Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Unlock unbeatable offers today. Shop here: https://amzn.to/4cEkqYs 🎁
Trump wanted Comey to drop the Flynn investigation. That's way out of bounds. Trump tried leaning on a couple of the other agency heads to lean on Comey to publicly declare he wasn't under investigation. That also was out of bounds. He demanded personal loyalty from Comey. That was just creepy. The man has no boundaries because he is authoritarian.If I had been your underling and you had ordered me to do something unethical or outside the bounds of industry standards, I would have told you where to stick your job. You wouldn't have had to fire me, beast.There's plenty of old Stalin in Trump's modus operandi. His followers are now hollering to disqualify the investigator's team because of who they voted for! Trump immediately declared all media "fake news" so every distorted statement he utters can be swallowed whole by his followers without any buts. And best of all, if Trump doesn't get personal loyalty from you or if you won't follow his orders, right or wrong, you're toast.Apology to Mr. Arthur Koestler for modifying his words in Darkness at Noon. Something every Trump supporter needs to read and consider.
Why? What comparison do you make of a work of fiction based upon the Stalinist purges of old line Bolsheviks to anything even remotely concerning Trump?
Not because of who they voted for, and you know it.
When I was a boss, if you as my underling didn't follow my orders, you were toast. It's the nature of the beast.
When has Trump done that?
Trump wanted Comey to drop the Flynn investigation.If I had been your underling and you had ordered me to do something unethical or outside the bounds of industry standards, I would have told you where to stick your job. You wouldn't have had to fire me, beast.There's plenty of old Stalin in Trump's modus operandi. His followers are now hollering to disqualify the investigator's team because of who they voted for! Trump immediately declared all media "fake news" so every distorted statement he utters can be swallowed whole by his followers without any buts. And best of all, if Trump doesn't get personal loyalty from you or if you won't follow his orders, right or wrong, you're toast.Why? What comparison do you make of a work of fiction based upon the Stalinist purges of old line Bolsheviks to anything even remotely concerning Trump?
Not because of who they voted for, and you know it.
When I was a boss, if you as my underling didn't follow my orders, you were toast. It's the nature of the beast.
When has Trump done that?
That's way out of bounds.
Trump tried leaning on a couple of the other agency heads to lean on Comey to publicly declare he wasn't under investigation. That also was out of bounds. He demanded personal loyalty from Comey. That was just creepy. The man has no boundaries because he is authoritarian.
I knew in advance what your response would be. We see things differently and as you say, time will tell.Trump wanted Comey to drop the Flynn investigation.If I had been your underling and you had ordered me to do something unethical or outside the bounds of industry standards, I would have told you where to stick your job. You wouldn't have had to fire me, beast.There's plenty of old Stalin in Trump's modus operandi. His followers are now hollering to disqualify the investigator's team because of who they voted for! Trump immediately declared all media "fake news" so every distorted statement he utters can be swallowed whole by his followers without any buts. And best of all, if Trump doesn't get personal loyalty from you or if you won't follow his orders, right or wrong, you're toast.
Not because of who they voted for, and you know it.
When I was a boss, if you as my underling didn't follow my orders, you were toast. It's the nature of the beast.
When has Trump done that?
Nope. He "hoped Comey could see his way" to let it go, out of friendship with Flynn. There was no order to do so.
That's way out of bounds.
Nope. Trump would have been well within his authority to order Comey to drop it, at which point Comey would have either dropped it, or resigned.
Neither man did either thing.
Trump tried leaning on a couple of the other agency heads to lean on Comey to publicly declare he wasn't under investigation. That also was out of bounds. He demanded personal loyalty from Comey. That was just creepy. The man has no boundaries because he is authoritarian.
Well, it's all down to word against word at this point. Time will tell.
I knew in advance what your response would be.Trump wanted Comey to drop the Flynn investigation.If I had been your underling and you had ordered me to do something unethical or outside the bounds of industry standards, I would have told you where to stick your job. You wouldn't have had to fire me, beast.Not because of who they voted for, and you know it.
When I was a boss, if you as my underling didn't follow my orders, you were toast. It's the nature of the beast.
When has Trump done that?
Nope. He "hoped Comey could see his way" to let it go, out of friendship with Flynn. There was no order to do so.
That's way out of bounds.
Nope. Trump would have been well within his authority to order Comey to drop it, at which point Comey would have either dropped it, or resigned.
Neither man did either thing.
Trump tried leaning on a couple of the other agency heads to lean on Comey to publicly declare he wasn't under investigation. That also was out of bounds. He demanded personal loyalty from Comey. That was just creepy. The man has no boundaries because he is authoritarian.
Well, it's all down to word against word at this point. Time will tell.
Fox Entertainment – nothing but a partisan rightwing mouthpiece.Fox And Friends Joins War On Robert Mueller’s Russia Investigation
This will be a precursor to the Comrade firing, or trying to fire, Mueller. And when he does, he will doom his presidency...as illegitimate as it is.
It's absurd that anyone, other than the guilty, would resist there being a rigorous effort to discover the answer to a question. "Inquiring minds want to know." The only way to know is to ask a question and then seek the information that allows one to arrive at the soundest possible answer.Fox And Friends Joins War On Robert Mueller’s Russia Investigation
You're not taking the narcissism into account. It is perfectly logical for him to object to an investigation that implies criticism. It's all it takes.
Trump wanted Comey to drop the Flynn investigation.If I had been your underling and you had ordered me to do something unethical or outside the bounds of industry standards, I would have told you where to stick your job. You wouldn't have had to fire me, beast.There's plenty of old Stalin in Trump's modus operandi. His followers are now hollering to disqualify the investigator's team because of who they voted for! Trump immediately declared all media "fake news" so every distorted statement he utters can be swallowed whole by his followers without any buts. And best of all, if Trump doesn't get personal loyalty from you or if you won't follow his orders, right or wrong, you're toast.
Not because of who they voted for, and you know it.
When I was a boss, if you as my underling didn't follow my orders, you were toast. It's the nature of the beast.
When has Trump done that?
Nope. He "hoped Comey could see his way" to let it go, out of friendship with Flynn. There was no order to do so.
That's way out of bounds.
Nope. Trump would have been well within his authority to order Comey to drop it, at which point Comey would have either dropped it, or resigned.
Neither man did either thing.
Trump tried leaning on a couple of the other agency heads to lean on Comey to publicly declare he wasn't under investigation. That also was out of bounds. He demanded personal loyalty from Comey. That was just creepy. The man has no boundaries because he is authoritarian.
Well, it's all down to word against word at this point. Time will tell.
Trump wanted Comey to drop the Flynn investigation.If I had been your underling and you had ordered me to do something unethical or outside the bounds of industry standards, I would have told you where to stick your job. You wouldn't have had to fire me, beast.Not because of who they voted for, and you know it.
When I was a boss, if you as my underling didn't follow my orders, you were toast. It's the nature of the beast.
When has Trump done that?
Nope. He "hoped Comey could see his way" to let it go, out of friendship with Flynn. There was no order to do so.
That's way out of bounds.
Nope. Trump would have been well within his authority to order Comey to drop it, at which point Comey would have either dropped it, or resigned.
Neither man did either thing.
Trump tried leaning on a couple of the other agency heads to lean on Comey to publicly declare he wasn't under investigation. That also was out of bounds. He demanded personal loyalty from Comey. That was just creepy. The man has no boundaries because he is authoritarian.
Well, it's all down to word against word at this point. Time will tell.
When the president "hopes" something, that is taken as a directive.
According to the most recent article I could find, Mueller has hired twelve people and only five have been named. One is a really strong Hillary supporter and did represent her twice. However, can I please remind you that this investigation has nothing to do with Hillary? In a presidential election, responsible Americans exercise their right to vote and to support the party of their choice. I have never heard of being considered "unfit" for a job due to who you voted for! What a load of shit!1. Muellers investigation is a complete waste of taxpayer dollars. There is no collusion, there cannot be obstruction if there is no investigation.
2. The only purpose of this is to drag this farce out to the mid-terms so the left might be able to gain seats with it.
3. Mueller should be removed or he should recuse himself because he's breaking the law. He's a close friend of Comey's and that violates the law.
4. Mueller is stacking his team with pro-Hillary/Obama sycophants when it should be a bi-partisan effort.
FOX, for once, is correct.
Read up on it. There is no way for you to be declaring the investigation over "no collusion, no obstruction" because the investigations are ongoing. Mueller's is only beginning. We usually wait until they have actually done the investigation before we declare the findings.
Meet the all-star team of lawyers Robert Mueller has assembled for the Trump-Russia investigation
There is no collusion
How can one know that to be incontrovertibly so unless and until the inquiry into whether there is collusion has been completed?
People do not openly and readily admit to doing things they know will "get them into trouble" one way or another, especially if they think their actions cannot and will not be discovered. Bill Clinton didn't think anyone would find out he had sex with Monica, so he lied about doing so. We don't know whether Trump and his people are lying about the nature and extent of their interactions with Russian officials, but there's enough circumstantial information to warrant there being an inquiry to find out.
There is no collusion
How can one know that to be incontrovertibly so unless and until the inquiry into whether there is collusion has been completed?
People do not openly and readily admit to doing things they know will "get them into trouble" one way or another, especially if they think their actions cannot and will not be discovered. Bill Clinton didn't think anyone would find out he had sex with Monica, so he lied about doing so. We don't know whether Trump and his people are lying about the nature and extent of their interactions with Russian officials, but there's enough circumstantial information to warrant there being an inquiry to find out.
The here is no circumstantial evidence at all. The only thing anyone has is rumor completely fabricated by the left.
The here is no circumstantial evidence at all.
There is no collusion
How can one know that to be incontrovertibly so unless and until the inquiry into whether there is collusion has been completed?
People do not openly and readily admit to doing things they know will "get them into trouble" one way or another, especially if they think their actions cannot and will not be discovered. Bill Clinton didn't think anyone would find out he had sex with Monica, so he lied about doing so. We don't know whether Trump and his people are lying about the nature and extent of their interactions with Russian officials, but there's enough circumstantial information to warrant there being an inquiry to find out.
The here is no circumstantial evidence at all. The only thing anyone has is rumor completely fabricated by the left.The here is no circumstantial evidence at all.
You keep thinking that....If you're correct, it's only because there's direct evidence of "something" untoward.
There is no collusion
How can one know that to be incontrovertibly so unless and until the inquiry into whether there is collusion has been completed?
People do not openly and readily admit to doing things they know will "get them into trouble" one way or another, especially if they think their actions cannot and will not be discovered. Bill Clinton didn't think anyone would find out he had sex with Monica, so he lied about doing so. We don't know whether Trump and his people are lying about the nature and extent of their interactions with Russian officials, but there's enough circumstantial information to warrant there being an inquiry to find out.
The here is no circumstantial evidence at all. The only thing anyone has is rumor completely fabricated by the left.The here is no circumstantial evidence at all.
You keep thinking that....If you're correct, it's only because there's direct evidence of "something" untoward.
FFS, hey moron, tell us what the direct evidence is, would you? The whole country would love to know. You guys are just too stupid to be having a discussion with.
We don't know whether Trump and his people are lying about the nature and extent of their interactions with Russian officials, but there's enough circumstantial information to warrant there being an inquiry to find out.
Schiff ... is also not seen as the type of politician prone to hyperbole.
Schiff just said in another interview that there is direct evidence of collusion, as well.There is no collusion
How can one know that to be incontrovertibly so unless and until the inquiry into whether there is collusion has been completed?
People do not openly and readily admit to doing things they know will "get them into trouble" one way or another, especially if they think their actions cannot and will not be discovered. Bill Clinton didn't think anyone would find out he had sex with Monica, so he lied about doing so. We don't know whether Trump and his people are lying about the nature and extent of their interactions with Russian officials, but there's enough circumstantial information to warrant there being an inquiry to find out.
The here is no circumstantial evidence at all. The only thing anyone has is rumor completely fabricated by the left.The here is no circumstantial evidence at all.
You keep thinking that....If you're correct, it's only because there's direct evidence of "something" untoward.
FFS, hey moron, tell us what the direct evidence is, would you? The whole country would love to know. You guys are just too stupid to be having a discussion with.
Hey, sub-literate simple minded mental midget.
Why would you ask me to share with you someting I haven't asserted exists? I have not claimed there exists publicly disclosed direct evidence and you'd know that to be so were you not an ineffably execrable reader (1) who just responds without regard to what the person to whom you respond actually wrote and (2) who, even when at your fingertips is laid information making clear the distinction between circumstantial and direct evidence, ignores it. (You'd have found that distinction in any of the three linked documents in the first of my posts you quoted. Here's another exposition of that distinction wherein it's presented in a "big yellow crayon" way.) What did I earlier write? This:
Moreover, the fact that direct evidence militating for believing someone or multiple individuals of Trump's campaign/Administration did something untoward (I don't know that collusion is that something) in their dealings with Russian officials has not been disclosed does not mean it does not exist. Believe it or not, not everything disclosed in closed-door proceedings and discussions leaks into the public domain.We don't know whether Trump and his people are lying about the nature and extent of their interactions with Russian officials, but there's enough circumstantial information to warrant there being an inquiry to find out.
In March, Adam Schiff went on Meet the Press Daily, and Chuck Todd asked him about statements by former Director of National Intelligence James Clapper that there was no evidence of collusion between the Trump team and Russia. Schiff disagreed with Clapper:
CHUCK TODD:
I want to get to the point of, look, collusion is sort of what hasn't been proven here between whatever the Russians did and the Trump campaign. In fact, the former acting director of the C.I.A., Mike Morell, who was a supporter of Hillary Clinton, he essentially reminded people, took Director Clapper at his word on this show who said, "There has been no evidence that has been found of collusion." Are we at the point of, at what point do you start to wonder if there is a fire to all this smoke?
ADAM SCHIFF:
Well, first of all, I was surprised to see Director Clapper say that, because I don't think you can make that claim categorically, as he did. I would characterize it this way, at the outset of the investigation, there was circumstantial evidence of collusion. There was direct evidence, I think, of deception.
And that's where we begin the investigation. Now I don't want to prejudge where we ultimately end up, and of course, there's one thing to say there's evidence. There's another thing to say we can prove this or prove it beyond a reasonable doubt, or there's enough evidence to bring to a grand jury for purposes of criminal indictment.
But there was certainly enough for us to conduct an investigation. The American people have a right to know, and in order to defend ourselves, we need to know whether the circumstantial evidence of collusion and direct evidence of deception is indicative of more.
That last emboldened remark is the raison d'etre for the investigation....que sera sera.
Later in the same week and in another interview, Chuck Todd asked Schiff to concede that any suggestion of collusion was circumstantial evidence at best.
“Actually, no, Chuck.. 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.”Todd pressed further, asking if he had “seen direct evidence of collusion,” Schiff would not say so directly, but insisted that he has seen some “evidence that is not circumstantial” and is worth investigating. Schiff replied saying:
“I don’t want to go into specifics, but I will say that there is evidence that is not circumstantial and is very much worthy of investigation, so that is what we ought to do.”
That is an important and surprising statement for thus far, inquiries into "Russia" by both the press and the intelligence community have found "smoke" (the deception of which Schiff spoke) but no "fires" (direct evidence of collusion) at least none that have been disclosed publicly. Some people (I'm not among them; I've consistently stated that I don't know whether there was/is felonious collusion with Russian officials or anyone else.) have implied or stated outright that they believe there was collusion, leading to accusations that they are overplaying their hand and overstating the available evidence. Schiff’s comment is different and worth heeding because he is both the ranking member on the intelligence committee, and -- and individuals "outside the Beltway" may not be aware of this -- is also not seen as the type of politician prone to hyperbole. He is also a former federal prosecutor.
Schiff just said in another interview that there is direct evidence of collusion, as well.There is no collusion
How can one know that to be incontrovertibly so unless and until the inquiry into whether there is collusion has been completed?
People do not openly and readily admit to doing things they know will "get them into trouble" one way or another, especially if they think their actions cannot and will not be discovered. Bill Clinton didn't think anyone would find out he had sex with Monica, so he lied about doing so. We don't know whether Trump and his people are lying about the nature and extent of their interactions with Russian officials, but there's enough circumstantial information to warrant there being an inquiry to find out.
The here is no circumstantial evidence at all. The only thing anyone has is rumor completely fabricated by the left.The here is no circumstantial evidence at all.
You keep thinking that....If you're correct, it's only because there's direct evidence of "something" untoward.
FFS, hey moron, tell us what the direct evidence is, would you? The whole country would love to know. You guys are just too stupid to be having a discussion with.
Hey, sub-literate simple minded mental midget.
Why would you ask me to share with you someting I haven't asserted exists? I have not claimed there exists publicly disclosed direct evidence and you'd know that to be so were you not an ineffably execrable reader (1) who just responds without regard to what the person to whom you respond actually wrote and (2) who, even when at your fingertips is laid information making clear the distinction between circumstantial and direct evidence, ignores it. (You'd have found that distinction in any of the three linked documents in the first of my posts you quoted. Here's another exposition of that distinction wherein it's presented in a "big yellow crayon" way.) What did I earlier write? This:
Moreover, the fact that direct evidence militating for believing someone or multiple individuals of Trump's campaign/Administration did something untoward (I don't know that collusion is that something) in their dealings with Russian officials has not been disclosed does not mean it does not exist. Believe it or not, not everything disclosed in closed-door proceedings and discussions leaks into the public domain.We don't know whether Trump and his people are lying about the nature and extent of their interactions with Russian officials, but there's enough circumstantial information to warrant there being an inquiry to find out.
In March, Adam Schiff went on Meet the Press Daily, and Chuck Todd asked him about statements by former Director of National Intelligence James Clapper that there was no evidence of collusion between the Trump team and Russia. Schiff disagreed with Clapper:
CHUCK TODD:
I want to get to the point of, look, collusion is sort of what hasn't been proven here between whatever the Russians did and the Trump campaign. In fact, the former acting director of the C.I.A., Mike Morell, who was a supporter of Hillary Clinton, he essentially reminded people, took Director Clapper at his word on this show who said, "There has been no evidence that has been found of collusion." Are we at the point of, at what point do you start to wonder if there is a fire to all this smoke?
ADAM SCHIFF:
Well, first of all, I was surprised to see Director Clapper say that, because I don't think you can make that claim categorically, as he did. I would characterize it this way, at the outset of the investigation, there was circumstantial evidence of collusion. There was direct evidence, I think, of deception.
And that's where we begin the investigation. Now I don't want to prejudge where we ultimately end up, and of course, there's one thing to say there's evidence. There's another thing to say we can prove this or prove it beyond a reasonable doubt, or there's enough evidence to bring to a grand jury for purposes of criminal indictment.
But there was certainly enough for us to conduct an investigation. The American people have a right to know, and in order to defend ourselves, we need to know whether the circumstantial evidence of collusion and direct evidence of deception is indicative of more.
That last emboldened remark is the raison d'etre for the investigation....que sera sera.
Later in the same week and in another interview, Chuck Todd asked Schiff to concede that any suggestion of collusion was circumstantial evidence at best.
“Actually, no, Chuck.. 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.”Todd pressed further, asking if he had “seen direct evidence of collusion,” Schiff would not say so directly, but insisted that he has seen some “evidence that is not circumstantial” and is worth investigating. Schiff replied saying:
“I don’t want to go into specifics, but I will say that there is evidence that is not circumstantial and is very much worthy of investigation, so that is what we ought to do.”
That is an important and surprising statement for thus far, inquiries into "Russia" by both the press and the intelligence community have found "smoke" (the deception of which Schiff spoke) but no "fires" (direct evidence of collusion) at least none that have been disclosed publicly. Some people (I'm not among them; I've consistently stated that I don't know whether there was/is felonious collusion with Russian officials or anyone else.) have implied or stated outright that they believe there was collusion, leading to accusations that they are overplaying their hand and overstating the available evidence. Schiff’s comment is different and worth heeding because he is both the ranking member on the intelligence committee, and -- and individuals "outside the Beltway" may not be aware of this -- is also not seen as the type of politician prone to hyperbole. He is also a former federal prosecutor.
Rep. Adam Schiff says there is ‘evidence’ that Trump campaign colluded with Russia
Schiff just said in another interview that there is direct evidence of collusion, as well.There is no collusion
How can one know that to be incontrovertibly so unless and until the inquiry into whether there is collusion has been completed?
People do not openly and readily admit to doing things they know will "get them into trouble" one way or another, especially if they think their actions cannot and will not be discovered. Bill Clinton didn't think anyone would find out he had sex with Monica, so he lied about doing so. We don't know whether Trump and his people are lying about the nature and extent of their interactions with Russian officials, but there's enough circumstantial information to warrant there being an inquiry to find out.
The here is no circumstantial evidence at all. The only thing anyone has is rumor completely fabricated by the left.The here is no circumstantial evidence at all.
You keep thinking that....If you're correct, it's only because there's direct evidence of "something" untoward.
FFS, hey moron, tell us what the direct evidence is, would you? The whole country would love to know. You guys are just too stupid to be having a discussion with.
Hey, sub-literate simple minded mental midget.
Why would you ask me to share with you someting I haven't asserted exists? I have not claimed there exists publicly disclosed direct evidence and you'd know that to be so were you not an ineffably execrable reader (1) who just responds without regard to what the person to whom you respond actually wrote and (2) who, even when at your fingertips is laid information making clear the distinction between circumstantial and direct evidence, ignores it. (You'd have found that distinction in any of the three linked documents in the first of my posts you quoted. Here's another exposition of that distinction wherein it's presented in a "big yellow crayon" way.) What did I earlier write? This:
Moreover, the fact that direct evidence militating for believing someone or multiple individuals of Trump's campaign/Administration did something untoward (I don't know that collusion is that something) in their dealings with Russian officials has not been disclosed does not mean it does not exist. Believe it or not, not everything disclosed in closed-door proceedings and discussions leaks into the public domain.We don't know whether Trump and his people are lying about the nature and extent of their interactions with Russian officials, but there's enough circumstantial information to warrant there being an inquiry to find out.
In March, Adam Schiff went on Meet the Press Daily, and Chuck Todd asked him about statements by former Director of National Intelligence James Clapper that there was no evidence of collusion between the Trump team and Russia. Schiff disagreed with Clapper:
CHUCK TODD:
I want to get to the point of, look, collusion is sort of what hasn't been proven here between whatever the Russians did and the Trump campaign. In fact, the former acting director of the C.I.A., Mike Morell, who was a supporter of Hillary Clinton, he essentially reminded people, took Director Clapper at his word on this show who said, "There has been no evidence that has been found of collusion." Are we at the point of, at what point do you start to wonder if there is a fire to all this smoke?
ADAM SCHIFF:
Well, first of all, I was surprised to see Director Clapper say that, because I don't think you can make that claim categorically, as he did. I would characterize it this way, at the outset of the investigation, there was circumstantial evidence of collusion. There was direct evidence, I think, of deception.
And that's where we begin the investigation. Now I don't want to prejudge where we ultimately end up, and of course, there's one thing to say there's evidence. There's another thing to say we can prove this or prove it beyond a reasonable doubt, or there's enough evidence to bring to a grand jury for purposes of criminal indictment.
But there was certainly enough for us to conduct an investigation. The American people have a right to know, and in order to defend ourselves, we need to know whether the circumstantial evidence of collusion and direct evidence of deception is indicative of more.
That last emboldened remark is the raison d'etre for the investigation....que sera sera.
Later in the same week and in another interview, Chuck Todd asked Schiff to concede that any suggestion of collusion was circumstantial evidence at best.
“Actually, no, Chuck.. 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.”Todd pressed further, asking if he had “seen direct evidence of collusion,” Schiff would not say so directly, but insisted that he has seen some “evidence that is not circumstantial” and is worth investigating. Schiff replied saying:
“I don’t want to go into specifics, but I will say that there is evidence that is not circumstantial and is very much worthy of investigation, so that is what we ought to do.”
That is an important and surprising statement for thus far, inquiries into "Russia" by both the press and the intelligence community have found "smoke" (the deception of which Schiff spoke) but no "fires" (direct evidence of collusion) at least none that have been disclosed publicly. Some people (I'm not among them; I've consistently stated that I don't know whether there was/is felonious collusion with Russian officials or anyone else.) have implied or stated outright that they believe there was collusion, leading to accusations that they are overplaying their hand and overstating the available evidence. Schiff’s comment is different and worth heeding because he is both the ranking member on the intelligence committee, and -- and individuals "outside the Beltway" may not be aware of this -- is also not seen as the type of politician prone to hyperbole. He is also a former federal prosecutor.
Rep. Adam Schiff says there is ‘evidence’ that Trump campaign colluded with Russia
Schiff just said in another interview that there is direct evidence of collusion, as well.How can one know that to be incontrovertibly so unless and until the inquiry into whether there is collusion has been completed?
People do not openly and readily admit to doing things they know will "get them into trouble" one way or another, especially if they think their actions cannot and will not be discovered. Bill Clinton didn't think anyone would find out he had sex with Monica, so he lied about doing so. We don't know whether Trump and his people are lying about the nature and extent of their interactions with Russian officials, but there's enough circumstantial information to warrant there being an inquiry to find out.
The here is no circumstantial evidence at all. The only thing anyone has is rumor completely fabricated by the left.The here is no circumstantial evidence at all.
You keep thinking that....If you're correct, it's only because there's direct evidence of "something" untoward.
FFS, hey moron, tell us what the direct evidence is, would you? The whole country would love to know. You guys are just too stupid to be having a discussion with.
Hey, sub-literate simple minded mental midget.
Why would you ask me to share with you someting I haven't asserted exists? I have not claimed there exists publicly disclosed direct evidence and you'd know that to be so were you not an ineffably execrable reader (1) who just responds without regard to what the person to whom you respond actually wrote and (2) who, even when at your fingertips is laid information making clear the distinction between circumstantial and direct evidence, ignores it. (You'd have found that distinction in any of the three linked documents in the first of my posts you quoted. Here's another exposition of that distinction wherein it's presented in a "big yellow crayon" way.) What did I earlier write? This:
Moreover, the fact that direct evidence militating for believing someone or multiple individuals of Trump's campaign/Administration did something untoward (I don't know that collusion is that something) in their dealings with Russian officials has not been disclosed does not mean it does not exist. Believe it or not, not everything disclosed in closed-door proceedings and discussions leaks into the public domain.We don't know whether Trump and his people are lying about the nature and extent of their interactions with Russian officials, but there's enough circumstantial information to warrant there being an inquiry to find out.
In March, Adam Schiff went on Meet the Press Daily, and Chuck Todd asked him about statements by former Director of National Intelligence James Clapper that there was no evidence of collusion between the Trump team and Russia. Schiff disagreed with Clapper:
CHUCK TODD:
I want to get to the point of, look, collusion is sort of what hasn't been proven here between whatever the Russians did and the Trump campaign. In fact, the former acting director of the C.I.A., Mike Morell, who was a supporter of Hillary Clinton, he essentially reminded people, took Director Clapper at his word on this show who said, "There has been no evidence that has been found of collusion." Are we at the point of, at what point do you start to wonder if there is a fire to all this smoke?
ADAM SCHIFF:
Well, first of all, I was surprised to see Director Clapper say that, because I don't think you can make that claim categorically, as he did. I would characterize it this way, at the outset of the investigation, there was circumstantial evidence of collusion. There was direct evidence, I think, of deception.
And that's where we begin the investigation. Now I don't want to prejudge where we ultimately end up, and of course, there's one thing to say there's evidence. There's another thing to say we can prove this or prove it beyond a reasonable doubt, or there's enough evidence to bring to a grand jury for purposes of criminal indictment.
But there was certainly enough for us to conduct an investigation. The American people have a right to know, and in order to defend ourselves, we need to know whether the circumstantial evidence of collusion and direct evidence of deception is indicative of more.
That last emboldened remark is the raison d'etre for the investigation....que sera sera.
Later in the same week and in another interview, Chuck Todd asked Schiff to concede that any suggestion of collusion was circumstantial evidence at best.
“Actually, no, Chuck.. 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.”Todd pressed further, asking if he had “seen direct evidence of collusion,” Schiff would not say so directly, but insisted that he has seen some “evidence that is not circumstantial” and is worth investigating. Schiff replied saying:
“I don’t want to go into specifics, but I will say that there is evidence that is not circumstantial and is very much worthy of investigation, so that is what we ought to do.”
That is an important and surprising statement for thus far, inquiries into "Russia" by both the press and the intelligence community have found "smoke" (the deception of which Schiff spoke) but no "fires" (direct evidence of collusion) at least none that have been disclosed publicly. Some people (I'm not among them; I've consistently stated that I don't know whether there was/is felonious collusion with Russian officials or anyone else.) have implied or stated outright that they believe there was collusion, leading to accusations that they are overplaying their hand and overstating the available evidence. Schiff’s comment is different and worth heeding because he is both the ranking member on the intelligence committee, and -- and individuals "outside the Beltway" may not be aware of this -- is also not seen as the type of politician prone to hyperbole. He is also a former federal prosecutor.
Rep. Adam Schiff says there is ‘evidence’ that Trump campaign colluded with Russia
Please, "so and so says this" and "so and so says that" isn't evidence. It's just a bunch of left wing nutters playing their roles in this absurd comedy.
Please, "so and so says this" and "so and so says that" isn't evidence.
Schiff just said in another interview that there is direct evidence of collusion, as well.The here is no circumstantial evidence at all. The only thing anyone has is rumor completely fabricated by the left.The here is no circumstantial evidence at all.
You keep thinking that....If you're correct, it's only because there's direct evidence of "something" untoward.
FFS, hey moron, tell us what the direct evidence is, would you? The whole country would love to know. You guys are just too stupid to be having a discussion with.
Hey, sub-literate simple minded mental midget.
Why would you ask me to share with you someting I haven't asserted exists? I have not claimed there exists publicly disclosed direct evidence and you'd know that to be so were you not an ineffably execrable reader (1) who just responds without regard to what the person to whom you respond actually wrote and (2) who, even when at your fingertips is laid information making clear the distinction between circumstantial and direct evidence, ignores it. (You'd have found that distinction in any of the three linked documents in the first of my posts you quoted. Here's another exposition of that distinction wherein it's presented in a "big yellow crayon" way.) What did I earlier write? This:
Moreover, the fact that direct evidence militating for believing someone or multiple individuals of Trump's campaign/Administration did something untoward (I don't know that collusion is that something) in their dealings with Russian officials has not been disclosed does not mean it does not exist. Believe it or not, not everything disclosed in closed-door proceedings and discussions leaks into the public domain.We don't know whether Trump and his people are lying about the nature and extent of their interactions with Russian officials, but there's enough circumstantial information to warrant there being an inquiry to find out.
In March, Adam Schiff went on Meet the Press Daily, and Chuck Todd asked him about statements by former Director of National Intelligence James Clapper that there was no evidence of collusion between the Trump team and Russia. Schiff disagreed with Clapper:
CHUCK TODD:
I want to get to the point of, look, collusion is sort of what hasn't been proven here between whatever the Russians did and the Trump campaign. In fact, the former acting director of the C.I.A., Mike Morell, who was a supporter of Hillary Clinton, he essentially reminded people, took Director Clapper at his word on this show who said, "There has been no evidence that has been found of collusion." Are we at the point of, at what point do you start to wonder if there is a fire to all this smoke?
ADAM SCHIFF:
Well, first of all, I was surprised to see Director Clapper say that, because I don't think you can make that claim categorically, as he did. I would characterize it this way, at the outset of the investigation, there was circumstantial evidence of collusion. There was direct evidence, I think, of deception.
And that's where we begin the investigation. Now I don't want to prejudge where we ultimately end up, and of course, there's one thing to say there's evidence. There's another thing to say we can prove this or prove it beyond a reasonable doubt, or there's enough evidence to bring to a grand jury for purposes of criminal indictment.
But there was certainly enough for us to conduct an investigation. The American people have a right to know, and in order to defend ourselves, we need to know whether the circumstantial evidence of collusion and direct evidence of deception is indicative of more.
That last emboldened remark is the raison d'etre for the investigation....que sera sera.
Later in the same week and in another interview, Chuck Todd asked Schiff to concede that any suggestion of collusion was circumstantial evidence at best.
“Actually, no, Chuck.. 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.”Todd pressed further, asking if he had “seen direct evidence of collusion,” Schiff would not say so directly, but insisted that he has seen some “evidence that is not circumstantial” and is worth investigating. Schiff replied saying:
“I don’t want to go into specifics, but I will say that there is evidence that is not circumstantial and is very much worthy of investigation, so that is what we ought to do.”
That is an important and surprising statement for thus far, inquiries into "Russia" by both the press and the intelligence community have found "smoke" (the deception of which Schiff spoke) but no "fires" (direct evidence of collusion) at least none that have been disclosed publicly. Some people (I'm not among them; I've consistently stated that I don't know whether there was/is felonious collusion with Russian officials or anyone else.) have implied or stated outright that they believe there was collusion, leading to accusations that they are overplaying their hand and overstating the available evidence. Schiff’s comment is different and worth heeding because he is both the ranking member on the intelligence committee, and -- and individuals "outside the Beltway" may not be aware of this -- is also not seen as the type of politician prone to hyperbole. He is also a former federal prosecutor.
Rep. Adam Schiff says there is ‘evidence’ that Trump campaign colluded with Russia
Please, "so and so says this" and "so and so says that" isn't evidence. It's just a bunch of left wing nutters playing their roles in this absurd comedy.Please, "so and so says this" and "so and so says that" isn't evidence.
I didn't assert that it is. Did you think that's what I asserted?
