Senate Intelligence Committee approaches ‘End of Investigation’ on ‘Russian Collusion in the 2016 election’
After nearly two years, two-hundred or so interviews, our great and honorable Senate Intelligence Committee is finally coming to a conclusion in closing in on the details and findings int heir investigation on ‘Russian Collusion’ in the 2016 Election
Of course, most sane Americans will realize that it’s a no brainer. We are fed up with the tax dollars wasted on these partisan investigations against the President. This is money we shouldn’t have to pay to the government. We should have a disclosure of what our tax dollars are going towards before we even file. Wouldn’t that be fair to “we the people”?
As reported by nbcnews.com
WASHINGTON — After two years and 200 interviews, the Senate Intelligence Committee is approaching the end of its investigation into the 2016 election, having uncovered no direct evidence of a conspiracy between the Trump campaign and Russia, according to both Democrats and Republicans on the committee.
But investigators disagree along party lines when it comes to the implications of a pattern of contacts they have documented between Trump associates and Russians — contacts that occurred before, during and after Russian intelligence operatives were seeking to help Donald Trump by leaking hacked Democratic emails and attacking his opponent, Hillary Clinton, on social media.
“If we write a report based upon the facts that we have, then we don’t have anything that would suggest there was collusion by the Trump campaign and Russia,” said Sen. Richard Burr, R-N.C., the chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, in an interview with CBS News last week.
Burr was careful to note that more facts may yet be uncovered, but he also made clear that the investigation was nearing an end.
“We know we’re getting to the bottom of the barrel because there’re not new questions that we’re searching for answers to,” Burr said.
Democratic Senate investigators who spoke to NBC News on condition of anonymity did not dispute Burr’s characterizations, but said they lacked context.