Senator Dianne Feinstein States No Evidence of Collusion Between

>>138987
>How long
For as long as people like you continue to pretend like all the evidence has been investigated and uncovered when barely any has. When she says "No evidence" you wrongly take it to mean the investigation is over..Comey said at his last hearing he wouldn't have a complete picture until the end of the year and that was before he got fired.

On top of that you have to take into account that Feinstein has to deny all knowledge of any classified material in the testimony she has heard in her role on the Senate Intel Committee.

>>138987
https://archive.is/mbCgx
>http://www.cnn.com/2017/05/09/politics/grand-jury-fbi-russia/
Talk of grand jury subpoenas being issued has been everywhere. CNN seems to have the only source, though.

>>138990
>For as long as people like you continue to pretend like all the evidence has been investigated and uncovered when barely any has.
Source on how you were able to quantify how much evidence there is vs how much has already been investigated?

>When she says "No evidence" you wrongly take it to mean the investigation is over..
No, I take it to mean that there's no evidence.

>Comey said at his last hearing he wouldn't have a complete picture until the end of the year and that was before he got fired.
That's probably part of why he was fired. This investigation has been going on for nearly a year and still hasn't presented a thing.
Pitching a wide open time for completion without being able to offer up a single scrap of directly incriminating proof supporting specific charges of collusion is generally a sign that there's nothing there. By this time into the Hillary-email investigation, we were already reading the emails she said didn't exist and didn't delete.

>On top of that you have to take into account that Feinstein has to deny all knowledge of any classified material in the testimony she has heard in her role on the Senate Intel Committee.
Good thing Blitzer didn't ask her about classified material then :^)

>>138992
CNN's source is one of the Federal District Courts in Virginia, I forget which one.

http://www.newsweek.com/what-do-flynn-subpoenas-virginia-mean-606820

>>138994
>This investigation has been going on for nearly a year and still hasn't presented a thing.
It's presented a lot but if you're going to discount every anonymous source like I know you are then course your going to say nothing is proven! I don't know why people like you even post here when you live in a bubbleworld of denial about the veracity and thruthfulness of the mainstream media.

>>138996
>It's presented a lot but if you're going to discount every anonymous source like I know you are then course your going to say nothing is proven!
You know who else is going to say this? The current investigation, because anonymous sources are /not/ proof, especially not on their own.

>I don't know why people like you even post here when you live in a bubbleworld of denial about the veracity and thruthfulness of the mainstream media.
Because someone has to point out that you're projecting.

Consider the context if a Trump supporter was shouting shit like this has Feinstein had literally said ANYTHING else other than there was no evidence at this time.

Wake up dude.

>>138995
The newsweek op ed seems to be using CNN. CNN only says
>according to people familiar with the matter
but I'm guessing a source in the alexandria district court?

>>138997
>Consider the context if a Trump supporter was shouting shit like this has Feinstein had literally said ANYTHING else other than there was no evidence at this time.
WTF do you think the 9 Benghazi investigations and then the resulting emails investigations were? Chopped liver?

>>139000
I heard them say "Federal District Court of Eastern Virginia" earlier on the air live but I don't think they specified which one. I think there is more than one in the Eastern District.

>>139005
>WTF do you think the 9 Benghazi investigations and then the resulting emails investigations were? Chopped liver?
See, there's a small difference between the Benghazi investigations and the Trump-Russia Collusion investigations.

Benghazi actually happened :^)

>>138996
>anonymous sources
>and if you don't blindly believe them without context you live in a bubble world of denial
Um no, people want facts and evidence. If she says "no evidence" after a year long campaign of slander and the only "proof" is from anonymous statements than I'm inclined to believe they have nothing or feinstein would have latched to it already.

Anyone can say anything confidentially or anonymously, that doesn't make what they say true.

>>139159
>“I was given that information, I don’t know, I was just given that information.”
-Donald Trump

>>139159
>um,no

GTFO my internetz, reddit trash.

this thread is some fox news tier bs
>person says "not at this time"
>OMG she said theres no evidence so theres no evidence lololo

>>138987
>Collusion Between Trump Associates and Russia

Love Russia or Trump if you want; that cat is long out of the bag. It's now public knowledge that Trump's former NatSec adviser with the shortest tenure in history spoke with the Russian ambassador following the election about sanctions relied and later lied about it under oath.

>>139169
>OMG she said theres no evidence so theres no evidence

Actually, yes.

You see, stating that there was no evidence "at this time", applies to all of the bullshit presented before that time. Meaning they have no evidence.

>>139257
>>Love Russia or Trump if you want
Are you accusing Feinstein of being a Russian shill?

>that cat is long out of the bag
"No evidence at this time"= no cat.

>>139273
There's monumental circumstantial evidence, which is why we have an investigation, to see if we can find anything incriminating.
But Trump and Republicans haven't made any secret of going out of their way to obstruct that.
"Why look for incriminating evidence if we've not found any incriminating evidence" is a nonsense circular logic argument.
Maybe there really isn't any evidence to be found. If so, give the investigation all the resources and independence it needs, and just go about your business while they do their job, so we can focus on more creative purists. Until then, from what we know so far, nobody knows if Trump is purposely acting suspicious as fuck as a diversion or if he's really trying to cover up something dangerous.

>>139279
Isn't Flynn himself evidence of collusion? Even if Trump was innocent at least one guy in his camp was taking Russian money during his campaign.

>>138990
Clinton proven guilty:

Left: she had no intent! It was just a few felonies!

Trump investigated on Russia story:

Left: the evidence is out there, we just haven't found it yet. He's guilty, I'm sure! Just wait! It's all coming together, soon!

(Still no evidence)

Left: well hold on, let's not be hasty. Investigations take time!

Fuckin kek

>>139283

>retards say retarded things that means the ENTIRE left does this

Fuck off, retard.

>>139281

Flynn is evidence of Flynn collusion. Not Trump. It's shady as fuck to keep him on the team until the media found out, but it's Flynn, not Trump.

>>139290
Flynn's collusion is more than enough reason to continue the investigation.

It should raise a huge red flag for anyone that someone on the Trump team was in fact colluding with Russia.

>>139292

Oh I agree it's reason to investigate Trump, but it's not reason to immediately jump to the conclusion that Trump himself is colluding. Team members can do their own rogue operations.

If there was hard evidence that Flynn acted as an intermediate for Trump and some Russian official, then yes, I would guess that would be grounds for collusion.

>>139159
Even if there were evidence, she likely isn't at liberty to discuss it and the response would likely be the same.

>>139288

Hey, don't forget about Flynn! He was talking to an ambassador about sanctions! How did we find that out??

... Don't worry about that, Flynn is a Russian surrogate! He didn't fill out a form while he was working under the Obama administration, it's really telling