Adam Schiff Lies Again, Says There is “Compelling Evidence” of Collusion

One might have hoped that when Rep. Adam Schiff (D-CA) took control of the House Intelligence Committee, he would have recognized the weight and responsibility that role bestowed on him as a congressman. As ranking member under Devin Nunes, one could almost excuse Schiff’s fanciful tales, which he spun on TV whenever he got the chance. Nunes was determined to run a clean investigation free from Democrat-inspired conspiracy theories, and we understand that made things difficult on a partisan hack like Schiff. He had to vent, and what better place to do that than CNN and MSNBC?

But once you assume control of the committee, you have to take your job seriously. That job, contrary to Schiff’s assumptions, is not to be the lead witch-hunter for the DNC. It’s not to set the stage for a Democratic victory in 2020. It is to run an unbiased, impartial committee for the purposes of providing oversight of our federal intelligence agencies. It is to the country’s misfortune that Schiff thinks he’s no more than an attack dog for Nancy Pelosi, and it is to his committee’s shame that he’s still out there telling lies on CNN.

Schiff was on the network this Sunday, telling Dana Bash of “State of the Union” that he disagreed with Senate Intelligence Chairman Richard Burr’s assessment earlier this month that there was no direct evidence of collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia.

“Chairman Burr must have a different word for it,” Schiff said. Referencing the Trump Tower meeting, George Papadopoulos, and Michael Flynn, Schiff said there was plenty of evidence of collusion.

“You can see evidence in plain sight on the issue of collusion, pretty compelling evidence,” Schiff said. “There is a difference between seeing evidence of collusion and being able to prove a criminal conspiracy beyond a reasonable doubt.”

Well, Mr. Schiff, it is you who must have a “different word for it,” because the term “direct evidence” has a meaning. And so do terms like “collusion” and “criminal conspiracy.” What, exactly, have you got evidence of? That Trump campaign advisers spoke to Russians? Gee, the same can be said of people who worked for Hillary Clinton. Where do you think the information contained in the dossier came from? It doesn’t mean that Trump had anything to do with the hacking of the DNC, and isn’t that supposed to be the central question at hand?

Do you have any evidence of THAT, Mr. Schiff, or are you just trying to muddy the waters as usual?

About Admin