Intel member drops truthbomb: There's 'circumstantial evidence of collusion, direct evidence...

[DonViejo]

Intel member drops Russia truthbomb: There’s ‘circumstantial evidence of collusion, direct evidence of deception’

TOM BOGGIONI
19 MAR 2017 AT 13:19 ET

-snip-

Despite denials from the White House, Rep. Adam Schiff (D-CA) defended looking into accusations that Trump operatives were in contact with Russian operatives.

While James Clapper, the Director of National Intelligence under President Obama, said two weeks ago that no evidence exists that he was aware of, Schiff said that is not the case.

“I was surprised to see Director Clapper say that because I don’t think you can make that claim categorically as he did,” Schiff told NBC host Chuck Todd. “I would characterize it this way at the outset of the investigation: There is circumstantial evidence of collusion. There is direct evidence, I think, of deception and that’s where we begin the investigation.”

“There is certainly enough for us to conduct an investigation,” he continued. “The American people have a right to know and in order to defend ourselves, we need to know whether the circumstantial evidence of collusion and direct evidence of deception is indicative of more.”

Watch the video below via NBC:

http://www.rawstory.com/2017/03/intel-member-drops-russia-truthbomb-theres-circumstantial-evidence-of-collusion-direct-evidence-of-deception/

[ThoughtCriminal]

1. The evidence of deception is itself

also evidence of collusion. If there was no collusion, why all the deception?

[alwaysinflux]

2. Nunes is hinting illegal unmasking ...

... of incidental communication. I will be very disappointed if that is the main thrust of Comey's testimony on Monday.