Adam steps in Schiff again! Rep. Adam Schiff stated the House Intel Cmte needed to continue it's investigation into Russia collusion. Yet, all this time he's said "we need to trust Mueller" proving he doesn't believe Mueller has any evidence of Trump-Russia collusion.
Adam Schiff has been on television more than 200 times pushing the Trump-Russia collusion narrative. Whenever asked to provide evidence is his common response is "I can't comment publicly, but there's adequate information in the public domain" which is totally false.
Most of the alleged proof Adam refers to is from media interviews with himself, Rep Eric Swalwell, and Senator Warner. All three of which regurgitate the same exact talking points. Here is Adam getting humiliated on the view
Adam also tries to cloud what Mueller is supposed to be doing. His report is to inform the American people what happened. It is Congress' responsibility to act upon any evidence from that investigation. What does he think the Starr Report did? There is a public release of it.
Adam Schiff knows from what he's seen in House Intel Committee investigation that there is nothing there and that he can only use innuendo and creative speculation of evidence of collusion between Trump and Russia. That's why he never gives actual evidence, only speculated info.
Some of Adam's talking points look like they come from people mentioned in Vox's left wing conspiracy theory article. You can read about them and their 'theories' here. vox.com/world/2017/5/1…
The bottom line is Adam Schiff needed the House Intel Committee investigation to continue so he could use it as a cover for leaking information in a biased manner and to some extent make things up. Without it, he can't come out with speculation as a 'knowledgeable' source.
Schiff also knows that the firing of McCabe was justifiable. He calls Mueller a Republican of integrity, but he's attacking Candice M. Will, a Mueller appointeed, that found credible reasoning for firing McCabe. Does Schiff only trust Mueller for negative Trump information?
Schiff also knows that momentum is building for a second special consel to investigate inappropriate actions by select personnel within the FBI, DOJ, State Department, UN Ambassador's Office, CIA, and others. He also knows this could very well spread to Congress and even the DNC.
A second special counsel would be looking at possibly every department within the Executive Branch because it may also encompass Uranium One and into the personal finances of multiple individuals within and outside the US government.
Also, a second special counsel could trigger a subpoena for a forensic investigation of the DNC servers as well as John Podesta's computer that was hacked rather than trusting a report by Crowdstrike. This is something Democrats definitely are against for a variety of reasons.
The investigation would also delve into the unmasking of American citizens, particularly as to why a UN Ambassador would requests so many unmaskings in her position. Remember John Brennan squirming responding to Gowdy's question?
This would also likely result in the special counsel, if appointed, issuing subpoenas for White House communications of certain individuals to include the 22 emails between then Secretary of State Clinton and former President Obama.
There currently isn't a single point of criminality because there is so much speculation involving so many different people. Only a thorough investigation can confirm or deny an organized effort with a central figure or figures running the crew.
A special counsel, if appointed, should come from outside the DOJ/FBI, in fact, the individuals should not have ever had any involvement with it to ensure there is very little chance of bias. Government should never investigate itself upon finding serious questionable activity.
Some people in government agencies, Democrat and possibly a handful of Republicans, should be very concerned about a second special counsel because there are a lot that have been pushing this issue without merit. Russia interfered no doubt, it's been doing so since the 1920s.
However, if you push a story of collusion that never happened, knowing that it never happened, fully knowing there was no evidence of any collusion, then you start wading into the dangerous territory of treason (trying to bring down the sovereign).
