- Post
- #1058671
- Topic
- Politics 2: Electric Boogaloo
- Link
- https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/1058671/action/topic#1058671
- Time
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.
No-one will or can - as there is no bias or inaccuracy in there.
We are seemingly in an age where people and organisations are trying to present their opinion as fact possibly more than ever before - and when those same people are questioned on it they often cannot come up with facts/evidence to make their point - they generally then claim it as opinion (often under ‘free speech’), or deflect or obfuscate.
Thankfully more and more people are seeing it for what it is.
(that’s not to say news organisations shouldn’t be questioned - or challenged when reporting is substandard, slanted or untruthful/lacking in fact - we’ve likely seen some pieces which fall into one or more of these categories from most, if not all, media outlets over time)
