Nunes sparked a controversy last week when he said he received information from an undisclosed source at the White House that conversations by President Donald Trump and his staff had been swept up as "incidental collection" by US spy agencies targeting foreign agents.
Nunes, in a Bloomberg interview on Monday, said that none of his sources worked at the White House.
Nunes and Schiff met Thursday after a week's worth of canceled hearings and bickering between the committee leaders, as their investigation turned partisan following a decision by Nunes, a Republican, to go to the press and White House with intelligence before alerting the committee.
The "reports" Spicer referenced appeared to be a New York Times article that claimed former President Obama administration officials "scrambled to spread information about Russian efforts to undermine the presidential election - and about possible contacts between associates of President-elect Donald J. Trump and Russian", in the waning days of Obama's presidency.
As a former staff member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, and a former Defense official involved with Russian affairs, she said she "got worried" that the Obama White House was not briefing Congress on what it knew. "And unfortunately, I don't see Mr. Nunes or whoever would succeed him next in line as advancing that cause".
The story will, at minimum, increase calls for Nunes to recuse himself from the Intelligence Committee's stalled inquiry into Russian meddling in the presidential election past year and into possible contacts between members of the Trump administration and Russian intelligence officials.
Nunes has shared information connected to his committee's investigation to the very White House whose campaign is being investigated.
The documents pertain to investigations underway in Congress and by the FBI into allegations that Moscow tried to swing November's presidential election in Trump's favour, and whether some in the Republican's inner circle colluded with Russian Federation.
Nunes, who served as an adviser to the Trump transition team, said the files he reviewed had made him concerned that USA intelligence agencies had mishandled information on members of the Trump campaign, though Nunes acknowledged that he saw no evidence of illegality.
Nunes has said the information he received did not support that allegation, which has also been disputed by Obama and top intelligence officials.
But the real "tragedy" here, Lake says, is that "incidental collection" of US citizens' communications is a real concern and has been since Edward Snowden's leaked NSA documents were revealed.
First in what could be an interminable series of posts on the activities of White House press secretary Sean Spicer.
"On March 4th, the president - as you all know - raised serious questions about surveillance practices by the Obama administration, including whether or not the president-elect or the transition team members were being improperly monitored for political purposes under the Obama administration", Spicer said.
The New York Times reported that two White House officials - including an intelligence aide whose job was recently saved by Trump - helped Rep. Devin Nunes view intelligence. Nunes apologized the following day, but said he briefed the president because the information he found was not related to Russian Federation.
One, the report said, was Ezra Cohen-Watnick of the National Security Council, a holdover from Mike Flynn's brief stint as national security adviser, whom Flynn's successor, Lt. Gen. H.R. McMaster, had tried to get rid of.
The officials spoke on the condition of anonymity to describe the intelligence, and to avoid angering Cohen-Watnick and Ellis. "We are focused on the substance of it and I think the goal is to make sure people have the substance that are looking into this".
"Speaker Ryan has full confidence that Chairman Nunes is conducting a thorough, fair, and credible investigation", Strong said.
JULIAN ZELIZER: The John Dean testimony was certainly one of the most shocking parts of the hearings for many Americans when they heard someone from within the administration speak poorly about the administration and confirm some of the worst fears that people had.