Meghan McCain Confronts Adam Schiff: Show Evidence of Collusion or Else
Rep. Adam Schiff appeared on The View and while on the show, he was questioned by Meghan McCain on what evidence there is that there was any collusion between President Trump, his campaign team and the Russians.
Noting that over a year later, we have yet to see even a shred of evidence that anything amounted remotely to collusion, Schiff conceded to McCain that there is still nothing to back up claims of any collusion with the Russians to win or even sway the election.
He also pointedly distanced himself from allegations of treason against the President. He has been the biggest proponent of the investigation since its inception and now seems to be taking a step back from the whole affair.
Schiff has been the author of the narrative accusing President Trump of Russian collusion on behalf of his party for many months. From his seat on the House Intelligence Committee, he has adamantly claimed that he has seen “more than circumstantial” evidence of collusion. To date, he has offered no concrete evidence of collusion to back up his claims. While he was pressed on The View to be specific, he instead deferred and acknowledged that hard proof of collusion may never materialize, even after an intensive and months-long investigation by special counsel Robert Mueller. One wonders why the expensive, time-intensive investigation is continuing if that is the case here.
“I think, at this time, it’s difficult for me and many Americans to differentiate between what is overhype and what isn’t,” McCain said. “You have said on more than one occasion you have seen ample evidence of the Trump campaign’s Russia collusion. Last March you said you had more than circumstantial evidence of collusion with Russia. What were you referring to and please be specific because if it’s true Americans have a right to know a year later what that is?”
“I’ve never used the word treason,” Schiff stated, before listing several “damning” incidents that prove little more than that Russia initiated contact with Trump’s campaign to offer dirt its operatives claimed to have on Hillary Clinton. “Only Steve Bannon used that word. If you look at the facts that are already in the public domain, they’re pretty damning starting with George Papadopoulos.” No they aren’t, Papadopoulis, Manafort, Flynn and Page were all Russian plants probably, trying to gain influence with President Trump. That is a standard technique for Russia and in no way reflects on the Trump campaign other than perhaps geopolitical naivete.
“We know that Papadopoulos was approached by the Russians and told back in April of the election year before the Clinton campaign knew that the Russians had stolen and DNC e-mails and we also know they previewed their anonymous dissemination of those e-mails with Papadopoulos back in April. Now it was only weeks later that the Russians made a second approach to the Trump campaign, this time at the highest levels at Trump Tower in a meeting that they previewed by saying that they wanted to offer incriminating information about Hillary.”
“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.” It means exactly nothing.
Schiff responded by claiming it’s not his job to prove collusion happened, but to provide a narrative about what happened to the public. I’m confused. This is supposed to be a fact-driven investigation, not narrative-driven and accusatory in nature. “Bob Mueller will make the decision whether there is proof beyond a reasonable doubt to indict and convict people,” he said. “It is not his responsibility to tell the country what happened, and indeed there’s no guarantee that the country will ever learn what Bob Mueller finds apart from an indictment. It’s the job of the Congress to tell the American people what happened, whether it reaches the standard beyond a reasonable doubt or we merely find clear and convincing evidence of collusion.”
This would seem to indicate that if Mueller cannot produce hard and fast 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. In reality, that is not evidence at all… it is heresy by third parties and is not acceptable in a court of law. “I just think if Mueller doesn’t end up charging him, it’s a lot of smoke and mirrors,” McCain said. I agree. It will definitely give the appearance of a political hit and smear job. Whoopi Goldberg agreed with Schiff. “We won’t know,” she concluded. I disagree… we already know. There is no evidence of collusion and never has been. To say otherwise is simply unsubstantiated and untrue, not to mention politically biased.