Even though the president has long claimed his innocence when it comes to Russia related issues, the Russia scandal is continuing to rage on — although the House Intelligence Committee has now announced that it is winding down its line of investigation. That announcement confirmed suspicions of some interests in previous months that GOP leaders on the committee had dialed back the intensity of their investigation in preparation for shutting it down.
In a draft report released by the committee, Republicans outlined their claim to have found no concrete evidence incriminating the Trump team on charges of collusion. In the face of that claim, however, interests have begun pointing out that there remain major holes in the committee’s investigation.
The top Democrat on the Intel Committee, Adam Schiff, is among those to have spoken out to that effect.
On Tuesday, he told reporters:
‘There is significant evidence and much of it in the public domain on the issue of collusion… Sadly, from a very early point in the investigation, the chairman made the decision that his mission was not to find out what Russia did, not to determine the role of U.S. persons, but rather to endeavor to distract the public, to put the government on trial.’
The chairman of the House Intel Committee, Rep. Devin Nunes, ended up having to recuse himself from the Russia investigation after coming under scrutiny for seemingly collaborating with the White House in his investigative efforts.
The president certainly appreciated the outcome of Nunes’ committee’s investigation, tweeting a message to that effect in recent days.
Considering the president’s praise for the the document outlining the GOP committee members’ conclusions, it’s unsurprising that Schiff said that it “misleadingly characterizes events, and… tells a story that couldn’t be better written if it was written in the White House itself.”
Democrats on the committee released a document detailing areas for investigation they believe to have not yet been fully explored. Included in those issues, there remain witnesses like Steve Bannon who weaseled out of answering questions via a vague claim of “executive privilege” on the part of the president.
Featured Image via Win McNamee/Getty Images