Adam Schiff Admits There’s No ‘Proof’ Of Trump-Russia Collusion [VIDEO]

[jg121783 3,915]

The 11-month-old investigation into whether President Trump or members of his campaign colluded with Russians has still not turned up any evidence that’s strong enough to put before a jury.

 

That’s according to California Rep. Adam Schiff, the ranking member on the House Intelligence Committee, which is overseeing one of the parallel investigations into whether members of the Trump campaign coordinated with the Kremlin to influence the outcome of the election.

 

“I’m not prepared to say that there’s proof you could take to a jury,” Schiff told ABC News’ Martha Raddatz on Sunday when asked if he’s seen proof of collusion.

As a leader of the House committee, Schiff has been able to review classified information held by various agencies of the intelligence community. He has also sat in on briefings with FBI officials to review information in the case.

 

http://dailycaller.com/2017/06/18/adam-schiff-admits-theres-no-proof-of-trump-russia-collusion-video/

Edited June 19, 2017 by jg121783

[jg121783 3,915]

1 minute ago, jg121783 said:

The 11-month-old investigation into whether President Trump or members of his campaign colluded with Russians has still not turned up any evidence that’s strong enough to put before a jury.

 

That’s according to California Rep. Adam Schiff, the ranking member on the House Intelligence Committee, which is overseeing one of the parallel investigations into whether members of the Trump campaign coordinated with the Kremlin to influence the outcome of the election.

 

“I’m not prepared to say that there’s proof you could take to a jury,” Schiff told ABC News’ Martha Raddatz on Sunday when asked if he’s seen proof of collusion.

As a leader of the House committee, Schiff has been able to review classified information held by various agencies of the intelligence community. He has also sat in on briefings with FBI officials to review information in the case.

 

http://dailycaller.com/2017/06/18/adam-schiff-admits-theres-no-proof-of-trump-russia-collusion-video/

No proof to take to a jury? That is another way of saying no proof at all because if there was any proof at all it could be taken to a jury. So there we have it from one of the leading democrats pushing the Russian narrative. There is no proof.

[Dashinka 24,499]

But they have to keep digging at least to the 2018 election.  It is the only strategy the Left/DNC has, made up narratives.

 

[Amica Nostra 4,803]

29 minutes ago, jg121783 said:

No proof to take to a jury? That is another way of saying no proof at all because if there was any proof at all it could be taken to a jury. So there we have it from one of the leading democrats pushing the Russian narrative. There is no proof.

What is a legal burden of proof?

Generally used to describe the threshold that a party seeking to prove a fact in court must reach in order to have that fact legally established. For example, in criminal cases, the burden of proving the defendant's guilt is on the prosecution, and they must establish that fact beyond a reasonable doubt.

 

In other words there is   > 0 proof

Edited June 19, 2017 by ccneat

[Amica Nostra 4,803]

NB  you do   know that  > 0 proof means that there is more than Zero proof right?

[Dashinka 24,499]

5 minutes ago, ccneat said:

What is a legal burden of proof?

Generally used to describe the threshold that a party seeking to prove a fact in court must reach in order to have that fact legally established. For example, in criminal cases, the burden of proving the defendant's guilt is on the prosecution, and they must establish that fact beyond a reasonable doubt.

 

In other words there is   > 0 proof

What kind of logic is that?  Even with Schiff's spinning, it seems clear there is nothing.  Of course they can use impeachment which doesn't require the same burden of proof the legal system requires as it is a political process.

[Amica Nostra 4,803]

7 minutes ago, Bill & Katya said:

What kind of logic is that?  Even with Schiff's spinning, it seems clear there is nothing.  Of course they can use impeachment which doesn't require the same burden of proof the legal system requires as it is a political process.

Here is the whole quote 

 

“I'm not prepared to say that there's proof you could take to a jury,” Schiff said Sunday. “But I can say that there is enough that we ought to be investigating."

Source Fox news

[Dashinka 24,499]

6 minutes ago, ccneat said:

Here is the whole quote 

 

“I'm not prepared to say that there's proof you could take to a jury,” Schiff said Sunday. “But I can say that there is enough that we ought to be investigating."

Source Fox news

Reading between the lines.  "There is nothing, but at all costs we need to keep this narrative alive because that is all we have."

 

[Amica Nostra 4,803]

4 minutes ago, Bill & Katya said:

Reading between the lines.  "There is nothing, but at all costs we need to keep this narrative alive because that is all we have."

 

okay...but at least thank me for giving you the entire line to read and not the sloppy hatchet job provided in the Daily Caller by the OP

[JimandChristy 1,689]

2 and a half years later and $8 million of taxpayers money wasted. That's what you call a witch hunt by the Republicans. Very rich of them to complain about the current one on Trump and his administration.

Edited June 19, 2017 by JimandChristy

[Amica Nostra 4,803]

1 minute ago, JimandChristy said:

i see nothing...

signed anxiously awating

[Dashinka 24,499]

20 minutes ago, ccneat said:

okay...but at least thank me for giving you the entire line to read and not the sloppy hatchet job provided in the Daily Caller by the OP

Did it really matter?  

 

Edited June 19, 2017 by Bill & Katya

[Amica Nostra 4,803]

Just now, Bill & Katya said:

Did it really matter?  

no because regardless of what senator Schiff actually said, the fake news tsunami took over and let folks believe what they wanted to believe 

[Dashinka 24,499]

12 minutes ago, JimandChristy said:

2 and a half years later and $8 million of taxpayers money wasted. That's what you call a witch hunt by the Republicans. Very rich of them to complain about the current one on Trump and his administration.

Wasn't it the Benghazi probe that uncovered Hillary's private server?

[IAMX 3,055]

40 minutes ago, ccneat said:

What is a legal burden of proof?

Generally used to describe the threshold that a party seeking to prove a fact in court must reach in order to have that fact legally established. For example, in criminal cases, the burden of proving the defendant's guilt is on the prosecution, and they must establish that fact beyond a reasonable doubt.

 

In other words there is   > 0 proof

The requirement of a trial is an extremely low standard, so if the burden of proof to get to a trial can't be met by these claims, they're garbage, as many of us already knew.