Spicer: There's More Evidence Of Collusion Between The Clinton Campaign And CNN Than Russia And Trump

Posted: Mar 24, 2017 2:00 PM

There’s still no evidence of collusion, but CNN decided to report that the FBI has new information that Trump associates may have been in contact with Russian intelligence figures to coordinate release of damaging emails about Hillary Clinton. They can also confirm that nothing is conclusive.

“The FBI cannot yet prove that collusion took place,” reported the news organization. Senate Democrats involved with the investigation involving Russia, the Trump campaign, and the 2016 election have admitted that no solid evidence is going to be found. Still, in the absence of evidence, the news media still wants to keep this narrative alive—that Russia coordinated with the Trump campaign to fix an election. There’s no proof that any of these ludicrous allegations are true. At the White House Press Briefing yesterday Press Secretary Sean Spicer reiterated CNN’s reporting that none of this is conclusive. Second, there’s more evidence of collusion between the Clinton campaign and CNN than Trump and Russia [emphasis mine]:

Q Just finally, CNN reported yesterday that U.S. officials believe that -- are investigating that associates of President Trump communicated with suspected Russian operatives to coordinate the release of information damaging to Hillary Clinton’s campaign. I’m wondering if you can respond to that or say definitely that they did not do so.

MR. SPICER: So let’s actually look at what CNN reported. They reported that anonymous U.S. officials have told them that information indicates that association of the campaign and suspected operatives coordinated, which they admit is not conclusive of anything, is bordering on collusion. The last line of the thing said, “The FBI cannot yet prove that collusion took place.”

I think there’s probably more evidence that CNN colluded with the Clinton campaign to give her debate questions than the Trump campaign gave any kind of collusion. So I think when it comes down to that reporting, it is filled with a bunch of subjective terms about this person may have done this, possibly could have done that. And at the end of the story, if you wade to the very bottom it says, “The FBI cannot yet prove that collusion took place.”

So I’ve addressed this type of reporting in the past, and this fits right in.

That swipe at the news network alludes to former CNN contributor Donna Brazile, who was serving as interim chair of the Democratic National Committee during the 2016 cycle, admitting to passing off debate questions to Hillary Clinton during the primaries. Brazile was promptly shown the exit when Wikileaks exposed this.