This intel Democrat debunks the GOP argument that there's 'no direct evidence of collusion'

This intel Democrat debunks the GOP argument that there's 'no direct evidence of collusion'
MSNBC

Despite ample public evidence of secret collaboration between President Donald Trump's campaign and Russia during the 2016 election and since, Senate Intelligence Committee Chairman Richard Burr (R-NC) is repeatedly insisting that he's seen no clear evidence of "collusion" in the chamber's investigation.


"I'm not sure how to put it any clearer than I said it before," Burr told reporters Wednesday. "We have no factual evidence of collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia."

In an NBC News report on Burr's remarks, reporter Ken Dilanian characterized his conclusion as a claim that the committee has "uncovered no direct evidence of a conspiracy between the Trump campaign and Russia." But Rep. Eric Swalwell (D-CA), who sits on the House Intelligence Committee, argued that this was a misunderstanding of both the kind of evidence that is available and what kind of evidence is acceptable.

"Let's talk about direct vs circumstantial evidence," said Swalwell in a thread of tweets. "The law treats them the same. says there's no "direct evidence of collusion" b/w Trump & Russians. Put aside the fact that doesn't agree w/ this. What matters is if there's evidence of collusion."

He continued: "What is circumstantial evidence? Suppose I’m trying to prove that my son Nelson ate some freshly baked brownies that we made together. When I turned away, all of the brownies were out. When I turned back, one was gone... I didn't see Nelson eat a brownie -- that would be direct evidence. But when I returned, he had crumbs on his shirt, and chocolate on his lips and fingers. That would be considered circumstantial evidence that Nelson ate a brownie."

But as Swalwell explained, that's still strong and credible evidence.

"It's not direct, but that doesn't matter. The law says it's treated exactly the same way. So, , have you seen any circumstantial evidence of collusion?" he concluded.

On Twitter, reporter Natasha Bertrand cited an additional compelling instance of circumstantial evidence: "Chuck Rosenberg gave me another example: you wake up with snow on your front lawn. Do you have direct evidence that it snowed? No. But the circumstantial evidence is strong, and far more likely than someone driving up to your house and throwing snow on your lawn."

Enjoy this piece?

… then let us make a small request. AlterNet’s journalists work tirelessly to counter the traditional corporate media narrative. We’re here seven days a week, 365 days a year. And we’re proud to say that we’ve been bringing you the real, unfiltered news for 20 years—longer than any other progressive news site on the Internet.

It’s through the generosity of our supporters that we’re able to share with you all the underreported news you need to know. Independent journalism is increasingly imperiled; ads alone can’t pay our bills. AlterNet counts on readers like you to support our coverage. Did you enjoy content from David Cay Johnston, Common Dreams, Raw Story and Robert Reich? Opinion from Salon and Jim Hightower? Analysis by The Conversation? Then join the hundreds of readers who have supported AlterNet this year.

Every reader contribution, whatever the amount, makes a tremendous difference. Help ensure AlterNet remains independent long into the future. Support progressive journalism with a one-time contribution to AlterNet, or click here to become a subscriber. Thank you. Click here to donate by check.

Close
alternet logo

Tough Times

Demand honest news. Help support AlterNet and our mission to keep you informed during this crisis.