will and, after exhaustive work, reach a common conclusion, it would be a tremendous public service and one that is very much in the national interest.

So let us try. Thank you Mr. Chairman, I yield back.”


Read More

There are no comments yet. Be the first to post your thoughts. or Register.

Latest Bulldog News

  • Carla Williams, a former Georgia women’s basketball player and considered by many the heir apparent to be Georgia’s next athletic director, is instead set to be the new A.D. at Virginia. Williams, currently UGA’s deputy director of athletics, will be hired by UVA, the Charlottesville Daily Progress reported on Saturday night. There was no immediate confirmation from UGA. The news could have far-reaching consequences in UGA athletics, as Williams has handled a number of responsibilities as the top aide to athletics director Greg McGarity. McGarity’s contract runs out the summer of 2019. The next-highest ranking member of the athletics department is Josh Brooks, the executive associate athletics director. At Georgia, Williams has been a constant but quiet presence, responsible officially for almost everything involved in athletics. (Her bio on the web site lists her duties including supervision of  academic support, business operations, compliance, event management, external operations, facilities, human resources, sports medicine, strength and conditioning, student services and ticketing.) A native of LaGrange, Williams played basketball under Andy Landers from 1985-89. She went into sports administration, including in UGA’s compliance department, also going on to work at Florida State and Vanderbilt. She returned to Athens in 2004, gradually rising to become the top deputy in the athletics department. Williams will replace Craig Littlepage, who has been Virginia’s athletics director since 2001. The post Georgia deptuty A.D. Carla Williams set to take over at Virginia appeared first on DawgNation.
  • What’s with all the comparisons? The comparisons between Georgia and Alabama are being tossed around left and right these days. What with both teams undefeated, holding court in the top four and commanding the SEC, there is more to compare than just Kirby Smart and Nick Saban. But now eight weeks into the season and there is only one common opponent the two share: Vanderbilt. And just what did Vandy head coach Derek Mason have to say in regards to which of the two, Georgia or Alabama, is the better team? Well, Mason went with the Tide. “Having played both teams, Alabama’s the better team, just in my mind,” Mason said during Wednesday’s SEC coaches teleconference. “I think where the difference is in Alabama’s secondary… Alabama’s just a purely dominant defense right now.” via GIPHY Interesting. So, let’s rewind shall we? Alabama played Vanderbilt on Sept. 29 in Nashville. Not even going to lie, ‘twas ugly. A 59-0 shutout for the Tide and sure enough what Mason said was true, Alabama completely dominated on defense. Vanderbilt was held to 38 passing yards (yes, only 38) and 40 yards on the ground (yes, only 40). Fast forward to when Georgia played Vanderbilt on Oct. 7 and the Bulldogs took a crack at the Commodores. Georgia won handily 45-14 and while the numbers defensively were still solid all around, it wasn’t what Vanderbilt saw against Alabama. This is by no means taking away Georgia’s performance against Vandy, it’s just a snapshot of the reasoning which could have possibly led Mason to his conclusion of choosing Alabama over Georgia when presented with the question. Vanderbilt put together a 172-yard passing day against Georgia and the Bulldogs held the Commodores to just 64 rushing yards. And while there is no mistaking these numbers, there is also no ignoring the Alabama defense and what it was able to do in Nashville. Only 78 yards of total offense for Vanderbilt when the Tide rolled into town, no wonder Mason chose Alabama. But (and there is a very big but) Alabama and Tennessee are set to kickoff this weekend. Georgia recorded a shut out of its own against Tennessee not too long ago, playing some of its best defense all year, and dare I say, the best defense of recent years. So, once this weekend is said and done, will Butch Jones side with Mason on who has the edge, Georgia or Alabama? Or will he say something different? Honestly, regardless of what happens in Tennessee this weekend, we really won’t know who “has the edge” until the two meet on the field, and maybe, just maybe, we will see that happen. And maybe, we will put the comparisons to rest. I mean, hey, even Mason is doing it too so don’t feel too bad. “Georgia is being built like Alabama,” Mason said. “It looks very, very similar.” Georgia is rackin’ up You’ve already heard about inside linebacker Roquan Smith being named to the Associated Press midseason All-American first team. And Sports Illustrated’s midseason All-American team.. and ESPN’s.. and Sporting News’. But it isn’t just Smith getting a little recognition now that we are all halfway through the 2017 season. It was announced yesterday that Kirby Smart was to be added to the list of 20 coaches on the watch list for the Paul “Bear” Bryant Coach of the Year award. Former Georgia head coach Mark Richt is also one of the 20 coaches being recognized during the midway point along with Nick Saban. Richt and Saban are both currently leading Miami and Alabama to an undefeated seasons as well. It might come as little surprise to DawgNation seeing as Smart is currently reigning over the No. 3 team in the country as one of only eight teams that remain undefeated. However, its not just Smart being recognized. Sports Illustrated ranked defensive coordinator Mel Tucker as the second-best coordinator in its midseason awards published on Tuesday. Tucker follows Don Brown at Michigan for the top spot. Smart was also mentioned as the number three pick in the same standing for “Best Coaching Job”. Bruce Feldman wrote next to Smart’s name “his defense is nasty,” another nod to Tucker. Mark Schlabach of ESPN also chose Smart as “Coach of the Year”, bringing emphasis to the fact that Georgia is batting a thousand in the red zone, putting points on the board in all 23 of its red zone appearances. But don’t expect to hear anything from Smart on these midseason honors. When asked about the hype surrounding Georgia’s season, Smart is always quick to say that no one remembers who was winning at 50 meters in a 100-meter race, you remember the one who wins at the end. I would expect the same response if asked about his midseason accomplishments too. It isn’t just football While the spotlight is very much on Georgia football at the moment, I think it’s OK to take a break and talk about a couple other Georgia sports getting some preseason love. Basketball update In Georgia basketball news, Yante Maten was named as the co-SEC Preseason Player of the Year on Wednesday morning at this year’s SEC Basketball Media Days. Maten shares the honor with Robert Williams from Texas A&M and Michael Porter Jr. from Missouri. Late in the season last year, Maten went down with a knee injury. However, even with missing four games in his junior year, Maten was still fourth in the SEC in scoring, averaging around 18 points a game. He was also ninth in the conference in rebounds, averaging nearly nine rebounds a game. This announcement comes after an off-season where fans were not really sure if Maten would return to Georgia for his senior year. Maten worked out with at least two NBA teams before finally announcing his plan to remain at Georgia for his final year. OK, it isn’t just basketball, either It has been a busy, and productive, fall season for Georgia men’s tennis coming off a Final Four appearance back in May at the NCAA Tennis Tournament. The team returns its entire starting roster from the 2016-2017 season for the current season, and recently the men’s team has been flexing its experienced strength. On Monday, Walker Duncan took home the singles championship at the 2017 Intercollegiate Tennis Association Southeast Regional. On Tuesday, the No. 2 doubles team in the country, according to the Oracle/ITA preseason rankings, of Jan Zielinski and Robert Loeb brought in the doubles championship in the same tournament. The duo of Loeb and Zielinski defeated Florida’s team of Andy Andrade and McClain Kessler in the semifinal match before facing, and defeating, fellow Florida tandem of Oliver Crawford and Chase Perez-Blanco. And because of their performances at the ITA Southeast Regional tournament Duncan, Loeb and Zielinski all receive an automatic entry at the 2017 Oracle/ITA Fall National Championship to be held in Palm Desert, Calif. at the beginning of November. Dawgs on social Face full of shoulder pad. #ATD pic.twitter.com/G2t4MZ4OaH — Georgia Football (@FootballUGA) October 19, 2017 More importantly: All-American Teammate @RoquanSmith1 https://t.co/HZpeMxb4UQ — Cameron Nizialek (@CamNizguy) October 18, 2017 The post Comparisons between Georgia and Alabama don’t really stack up appeared first on DawgNation.
  • (Note: This is part of a series of stories on legendary Georgia Bulldogs.) DULUTH, Ga. – It’s one of the smallest pictures you’ll find on the walls of D.J. Shockley’s basement. And there are a LOT of pictures in his basement. Some are big, some small, some in fancy frames, others just frameless posters. There’s even a life-size banner of Shockley that a friend snagged from the side of Sanford Stadium back in the day. But this one picture, the little one in the nondescript black frame, is his favorite. It features a beaming Shockley in the middle, his mouth agape in what must’ve been a full-guttural laugh. To his left in the picture, arm-and-arm in an embrace, is Georgia head coach Mark Richt sporting a giddy smile himself. Teammate Kedric Golston and SEC Commissioner Mike Slive are also in the shot, but they’re in the periphery, both literally and figuratively. D.J. Shockley enjoys life these days – especially when he’s at his Duluth home. (Nate Gettleman/DawgNation) No, this picture is all about those two central figures, Shockley and Richt. It was taken after the Bulldogs’ stunning victory over LSU in the 2005 SEC Championship Game. Shockley, a senior, earned MVP honors. The scene is succinctly summarized with the hand-written inscription from Richt across the bottom. “I told you you’d leave here with a smile on your face,” Richt wrote. He signed the pic and sent it to Shockley in the mail shortly after that season ended. Never, Shockley said, has one sentence better summed up a career. “That tells it all right there,” Shockley said, admiring the pic a thousandth time. A lot of people know Shockley’s story at Georgia. Or at least they think they know. They know he came to Georgia as the No. 2-rated dual-threat quarterback in America. They know they he came there at a time when David Greene was already running the offensive show for the Bulldogs. They know Shockley competed with and shared time with “Greenie,” and actually had some good moments here and there. But they also know that he could never unseat the quarterback who would leave UGA as the winningest quarterback in NCAA history. So everybody understands when Shockley explains how he almost left Georgia. Shockley went into Richt’s office after the 2002 season with that expressed intention. But that’s when they had the conversation that Shockley said changed his life. That’s when Richt first uttered those words that are now permanently preserved in black Sharpie on the bottom of a 5-by-7 glossy in the basement of his home. Mark Richt closes the deal “I really believe when you leave here, you’ll leave here with a smile on your face,” is the exact way Richt first put it. But as one might expect, those were simply the last words in a long and heartfelt conversation that started with Shockley saying, “Coach, I’m thinking about leaving.” Shockley recounts it here: “And he says, ‘Shock, first off I’m going to tell you, we love you. You’re gonna get a great education here. I can’t sit here and say, you’re going to play this many series. I can’t sit here and say I’m going to let you start two or three games. I’m not going to do that to you. I’m going to be honest. I’m going to be straightforward. We want you here, we love you here. And I think you will still have a great career here. And I really believe when you leave here, you’ll leave here with a smile on your face.” D.J. Shockey helped UGA and Mark Richt win an SEC title in 2005. (AJC File) Shockley wasn’t sure if he believed that at the time. He entered Richt’s office that day with his mind pretty much made up that he was going to leave if he wasn’t given certain assurances. Like any other athlete of his ilk, Shockley knew he could play. He’d performed well enough not only in practices but also in games to know that. And he knew “Greenie” could, too, and he didn’t hold that against him. But unless Shockley could get himself into a situation where he could truly showcase his talents, he knew his NFL dreams would wither away. Meanwhile, there were plenty of other opportunities to be had. His father, North Clayton High School coach Donald Shockley, had been fielding calls right and left. And they weren’t coming in from lower-division or second-tier schools. Maryland’s Ralph Friedgen and Florida State’s Bobby Bowden were telling his dad Shockley “could walk in right now and play.” “My dad’s like, ‘Hey, you ready to go?’” Shockley recalled with a laugh. But he wasn’t. “At that moment, I knew I had to make the decision for me,” he said. “I had to make a decision that I would live with for the rest of my life. Nobody else would live with this decision. I had to look at myself in the mirror every single day.” Shockley didn’t give Richt his decision right then and there. The plan was to take same time to think about it. But he didn’t really need it. “As I left Coach Richt’s office, I knew this was the guy I wanted to play for,” Shockley said. “No matter where I went, if I went somewhere else, who knows what the situation may be? Who knows what the coach would have been like? But I knew exactly where Coach Richt stood and I knew that he cared about me as a person first, and he knew my abilities. Obviously, he cared about me, and was honest enough with me to tell me the truth. That went a long way for me. And obviously, knowing I would get my degree from University of Georgia, being a guy that will live here, born and raised in Atlanta, Ga., that was another part of it.” Imagine that, Richt kept Shockley at Georgia by telling him exactly what he didn’t want to hear. D.J. Shockley and Mark Richt celebrate the 2005 win in the SEC Championship. (Getty Images) True to his word, there wasn’t a drastic change in the way Richt utilized the Bulldogs’ quarterbacks the next season. Shockley played mainly as a backup to Greene. Eventually they’d establish a rotation; for a while it was every third series. But, generally, Richt went with his gut, changing quarterbacks only when the compulsion or the game dictated it. Shockley was playing though. He appeared in 26 games for the Bulldogs those first three seasons. He had 24 TD passes and 5 interceptions in that span. But it was his senior year before Shockley finally started. And he started with a bang. In the 2005 season opener against Boise State, Shockley established a school record for touchdowns accounted for. He had six – five passes and a run – and the Bulldogs rolled over Boise State 48-13 in a game many of the national pundits had labeled as an upset special. That game served notice to the college football world that Georgia wasn’t going to fall off the map just because all those All-Americans had left. All smiles in the end “Coming into that year, we had a bunch of guys who had been backups for the previous two or three years,” Shockley said. “Greenie left, (David) Pollack left, Thomas Davis. So coming into that season everybody was saying it was rebuilding time for Georgia.” Thanks to Shockley, it was merely a reload year. The Bulldogs were 6-0 and ranked No. 4 in the country when they rolled into Jacksonville to face Florida. But Shockley had sprained a knee the previous week and couldn’t play. Shockley led UGA to a 10-3 record in 2005. He went 10-2 as a starter that year. (UGA) “I didn’t dress out,” Shockley said. “I’m walking around before the game and I notice everywhere I go Charlie Strong (Florida’s defensive coordinator) is following me. He’s literally about 5 yards behind me. He’s watching my gait, seeing if I was going to play.” Shockley didn’t, and Georgia lost 14-10 with Joe Tereshinski III filling in at quarterback. “I remember seeing Urban Myer about 10 years later,” Shockley said. “I introduced myself, and he said, ‘Oh, yeah. I know you are. I remember ’05, we were scared to death you were gonna play. I told Charlie Strong, if this Shockley kid plays, we got no chance!’ It was fun to hear that story.” Georgia dropped a heartbreaker to Auburn in the final seconds the next week, too. But the Bulldogs made it back to the SEC Championship Game, where they were big underdogs to No. 3-ranked LSU. That served as great motivation for Shockley and the Bulldogs. “Nobody was talking about Georgia. ‘Georgia doesn’t belong here. They shouldn’t be here. They’re going to lose by 20.’ It’s the same thing that we heard all year long,” Shockley said. “I still remember to this day, Coach Richt stood in front of the team before we went out and said, ‘You make sure everybody watching this game, and especially those guys with the yellow helmets on, they know the guys with the G are here to play! We took it to heart.” The post Georgia Greats: D.J. Shockley left Bulldogs with smile and an SEC title appeared first on DawgNation.