On Thursday we had two perfect examples of the lies Democrats tell themselves. Interestingly enough, the two examples go hand-in-hand.
Democrat Congressman Adam Schiff (D-CA) appeared on PBS with Charlie Rose to talk about what was going on with the investigation into the Russia fiasco. At one point in their conversation Rose pressed Schiff to tell him if there was actually any real evidence of collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia. When Schiff says he that yes, there is “evidence” of collusion, Rose presses again… “but is it circumstantial evidence?”
(Here’s where it gets good, because as you know there are only two kinds of evidence – circumstantial, which can only suggest the possibility of a connection to a conclusion. The other evidence is direct, this type of evidence supports an assertion directly and needs no other additional evidence to support a conclusion.)
In answering Rose’s question he immediately unmasks his naked political corruption. When Rose asks “but is it circumstantial evidence,” Schiff replies, “from my point of view, it is not purely circumstantial.”
That’s it. He just gave up the game. Evidence does not need a “perspective.” It either is, or it is not, direct evidence. If it is not direct evidence, then it is – by definition – circumstantial.
Watch as Schiff does his best to imply that Trump has done something wrong without actually having any evidence to support his claim.
Charlie Rose: Have you seen any evidence that anybody from the Russian team — I mean, I’m sorry — anybody from the Trump election team or transition team colluded with the Russians? Have you seen any evidence of that in terms of what you have witnessed?
Adam Schiff: You know, I have said yes, and I — I still maintain that there is evidence of collusion, but I want people to understand, we are at the very beginning of an investigation, and we need to follow the evidence wherever it leads. I’m not prepared to make any conclusions about the strength of the evidence once we conclude our investigation. But there was a good basis for the FBI to begin its investigation. I think there’s a good basis for the FBI to continue its investigation. I think there was a good basis for the appointment of Bob Mueller. I don’t think any of these steps take place because this is just a suspicion or someone’s hunch. So I think we’re doing the responsible thing…
Charlie Rose: But…
Adam Schiff: … which is a thorough investigation.
Charlie Rose: … but is it circumstantial evidence?
Adam Schiff: You know, in — from my point of view, it is not purely circumstantial. I can’t and I don’t want to go into the specifics of the evidence that we have been presented. And one of the challenges that we have, Charlie, is not all of us have seen the same evidence. There were of us that are part of the gang of eight, get one level of briefing. There was that are in the Intelligence Committee get a different level of briefing.
Those who are in the judiciary committee that Sheldon Whitehouse and Lindsey Graham, chair and ranking member, they get a different level of evidence. And I think this points out maybe part of the reason why different members see the evidence in different ways.
Charlie Rose: You can confirm that there is — at the FBI, there is person of interest high up in the White House?
Adam Schiff: No, I can’t confirm or make comment on who the FBI may or may not be looking at.
That last question is important too. Rose wonders about who the investigation might be looking at and Schiff allows Rose to believe that it has zeroed in on Trump team members. Which leads us to our 2nd big Democrat lie of the day, from the “fake news” purveyors at the Washington Post.
This is the headline of the WaPo article followed by the 5th paragraph – see if you can spot why this is FAKE NEWS.
How is the headline “Jared Kushner now a Focus in the Russia investigation,” when the 5th paragraph openly admits that the Post has heard no such thing or even that he has been accused of any wrongdoing?
Can you see why we argued that the mainstream media is nothing but anti-Trump, liberal fake news? These two stories are perfect examples of what we’re saying.