As we all remember from last week, prior to breaking the year’s biggest nothingburger of a story, Rachel Maddow spent a half hour going on a conspiracy-esque tirade documenting what seemed like every Russian person that Trump had ever spoken to. All she needed was a blackboard and one would have to wonder if she had been possessed by Glenn Beck (now THAT’S a scary thought).
Of course, Trump is hardly the only person under fire for alleged connections to Russia. Jeff Sessions is under fire for meeting with Russia’s ambassador twice last year, as if the only possible reason for those meetings was to discuss rigging the U.S. presidential election in Trump’s favor.
And what does it all mean? According to the Chairman of the Intelligence Committee, the evidence DOES suggest it is in fact possible to speak to someone of Russian nationality without having a conversation on rigging a presidential election.
According to Newsmax (which is quoting the Associated Press), The chairman of a US congressional committee on intelligence said Sunday that he has seen “no evidence” that President Donald Trump’s campaign colluded with Russia during the run-up to the 2016 election. Based on “everything I have up to this morning — no evidence of collusion,” said US Representative Devin Nunes, head of the House Intelligence Committee, speaking to the Fox News Sunday television program.
He made his remarks one day before FBI director James Comey is due to appear before his panel, facing lawmakers seeking answers about Trump’s potential Russia ties and the president’s extraordinary accusation of wiretapping by his predecessor. Nunes added that he agreed with the president’s accusation that there are elements inside the intelligence community or FBI leaking information to undercut the Trump presidency. “It’s pretty clear that that’s happening,” he said.“There’s even been stories written about it in numerous newspapers talking about how they said they left breadcrumbs around to hurt the Trump administration.” But he suggested that many of the leakers may now be gone. “I think it was largely people maybe who were there, had classified information, who are now no longer there and decided to leak it,” he said. “Clearly to leak Michael Flynn’s name talking to the Russian ambassador,” Nunes said. “That was clearly designed to hurt Gen. Flynn and the president’s national security adviser.”
Great, so will liberals finally cross “Russian hackers” off the list of explanations for Hillary Clinton’s loss? They still have a few million other explanations (other than Hillary Clinton being a terrible candidate) left.
[Note: This post was authored by Matt Palumbo. Follow him on Twitter @MattPalumbo12]