Democrats Still Can’t Explain ‘Circumstantial Evidence Of Collusion’ Between Trump Campaign And Russia even 5 Months Later
U.S. House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence ranking member Representative Adam Schiff (D-CA) speaks with reporters about the Committee's Russia investigation on Capitol Hill in Washington, U.S., March 30, 2017. REUTERS/Yuri Gripas

WASHINGTON D.C. -Five long months after the ranking member of the House Intelligence Committee Adam Schiff said that “circumstantial evidence” of collusion influencing the 2016 election existed between Trump campaign associates and the Kremlin, he and other Democrats on the committee are silent about it or struggle to explain the supposed collusion.

Adam Schiff said at the time: “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 is circumstantial evidence of collusion. There is direct evidence, I think, of deception and that’s where we begin the investigation.”

Schiff later said, “There is 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.”

Schiff was asked about his claims of the existence of “circumstantial evidence” last Thursday, the same day The New York Times put out a correction that all 17 intelligence agencies did not approve the assessment that Russia “orchestrated hacking attacks during last year’s presidential election.”

“I really don’t have time,” Schiff responded. Schiff was pressed further and asked if he had any evidence at all of collusion and the California Democrat did not respond at all.

Fellow committee member Rep. Jackie Speier, California Democrat, said that it is too early to conclude anything when asked about Schiff’s previous claims of “circumstantial evidence.”

“We’re not in a position yet to suggest anything, because we’re just in the beginning stages of this investigation. We just interviewed a handful of people so far,” she added. “Until we have a comprehensive look at all of the witnesses, we can’t make assessments on what we’re identifying.”

California Democratic Rep. Eric Swalwell, another member of the committee, described what he thought of as evidence in the investigation.

“Evidence to me is witness accounts and documents, it’s not a conclusion. It’s something that’s to be tested and developed — ruled in and ruled out, and then you make a conclusion. So, the fact that the FBI has an investigation means that there was evidence. They don’t just launch investigations without evidence and neither have we.”

He added, “But the reason we are pursuing these witnesses and documents is because there is evidence that has to be tested and developed. But evidence is not a conclusion. It’s too early to make a judgment about what a conclusion is.”

Reps. Speier and Swalwell were asked if they know a crime was committed and, if so, what exactly it was.

“Well, we’re trying to determine whether they were engaged with the Russians and tried to influence the election. We’re not looking at crimes. We don’t have the authority to look at crimes. That’s what the FBI does.”

Swalwell replied, “A crime was committed. A crime was absolutely committed. The hacking of emails is a crime.”

Is the committee investigating the administration from a presumption of guilt as opposed to innocence?

“We’re looking at it from an intelligence perspective,” said Speier.

Swalwell, responded, “No, absolutely not. It’s not fair to him or the country to do that now.”

H/T The Daily Caller

Text Example

Share this article on Social Media by clicking the share buttons on screen, support our independent journalism! Get the word out!