TV networks invited Adam Schiff to peddle the collusion narrative for years
Throughout Russiagate, the liberal networks embraced Rep. Adam Schiff, D-Calif., who repeatedly peddled the Trump-Russia collusion narrative.
House Republicans voted Wednesday to censure Rep. Adam Schiff, D-Calif, who was previously a media darling during the height of Russiagate.
On a party-line vote, Schiff was formally censured on Wednesday for "misleading the American public" when he repeatedly claimed he had seen "evidence" of collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia during the 2016 election.
However, Special Counsel John Durham concluded last month that the original probe looking into alleged collusion, dubbed Crossfire Hurricane, was based on "raw, unanalyzed and uncorroborated intelligence," and the FBI was wrong in fast-tracking a full investigation as then-deputy FBI director Andrew McCabe ordered in July 2016.
Throughout the Mueller probe that plagued the Trump presidency, TV networks rolled out the red carpet for Schiff, the top Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee who had unprecedented access to the nation's top secrets, particularly when it comes to foreign adversaries. When he repeatedly claimed that he had seen "evidence" of collusion, many in the media had reason to believe what he said was credible.
Rep. Adam Schiff, D-Calif., was censured by his GOP colleagues for "misleading the American public" after countless TV appearances alleging he had seen evidence of Russian collusion. (AP Photo/Patrick Semansky)
Both the Mueller probe in 2019 and the Durham probe in 2023 concluded that there was no evidence that such collusion between Trump and Russia ever transpired.
What "evidence" did Schiff see that neither Mueller nor Durham apparently came across in their years-long investigations? That remains unclear, but his repeated unsubstantiated claims that such evidence existed led to him being censured by his GOP colleagues this week. Schiff even said there was evidence of "conspiracy" at one point.
On March 20, 2017, Schiff attempted to push back on former DNI Director James Clapper's public assertion he saw no evidence of collusion, telling "Meet The Press" moderator Chuck Todd on NBC there was "circumstantial evidence of collusion" as well as "direct evidence… of deception."
However, just three days later, Schiff noticeably ratcheted up his rhetoric in another interview with Todd on MSNBC's "MTP Daily."
"Reviewing the evidence that I have, I don't think you can conclude that at all, far from it," Schiff said about Clapper's comments.
When Todd pressed whether Schiff was solely relying on a "circumstantial case," Schiff replied "no," insisting the case "is more than that."
"So you have seen direct evidence of collusion?" Todd asked.
"I don't want to go into specifics, but I will say that there is evidence that is not circumstantial, and it's very much worthy of investigation," Schiff responded.
The following Sunday, on CBS' "Face The Nation," Schiff was asked whether he had seen any intelligence showing collusion regarding an effort to spread misinformation about Hillary Clinton. Schiff sidestepped the question but defended the foundation of the FBI's investigation as "justified" and it had a "sufficient basis" to begin and continue, something Durham concluded otherwise in his report. He went on to say that he disagreed with his GOP colleagues asserting there was no evidence of collusion, telling CBS anchor John Dickerson, "I don't think that's accurate, and I have an obligation to say so."
John Durham testified before the House Judiciary Committee to discuss his findings from his investigation looking into the origins of the Russia probe. (Screenshot/House Judiciary Committee)
In October 2017, Schiff touted the now-discredited Steele dossier, the Clinton campaign-funded memo put together by ex-British spy Christopher Steele that laid out salacious and unfounded accusations about then-candidate Trump and his alleged ties to Russia, telling ABC's George Stephanopoulos that "a lot of that has been corroborated" and Steele "may have found out even before our own intelligence agencies that the Russians were in fact aiming to help Donald Trump in the election."
Earlier that year, Schiff read some of the dossier into the congressional record.
In November 2017, Schiff teased to MSNBC's Rachel Maddow, who noted that "collusion" is not a legal term, that they are "very close to a prosecutable case" against the Trump campaign regarding the conspiracy statute but added that "they're still pieces that we need to find."
In December 2017, after former Trump national security adviser Gen. Michael Flynn pleaded guilty for lying to the FBI about his communications with Russians during the transition, Schiff called it the "most palpable evidence of collusion in terms of violating the Logan Act," though he conceded it would "likely not be prosecuted."
The following week, CNN's Jake Tapper pointed out how there hasn't been an "actual connection" or "proof" of collusion. Schiff pointed to what he called the "pattern and the chronology" of the various interactions between members of Trump's circle and Russians.
"We do know this: the Russians offered help, the campaign accepted help, the Russians gave help and the president made full use of that help. And that is pretty damning whether it is proof beyond reasonable doubt of a conspiracy or not," Schiff told Tapper, who later tweeted out the interview writing "On #CNNSOTU @RepAdamSchiff says evidence of Russian collusion is 'damning.'"
When asked by Tapper in a March 2018 interview whether Democrats have seen evidence of collusion, Schiff replied, "Yes, we have."
Adam Schiff appeared on cable news (Screenshot/CNN)
It wasn't until halfway through 2018 when Schiff's talking points shifted from saying he had seen evidence of collusion to asserting there's evidence "in plain sight," a linguistic sleight of hand indicating there was nothing else hidden and that any alleged proof was already in the public domain.
Even after the conclusion of the Mueller report, which found no evidence of collusion, Schiff remained defiant. In late March 2019, after then-Attorney General William Barr released a summary of the Mueller report that declared there was no collusion, Schiff doubled down, saying there was "ample evidence of collusion in plain sight," stressing that's "not the same thing as" proving a conspiracy, which is the crime.
"I distinguished between the two probably dozens of times," Schiff asserted to then-CNN anchor Chris Cuomo.
The next month, when asked on MSNBC's "Morning Joe" whether he was wrong to say there was "direct evidence" of collusion, he replied "no," saying what's been in the "public record" is direct evidence of collusion. Days later, Schiff sidestepped a question from Tapper over whether he regrets "anything" he said in recent years about collusion. He offered the same sentiment in July 2019 while being grilled by then co-host of "The View" Meghan McCain, who demanded to know what his evidence was. He told her "I've also been saying… the evidence is in plain sight, not hidden anywhere."
In November 2021, Schiff was similarly confronted by "The View" guest host Morgan Ortagus over whether he had any reflections for his promotion of the now-debunked Steele dossier, but he called the premise of the question a "smokescreen" to "shield Donald Trump's culpability for inviting Russia to help him in the election."
Schiff shifted his rhetoric towards his Russian collusion claims to saying the evidence was "in plain sight." (Drew Angerer/Getty Images)
Following the release of the Durham report, Schiff called the investigation a "big bust" and that any attacks by the GOP towards him are retaliatory over his roles in leading Trump's impeachment as well as the Jan. 6 committee.
Just hours before being censured, Schiff attempted to undermine Durham's credibility during the special counsel's testimony to the House Judiciary Committee, suggesting Durham didn't have knowledge of "very basic facts" surrounding the Russia probe.
CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP
Ahead of the vote to censure him, Schiff said "I take it as a badge of honor because this says that I'm effective."
The California Democrat is now running for Dianne Feinstein's Senate seat.