Yesterday Martin led his piece about the current status of the probe into whether or not the Trump campaign colluded with Russia to influence the 2016 election with news from the Guardian about European intelligence services sharing intelligence about contacts between Russians and Trump’s people. Most of the response to that article has been to examine the time table of how this FBI investigation was triggered.
But it is very possible that the Guardian buried the lead. At the very end of their article they report this little bombshell:
There are now multiple investigations going on in Washington into Trump campaign officials and Russia. They include the FBI-led counter-espionage investigation and probes by both the House and Senate intelligence committees…
One source suggested the official investigation was making progress. “They now have specific concrete and corroborative evidence of collusion,” the source said. “This is between people in the Trump campaign and agents of [Russian] influence relating to the use of hacked material.”
It could be that they de-emphasized this news because it came from “one source” and wasn’t verified elsewhere. But if there is “concrete and corroborative evidence of collusion,” that’s the ballgame right there.
We’ve seen hints before that things might be heading in this direction. Amidst all the clamor around Rep. Devin Nunes’s public statements about incidental collection of communications of Trump officials, Rep. Adam Schiff told Chuck Todd that “there is more than circumstantial evidence now” on the Trump campaign’s collusion with Russians.
A couple of weeks later, another Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee, Rep. Joaquin Castro (D-TX), was asked whether he had seen any hard evidence of collusion yet. He answered by saying this:
“I guess I would say this, that my impression is I wouldn’t be surprised, after all of this is said and done, that some people end up in jail,” Castro replied.
Let’s keep in mind that neither Schiff nor Castro are extremist politicians who have a reputation for making wild unsubstantiated accusations. They are fairly moderate Democrats with reputations for being thoughtful in their approach.
We don’t have the answers yet, but it is increasingly clear that this investigation is making headway into proving whether or not the Trump campaign colluded with Russians to influence the election.
from novemoore http://ift.tt/2ofkuF7