quote:

As Guy wrote last week, Sen. Chris Coons (D-DE) has retreated from his claim that there’s solid evidence of collusion between the Trump campaign and Russian intelligence agencies. Now, his colleagues on the Senate Intelligence Committee also concede that there may be zero evidence of such activity after a month into their investigation (via John Sexton/Buzzfeed):

quote:

A month into its sweeping investigation into the Kremlin’s efforts to undermine the US election, the Senate Intelligence Committee is expected to answer all those questions — publicly, coherently, and fast. As the days tick by, they’re less and less sure they’ll be able to.
Even some Democrats on the Intelligence Committee now quietly admit, after several briefings and preliminary inquiries, they don’t expect to find evidence of active, informed collusion between the Trump campaign and known Russian intelligence operatives, though investigators have only just begun reviewing raw intelligence. Among the Intelligence Committee’s rank and file, there’s a tangible frustration over what one official called “wildly inflated” expectations surrounding the panel’s fledgling investigation.

Since the probe was first announced in December — days after the FBI and CIA told Congress they believed the Kremlin had worked to elect Trump — political infighting has fundamentally shifted its mandate. Instead of a surgically precise examination of the raw intelligence that led US agencies to conclude the Kremlin attempted to tilt the election, the Intelligence Committee investigation has quickly become the catch-all for any politician’s lingering questions related to Moscow. Now, several committee sources grudgingly say, it feels as though the investigation will be seen as a sham if the Senate doesn’t find a silver bullet connecting Trump and Russian intelligence operatives.

“I don’t think the conclusions are going to meet people’s expectations,” a second official said...

Lost in the political shuffling is the fact — concluded by 17 US intelligence agencies — that the upper echelons of Russia’s government directed an operation aimed at manipulating and disrupting the US election, and to a notable degree, succeeded. Short of an impeachable offense, officials are concerned the public is missing the forest for the trees.

So, the first part is something we’ve known for a bit: there’s zero evidence of so-called collusion, though that has not quelled the Democrats’ obsession with Russia. Any Trump aide who has met with a Russian foreign official is considered a breadcrumb on a trail could point to collusion, where in reality it’s probably a case of both sides doing their jobs; the Russian meeting with staffers of a person who could potentially become the next president of the United States and the Trump aide meeting with the Russian aide and the officials of other nations to establish a possible working relationship. This is not unusual. It’s also not unusual for members of Congress to meet with foreign officials as well, especially if you’re on the Senate Armed Services Committee, like former senator and current Attorney General Jeff Sessions.

As we’ve noted before, it quite interesting how in four years, Democrats can go from laughing at Republicans for suggesting that Russia is our biggest geopolitical foe to public enemy number one in less than five years. Some on the Left have also noted this descent into Russophobia concerning meetings between Trump aides and Russia is nothing more than “neo-McCarthyite furor” that could damage relations on future projects.

Also, the propaganda and fake news that was peddled by the Kremlin through social media trolls and their state-funded media outlets had zero impact on the election. Facebook’s Mark Zuckerberg and Sheryl Sandberg said their platform, which was used disseminate some of these stories did not sway the election, The Economist reported on a study that also concluded that fake news did not play a pivotal role in the 2016 election. Russia didn’t succeed in undermining Clinton’s presidential ambition. Hillary Clinton did that to herself. Period.

In the absence of evidence, Democrats have blamed everyone from the FBI to even members of the press for undermining Clinton’s campaign. It’s becoming a rather sad spectacle.

quote:

ORIGINAL: bounty44

speaking actually of Russia:

"Dead End: Senate Intelligence Dems Admit There May Be ZERO Evidence Of Collusion Between Russians And Trump Campaign "

quote:

As Guy wrote last week, Sen. Chris Coons (D-DE) has retreated from his claim that there’s solid evidence of collusion between the Trump campaign and Russian intelligence agencies. Now, his colleagues on the Senate Intelligence Committee also concede that there may be zero evidence of such activity after a month into their investigation (via John Sexton/Buzzfeed):

quote:

A month into its sweeping investigation into the Kremlin’s efforts to undermine the US election, the Senate Intelligence Committee is expected to answer all those questions — publicly, coherently, and fast. As the days tick by, they’re less and less sure they’ll be able to.
Even some Democrats on the Intelligence Committee now quietly admit, after several briefings and preliminary inquiries, they don’t expect to find evidence of active, informed collusion between the Trump campaign and known Russian intelligence operatives, though investigators have only just begun reviewing raw intelligence. Among the Intelligence Committee’s rank and file, there’s a tangible frustration over what one official called “wildly inflated” expectations surrounding the panel’s fledgling investigation.

Since the probe was first announced in December — days after the FBI and CIA told Congress they believed the Kremlin had worked to elect Trump — political infighting has fundamentally shifted its mandate. Instead of a surgically precise examination of the raw intelligence that led US agencies to conclude the Kremlin attempted to tilt the election, the Intelligence Committee investigation has quickly become the catch-all for any politician’s lingering questions related to Moscow. Now, several committee sources grudgingly say, it feels as though the investigation will be seen as a sham if the Senate doesn’t find a silver bullet connecting Trump and Russian intelligence operatives.

“I don’t think the conclusions are going to meet people’s expectations,” a second official said...

Lost in the political shuffling is the fact — concluded by 17 US intelligence agencies — that the upper echelons of Russia’s government directed an operation aimed at manipulating and disrupting the US election, and to a notable degree, succeeded. Short of an impeachable offense, officials are concerned the public is missing the forest for the trees.

So, the first part is something we’ve known for a bit: there’s zero evidence of so-called collusion, though that has not quelled the Democrats’ obsession with Russia. Any Trump aide who has met with a Russian foreign official is considered a breadcrumb on a trail could point to collusion, where in reality it’s probably a case of both sides doing their jobs; the Russian meeting with staffers of a person who could potentially become the next president of the United States and the Trump aide meeting with the Russian aide and the officials of other nations to establish a possible working relationship. This is not unusual. It’s also not unusual for members of Congress to meet with foreign officials as well, especially if you’re on the Senate Armed Services Committee, like former senator and current Attorney General Jeff Sessions.

As we’ve noted before, it quite interesting how in four years, Democrats can go from laughing at Republicans for suggesting that Russia is our biggest geopolitical foe to public enemy number one in less than five years. Some on the Left have also noted this descent into Russophobia concerning meetings between Trump aides and Russia is nothing more than “neo-McCarthyite furor” that could damage relations on future projects.

Also, the propaganda and fake news that was peddled by the Kremlin through social media trolls and their state-funded media outlets had zero impact on the election. Facebook’s Mark Zuckerberg and Sheryl Sandberg said their platform, which was used disseminate some of these stories did not sway the election, The Economist reported on a study that also concluded that fake news did not play a pivotal role in the 2016 election. Russia didn’t succeed in undermining Clinton’s presidential ambition. Hillary Clinton did that to herself. Period.

In the absence of evidence, Democrats have blamed everyone from the FBI to even members of the press for undermining Clinton’s campaign. It’s becoming a rather sad spectacle.

https://townhall.com/tipsheet/mattvespa/2017/03/10/dead-end-senate-intelligence-dems-admit-there-may-be-zero-evidence-of-collusion-between-russians-and-trump-campaign-n2296924

quote:

With the scope of the investigation pretty much done, the House Intelligence Committee is set to hold their first hearings on possible Russian interference later this month. The date is set for March 20. This could be a bumpy ride, as a rather intense streak of Russophobia has struck the Democratic Party. Still sour and shocked over their 2016 loss to Donald Trump, the Left seems almost obsessed that a Russian conspiracy exists, despite there being zero evidence to substantiate such an explosive claim.

Even Senate Democrats on their Intelligence Committee admit that no evidence may be found pointing to collusion between Russian intelligence and the Trump campaign. In the meantime, they’ll just try to paint every meeting a Trump aide had with a Russian as proof that some coordination might have occurred, which is rather ridiculous since meetings with foreign officials isn’t unheard of, nor is it illegal, especially when it comes to someone who could be the next president. With subpoenas over witnesses and documents expected to be a fight, Democrats on the committee warned they would walk away from the investigation if it become a "dog-and-pony show" (via NYT):

quote:

They agreed just a week ago to the terms of a House Intelligence Committee investigation into Russian meddling in the 2016 presidential election. But now some of the panel’s Democrats are warning that they may pull their support for the inquiry if it becomes mired in party-line politics.
When that might happen is unclear, and Democrats know that the current moment of even tentative comity on the Republican-controlled panel may offer their best chance for scrutinizing links between people close to President Trump and Russian officials.

Still, Democrats are bracing for fights over subpoenaing witnesses and documents — including, possibly, Mr. Trump’s tax returns — since Republicans have balked at an outside, independent inquiry into what intelligence officials say was an unprecedented intrusion into an American election by a foreign power.

“I’m not going to be part of a dog-and-pony show that is not a serious effort to do an investigation because this is really serious,” said Representative Jackie Speier, Democrat of California. “If it’s not a legitimate and comprehensive and in-depth investigation, why would we be party to it?”

Ms. Speier said the committee’s Democrats — all nine of whom were interviewed by The New York Times — would not hesitate, “under certain circumstances,” to pull their support.

So, if Trump doesn’t produce his tax returns, we should expect a Democratic walk out? The fireworks begin soon.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery

Vs., say, Trump's wild accusations without evidence.

A shit show all the way around.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery

Vs., say, Trump's wild accusations without evidence.

A shit show all the way around.

quote:

ORIGINAL: tamaka

quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery

Vs., say, Trump's wild accusations without evidence.

A shit show all the way around.

I think it's all about the ratings. But honestly, as much as it can get sickening sometimes, i think overall it is a good thing that more and more people actually care about what's going on... it's better than apathy.