Excitable Adam Schiff: Mueller Couldn’t Prove Collusion, But There’s Lots Of Evidence Or Something

The Russia Russia Russia collusion meme has mostly disappeared from most mainstream news outlets at this point. Nothing in the NY Times or Washington Post, the LA Times in Hollywood #Resistland is bereft of mentions, ABC, CBS, and NBC News all ignore it. Because it’s dead, Jim, just move on. But, this tiny little thing has set the CollusionConspiratists off at some 2nd tier outlets

Trump: Mueller report a ‘total waste of time’ – but it proves no collusion

Donald Trump said on Saturday he has not read Robert Mueller’s report about contacts between his 2016 campaign and Russia, which his Democratic opponents say should be released in full.

“I have not read the Mueller report yet, even though I have every right to do so,” Trump wrote on Twitter. “Only know the conclusions, and on the big one, No Collusion.”

See, it’s that part that has set them in Barking Moonbat Level 4: they’re all asking “how does he know if he hasn’t read it? There must be a conspiracy going on with AG Barr! YEaaaaaaar! Seriously, how would you know that you haven’t committed what you’re being accused of unless you actually read a report on it, right?

Meanwhile, Newsweek continues its stellar writing, the same type that got the rag sold for $1, with a piece by Moonbat Frank Snepp entitled BARR’S MUELLER REPORT SUMMARY IS LIKE WITNESSING A MURDER AND BEING TOLD IT NEVER HAPPENED. Of course, Frank isn’t actually able to offer any evidence that collusion happened, just like Excitable Adam Schiff, who just won’t give up, as we see from the MSNBC transcript

Schiff: I Fully Accept That Mueller Couldn’t Prove Collusion, But “There Is Plenty Of Evidence”

WILLIE GEIST, MSNBC: Do you accept the fundamental conclusion in that four-page letter, that there was no collusion between the Trump campaign and Russians?

REP. ADAM SCHIFF (D-CA): I accept [Robert] Mueller’s conclusion, and I assume Barr wouldn’t misrepresent this, that he could not prove beyond a reasonable doubt the crime of conspiracy. As I said all along, there is plenty of evidence of collusion and corrupt co-mingling of work between the Trump campaign and the Russians. I fully accept that as a prosecutor, that he couldn’t prove beyond a reasonable doubt that crime.

As you know, because I’ve made this distinction on your show, I always said there was ample evidence of collusion in the public record. Whether Bob Mueller could prove the crime of conspiracy beyond a reasonable doubt would be up to him and I’d accept his conclusion, and I do.

GEIST: You said on this show and others that there is direct evidence of collusion. Were you wrong about that, now that you’ve seen the summary of the special counsel’s report?

SCHIFF: No. Because I think what you see in the public record is direct evidence. When the Russians, through an intermediary, offer dirt on the Clinton campaign as part of what’s described as the Russian government effort to help the Trump campaign, and Donald Trump’s son who played a pivotal role in the campaign who says, if it is what you say it is, I would love it, and sets up a meeting to receive it, that is very direct evidence of collusion.

So, then it would be criminal collusion for the Hillary campaign to be working with a British citizen, Christopher Steele, to obtain the “dossier“, right? Or, would that just be typical political dirty tricks in an age of global connectivity thanks to modern technology? Where foreign citizens and governments attempt to sway elections in other countries? Like has been done for a long, long time?

But, if Schiff has any real evidence, let’s see it: put it on the table. Let us judge it. He can’t, because there isn’t. He, and some other Leftards, just cannot move on from this.

Save $10 on purchases of $49.99 & up on our Fruit Bouquets at 1800flowers.com. Promo Code: FRUIT49
If you liked my post, feel free to subscribe to my rss feeds.

Both comments and trackbacks are currently closed

Comments are closed.

Pirate's Cove