I’ll repeat this one last time. And it’s not directed at Fo because that’s clearly a dead end.
http://www.cnn.com/2017/03/23/politics/adam-schiff-trump-russia-grand-jury/
The top Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee is claiming that he has been presented with new information on collusion between associates of President Donald Trump and Russia that would merit a grand jury investigation.
Rep. Adam Schiff told CNN Thursday that he had seen additional evidence, but would not specify what it was.
“We continue to get new information that, I think, paints a more complete picture of at least what we know at the outset of our investigation,” Schiff said.
Asked to explain his comments earlier in the week when he said there was more than just “circumstantial evidence of collusion,” Schiff said, "I do think that it’s appropriate to say that it’s the kind of evidence that you would submit to a grand jury at the beginning of an investigation.
“It’s not the kind of evidence that you take to a trial jury when you’re trying to prove something beyond a reasonable doubt. But we’re at the beginning of an investigation, and given the gravity of the subject matter, I think that the evidence certainly warrants us doing a thorough investigation.”
If anyone can point out the bias and inaccuracy in this, feel free.
Aside from you just not letting this go, as usual, I’ll quote myself.
http://www.cnn.com/2017/03/23/politics/adam-schiff-trump-russia-grand-jury/
The top Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee is claiming that he has been presented with new information on collusion between associates of President Donald Trump and Russia that would merit a grand jury investigation.
Rep. Adam Schiff told CNN Thursday that he had seen additional evidence, but would not specify what it was.
“We continue to get new information that, I think, paints a more complete picture of at least what we know at the outset of our investigation,” Schiff said.
Asked to explain his comments earlier in the week when he said there was more than just “circumstantial evidence of collusion,” Schiff said, "I do think that it’s appropriate to say that it’s the kind of evidence that you would submit to a grand jury at the beginning of an investigation.
“It’s not the kind of evidence that you take to a trial jury when you’re trying to prove something beyond a reasonable doubt. But we’re at the beginning of an investigation, and given the gravity of the subject matter, I think that the evidence certainly warrants us doing a thorough investigation.”
Trumpy is starting to lose some fans.
http://www.cnn.com/2017/03/21/health/opioid-trump-supporter-medicaid-health-care-reform/index.htmlhttp://www.cnn.com/videos/politics/2017/03/23/moss-former-trump-supporter-tapper-lead-intv.cnn
And I think Trumpy owes Chevy Chase a check for stealing his catch phrase.
http://www.cnn.com/2017/03/23/politics/trump-time-interview-wiretaps-falsehoods/index.htmlCNN is probably not the best source for unbiased and accurate reporting, IMO anyways.
Read what I wrote, I mention nothing about the “specific article” that you’re obviously quite proud of quoting and reposting. I question CNN itself.
Words/phrases in that article like “claiming” and “I think” don’t lend any credibility to the fact that the article isn’t telling anyone anything new. It’s already heard news that’s just been reworded and rephrased to make it look new.
So, the article I posted about CNN talks about this exact thing, gasbags filling a studio is cheaper and less hot air if they’re going to improve. At this point, CNN just isn’t top echelon reporting when it comes to words, and the one article I posted clearly bears this out. It’s cheap theatrics at best and a ratings grab they cannot master at this point.
The only news I actually follow at this point is H.A. Goodman (who is not a Trump or Clinton supporter) and the live Press briefs.