Another Democratic Senator Says There's Not Enough Evidence To Point To Russian Collusion

Posted: May 24, 2017 3:30 PM

In yesterday’s episode of MSNBC’s Morning Joe, The New York Times’ Charlie Savage asked Sen. Claire McCaskill about the scoop that The Washington Post reported on involving the Director of National Intelligence Dan Coats and National Security Agency Director Admiral Mike Rogers regarding the Russian collusion investigation. It was reported that the president asked both men to deny the existence of any collusion between the Trump campaign and the Russians during the 2016 election. Both men reportedly refused this request and Admiral Rogers is said to have drafted a memo on the matter. This adds to another avenue in the Russia-Trump drama. Earlier this month, it as discovered that James Comey, who was fired by President Trump on May 9, had drafted a memo that documented ways in which the president might have acted improperly concerning influencing an ongoing investigation; in this case, the one involving his former national security adviser Michael Flynn.

Both have liberals crying foul, some are tossing around impeachment, but Savage asked McCaskill if she has a right to see them. The conversations involved the president so executive privilege could be invoked. Yet, Savage noted that it would set precedent for Republican Senators to seek documents in the case of a Democratic president having similar charges lobbed against him. McCaskill, a former prosecutor, said that she wants to see all the documents, analyze them, and then come to a conclusion. In other words, she’s treading carefully, not going down the road of some of her more trigger-happy colleagues who want to remove Trump and quasi-nullify the results of the 2016 election. These people should know that Mike Pence would succeed Trump, so it’s not like removing him, a highly unlikely case, is going to make Hillary Clinton president. McCaskill also said that the reporting on the conversations Trump had with the FBI and the intelligence community is nothing more than poor judgment at this point. That’s not exactly felonious in nature. So, we have another Democratic senator saying that as of now, there’s really no evidence of Russian collusion, and that the obstruction of justice charges are incredibly premature.

Also, former CIA Director John Brennan told Congress yesterday that the intelligence community has not been pressured to drop the Flynn investigation. To rehash, McCaskill’s colleague, Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) also said this month—twice—that there is no evidence of Russian collusion. The Senate and House Intelligence Community have found nothing either. Mr. Brennan did say that Russia had a concerted interference program, which isn’t unusual (we’ve interfered in elections before), but hacking the election didn’t occur. No vote tallies were tampered with, though I know a lot of Democrats thinks that’s what happened. Also, Brennan added that interactions with the Russians doesn’t mean that’s evidence of collusion, despite the new narrative peddled by some on the Left, which is that any meeting with the Russians is inappropriate.

Listen, I don’t trust the Russians on much either, but this neo-Russophobia emanating from the progressive Left is quite triggering.