Unchallenged Claims and the Reality Behind Schiff's Uncharged Allegations

The persistent question surrounding why Adam Schiff, the lead prosecutor in the investigation into Russian collusion during the 2016 US election, has not been charged with lying has intrigued many.

Trumplethinskin's Debt to Christopher Steele's Company

Trumplethinskin owes ￡300,000 after his failed lawsuit against Christopher Steele’s company, Trinity Crowd Research. A significant portion of this debt can be attributed to the support Trinity Crowd Research provided to Schiff and the investigation.

Specificity in Allegations

To address the core of the issue, it is crucial to be specific about which statements Schiff made and to whom. If one is referring to Schiff's statements in reference to the Mueller report, his narratives more accurately described the full contents of the report than the summary released by AG Barr before Mueller’s comments. However, when discussing Schiff's opening arguments during the impeachment of President Trump, which involved Trump's calls to the Georgia Secretary of State and Governor, there was indeed serious discussion of potential misconduct.

Context and Supporting Evidence

Adam Schiff has been consistently vocal about Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election. The U.S. Intelligence Community, including a Republican Senate report, also confirms this. Meetings between campaign officials and members of Putin's inner circle, as well as the infamous Trump Tower meeting, have been cited as evidence of collusion.

Contrary to some narratives, Schiff did not claim "incontrovertible evidence." Instead, he presented extensive evidence of potential collusion, which included classified information he was privy to. It is worth noting that this evidence was not public and thus could not be fully disclosed to the public or in court proceedings.

The Mueller Report and subsequent Senate investigations have corroborated much of Schiff's claims. These investigations provided detailed accounts of the interactions between Trump campaign officials and Russian entities.

Schiff's statements, therefore, were based on extensive and credible intelligence. Labeling him as a liar without substantial evidence is a disservice to the truth-seeking process.

Conclusion

The truth behind Schiff's allegations is multifaceted and backed by substantial evidence. Schiff's claims were not unfounded or based on hypothetical scenarios. They were grounded in the extensive work of the Mueller investigation and subsequent Senate committees. The failure to charge Schiff likely stems from the lack of concrete evidence of deliberate misinformation rather than a willingness to overlook significant findings.

The public and media must strive for more accurate and balanced reporting, ensuring that narratives are based on verified facts and not partisan interests.