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:
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.
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.
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.
