Schiff: There is now 'more than circumstantial evidence' of Trump-Russia collusion - Polidicks

[quote] Rep. Adam Schiff, the top Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee, said Wednesday that there is “more than circumstantial evidence now” to suggest that President Donald Trump’s campaign may have colluded with Russia’s attempts to disrupt the election, but he would not offer details. “I can tell you that the case is more than that,” Schiff told Chuck Todd on MSNBC. “And I can’t go into the particulars, but there is more than circumstantial evidence now.” When Todd followed up, 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. “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,” Schiff said. [/quote] [URL="http://www.politico.com/story/2017/03/schiff-russia-trump-collusion-236386"]Politico[/URL] Friendly reminder that Schiff was a former US prosecutor in LA who prosecuted FBI agent Richard Miller for passing secret docs to the USSR for $65,000.

uh oh

IMPEACH IMPEACH IMPEACH IMPEACH IMPEACH. Please for the love of god get that fucking clown/traitor out of the white house.

Well I hope this goes somewhere then

Has there ever been something like this to ever happen in the history of the United States?

[QUOTE=BlackMageMari;51998259]Has there ever been something like this to ever happen in the history of the United States?[/QUOTE] Closest political scandal (might be wrong) was Watergate.

[QUOTE=Llamaguy;51998264]Closest political scandal (might be wrong) was Watergate.[/QUOTE] Can we say unironically then that Trump is reaching Nixon Levels of Presidency?

[quote]“I can tell you that the case is more than that,” Schiff told Chuck Todd on MSNBC. “And I can’t go into the particulars, but there is more than circumstantial evidence now.” When Todd followed up, 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. [/quote] This sounds underwhelming. More than circumstantial evidence Less than direct evidence What is in between?

[QUOTE=BlackMageMari;51998268]Can we say unironically then that Trump is reaching Nixon Levels of Presidency?[/QUOTE] Larger. Many historians are saying, if prosecuted, this will be the worst political scandal in US history. Bigly. [editline]22nd March 2017[/editline] [QUOTE=ROFLBURGER;51998269]This sounds underwhelming. More than circumstantial evidence Less than direct evidence What is in between?[/QUOTE] They have to be careful with language. If you saw the Comey hearing, he was VERY careful on his wording.

[QUOTE=ROFLBURGER;51998269]This sounds underwhelming. More than circumstantial evidence Less than direct evidence What is in between?[/QUOTE] He's saying it's more than circumstantial but he's not commenting on what exactly the evidence is because the investigation is still ongoing.

Also, this catches Nunez in an obstruction/contempt of congress charge because he ran to Trump with false info that was released today, that this article directly contradicts. Dare I say a Honeypot trap? They're so fucked lol.

[QUOTE=Llamaguy;51998289]Also, this catches Nunez in an obstruction/contempt of congress charge because he ran to Trump with false info that was released today, that this article directly contradicts. Dare I say a Honeypot trap? They're so fucked lol.[/QUOTE] unless they're not. Don't count your chickens before they hatch

[QUOTE=BlackMageMari;51998259]Has there ever been something like this to ever happen in the history of the United States?[/QUOTE] Treason a president? The importance of those allegations is beyond comparison. Nixon and others have been accused of treason after their presidencies, but we're never convicted or impeached for it. (I speak of the Vietnam War diplomacy sabotage)

If this goes anywhere. This is gonna be fun.

[QUOTE=MissingGlitch;51998300]If this goes anywhere. This is gonna be fun.[/QUOTE] I know you mean "fun" in the loosest of terms but this will be anything but fun. I can only see this ending in absolute tears.

[QUOTE=BlackMageMari;51998268]Can we say unironically then that Trump is reaching Nixon Levels of Presidency?[/QUOTE] News leaked out that Nixon secretly gave approval in invading Cambodia during the Vietnam War, which of course took the public by storm during a period of huge tension in the United States. It's usually obvious, but the protests during the 1960's and 70's were not like today's; it literally felt like the country was tearing itself apart. Nixon was seen as a savior to the problem, so when it came to light that he was actually making it worse (though, not entirely), his public opinion nose-dived hard before the scandal. Nixon increasingly became paranoid and defensive of the possibility of wiretapping and leaks, which would ultimately lead up to him committing a whole [I]slew[/I] of illegal and controversial acts in order to "protect himself", culminating in the Watergate scandal. Before that, there weren't many real "scandals" in the White House. The closest that comes to mind was Warren G. Harding, though it wasn't directly his doing, but the corrupt people he elected (being Albert Fall and Attorney General Harry Daugherty). Could Trump be a parallel case to Richard Nixon? Personally, I'd say it's a favorable side. Trump's getting rather paranoid, and his constant deflecting is getting on my nerves. Though, nothing can be certain until the right evidence is brought together, and until then, people can only speculate.

[QUOTE=Lambeth;51998291]unless they're not. Don't count your chickens before they hatch[/QUOTE] If the FBI leaked Nunez false info to see where that info leads, that's bad news for Trumps cabinet. That's what I meant.

[QUOTE=Omilinon;51998309]News leaked out that Nixon secretly gave approval in invading Cambodia during the Vietnam War, which of course took the public by storm during a period of huge tension in the United States. It's usually obvious, but the protests during the 1960's and 70's were not like today's; it literally felt like the country was tearing itself apart. Nixon was seen as a savior to the problem, so when it came to light that he was actually making it worse (though, not entirely), his public opinion nose-dived hard before the scandal. Nixon increasingly became paranoid and defensive of the possibility of wiretapping and leaks, which would ultimately lead up to him committing a whole [I]slew[/I] of illegal and controversial acts in order to "protect himself", culminating in the Watergate scandal. Before that, there weren't many real "scandals" in the White House. The closest that comes to mind was Warren G. Harding, though it wasn't directly his doing, but the corrupt people he elected (being Albert Fall and Attorney General Harry Daugherty). Could Trump be a parallel case to Richard Nixon? Personally, I'd say it's a favorable side. Trump's getting rather paranoid, and his constant deflecting is getting on my nerves. Though, nothing can be certain until the right evidence is brought together, and until then, people can only speculate.[/QUOTE] Huh, thanks for this post. I knew about the Cambodia thing and of course Watergate but I never linked them together. I just thought Nixon was always paranoid. Your post makes this all make too much sense.

[QUOTE=Lambeth;51998251]Well I hope this goes somewhere then[/QUOTE] It won't. Why do people think anything will come out of these "investigations"? Every time it's always been "UHP PROBABLY FOUND SOMETHING ELSE OUT BUT WE WON'T ACT ON IT!" and we wait a few weeks until it starts again

[QUOTE=Zillamaster55;51998370]It won't. Why do people think anything will come out of these "investigations"? Every time it's always been "UHP PROBABLY FOUND SOMETHING ELSE OUT BUT WE WON'T ACT ON IT!" and we wait a few weeks until it starts again[/QUOTE] Because every other investigation hasn't been treason.

[QUOTE=BlackMageMari;51998325]Huh, thanks for this post. I knew about the Cambodia thing and of course Watergate but I never linked them together. I just thought Nixon was always paranoid. Your post makes this all make too much sense.[/QUOTE] Nixon was a controversial and mixed character from the outset. He participated and was a notable member in the House Un-American Activities Committee, and a friend of McCarthy (until, of course, he started targeting the military, and Nixon backed out like everyone else). But he was also a stalwart and critical Vice President to Eisenhower, and defined the role for years to come; if you think Vice Presidents now are useless, they were a walking joke of a position before Nixon. I don't like Nixon at all, but he's not a black-and-white case that a lot of people paint him as.

[QUOTE=Zillamaster55;51998370]It won't. Why do people think anything will come out of these "investigations"? Every time it's always been "UHP PROBABLY FOUND SOMETHING ELSE OUT BUT WE WON'T ACT ON IT!" and we wait a few weeks until it starts again[/QUOTE] It's all part of the same investigation. These are updates in what they're finding.

[QUOTE=Zillamaster55;51998370]It won't. Why do people think anything will come out of these "investigations"? Every time it's always been "UHP PROBABLY FOUND SOMETHING ELSE OUT BUT WE WON'T ACT ON IT!" and we wait a few weeks until it starts again[/QUOTE] Yeah, take it from the above FP poster that nothing ever comes out of FBI investigations.

[QUOTE=The Don;51998533]Yeah, take it from the above FP poster that nothing ever comes out of FBI investigations.[/QUOTE] I didn't say that, actually, but go ahead and read further into it What I mean is that this is all just some sort of spook tactic to try and make people distrust trump more (as if we need a reason to) and it won't amount to jack tiddly shit. If it does I'll eat a can of chili out of my favorite hat. I really fucking love this beanie too, but I know not a drop of chili will enter it.

Show me the money, Schiff. I won't be teased by you like some quivering schoolgirl. Didn't you learn from Comey's blunder?

[QUOTE=Zillamaster55;51998747]I didn't say that, actually, but go ahead and read further into it What I mean is that this is all just some sort of spook tactic to try and make people distrust trump more (as if we need a reason to) and it won't amount to jack tiddly shit. If it does I'll eat a can of chili out of my favorite hat. I really fucking love this beanie too, but I know not a drop of chili will enter it.[/QUOTE] The improbable has happened before, ex. the last election. also I really want you to see you eat chili out of your hat.

[QUOTE=Chonch;51998799]Show me the money, Schiff. I won't be teased by you like some quivering schoolgirl. Didn't you learn from Comey's blunder?[/QUOTE] Comey didn't make a blunder(unless you're talking about pre election Comey) in the hearing. He walked an incredibly fine line of not giving away details on active investigation while confirming Trump is involved in these investigations.

[QUOTE=ROFLBURGER;51998269]This sounds underwhelming. More than circumstantial evidence Less than direct evidence What is in between?[/QUOTE] Whatever it is it's gotta be fairly strong because Schiff has been defending the term circumstantial evidence by the giving the example of concluding that it snowed last night because you woke up and there was suddenly snow on the ground.

When you ran on the LOCK HER UP movement and now it's looking like a new movement may form. >LOCK HIM UP

If it is found out that Trump actually had ties to Russia and all along, was a Russian puppet, what's the next step? Impeachment? And if that is the next step, can republicans theoretically block all attempts to impeach Trump?