,
4 tweets,
2 min read
Read on Twitter
When your own news network issues a report that negates everything you've been doing and saying for the last two years, and the only thing left for you to do is passive-aggressively sub-tweet them with a link to a Democratic Party journal that doesn't even contradict it:
This is a classic case where people use social media headlines to argue with one another & thus mislead. Richard Burr said: we've found no direct evidence of collusion so far. NBC said: Dems confirmed this to us. No Dem is saying otherwise. They're just saying: we're not done yet
Of course it's *possible* the Committee will suddenly find direct collusion evidence that has been hiding for 2 years. Of course it's *possible* Mueller will finally indict an American for election-conspiring with Russia. Anything is "possible." Journalism is about known facts: 
One last point: It's true there are other types of evidence besides "direct evidence" (such as circumstantial). But given the intense level of surveillance we now know many Trump officials were under, the Committee's lack of "direct" collusion evidence is obviously significant.
