Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
And yet it is Adam Schiff that said there was more than circumstantial evidence of collusion.
He said that a year ago, well Adam, we're waiting, what is this evidence?
Thinking further about what Schiff said, I think he's setting the table. The Russian fairy tale has crashed and burned. So what's Mueller up to? Of all people, both Roger Stone and Eric Holder think Mueller is setting up Trump for an obstruction charge. It's a garbage, process crime charge, the kind DC specializes in to take out outsiders like Trump. So Schiff sets the table so he can go back and say, see, I told you no Russian collusion.
More than a the $2,000,000,000 Hillary Clinton campaign, the MSM and all of Hollywood?
LAWL
GTFOH.
Totally unresponsive to what I wrote. I can only assume that you have no concern that American laws were broken by the Russians as long as our Dear Leader isn't implicated.
Thinking further about what Schiff said, I think he's setting the table. The Russian fairy tale has crashed and burned. So what's Mueller up to? Of all people, both Roger Stone and Eric Holder think Mueller is setting up Trump for an obstruction charge. It's a garbage, process crime charge, the kind DC specializes in to take out outsiders like Trump. So Schiff sets the table so he can go back and say, see, I told you no Russian collusion.
Schiff has been driving the Trump-Russia collusion narrative on behalf of his party for months from his seat on the House Intelligence Committee, claiming recently he has seen “more than circumstantial” evidence of collusion. But he offered nothing substantial to back up his claim when pressed on “The View” to get specific, and acknowledged hard proof of collusion may never materialize, even after an intensive and months-long investigation by special counsel Robert Mueller.
...
“Is it enough for Mueller to bring charges?” host Meghan McCain asked Schiff. “Because if it isn’t enough for Mueller to bring charges, what does that mean? Charges of collusion.”
Schiff responded by claiming it’s not his job to prove collusion happened, but to provide a narrative about what happened to the public.
... Translation: If Mueller can’t turn up hard evidence to indict someone, Democrats in Congress will have to rely on a much softer standard of evidence to persuade the public that collusion happened.
That last line is the key. The investigation is simply the framework needed to allow Democrats to bash Trump, and give them leverage down the road.
Thinking further about what Schiff said, I think he's setting the table. The Russian fairy tale has crashed and burned. So what's Mueller up to? Of all people, both Roger Stone and Eric Holder think Mueller is setting up Trump for an obstruction charge. It's a garbage, process crime charge, the kind DC specializes in to take out outsiders like Trump. So Schiff sets the table so he can go back and say, see, I told you no Russian collusion.
Yep, Trump is only guilty of winning against the wishes of the Establishment and they severely butthurt about it.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
about it.
