Rep. Adam Schiff, D-Calif., insists there is “ample evidence” showing President Trump conspired with the Russians to steal the 2016 presidential election. He has yet to provide proof of this assertion and he’s going to be under a lot of pressure to produce it tomorrow, when the Mueller report comes out stating that special counsel Robert Mueller’s two-year investigation failed to “establish that the members of the Trump campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities.”
But that is just a minor detail for Newsweek’s Nina Burleigh (yes, that Nina Burleigh) who gave the California congressman one of the most servile media interviews in recent memory. That Schiff’s repeated claims of “evidence” of collusion have yet to evolve past mere promises is not raised even once in the interview. Not once.
Rather, his sit-down with Burleigh, which is being featured as the magazine’s latest cover story, with the headline “‘No one escapes the law,’” exists only to puff up Schiff’s public profile. It serves also to advance the narrative that Trump and his inner circle would be clapped in irons, were it not for a corrupt legal and political system.
At this point, you would have to be crazy or desperate not to be skeptical of Schiff, considering the Mueller investigation did not produce proof of collusion, as the congressman assured the public it would. But what else should we expect from a Bill Clinton superfan with a recent history of retracted articles?
It would not be enough to say that Burleigh tossed the congressman softball questions. It would be more accurate to say that she hand-delivered love notes. Here are just a few of the real questions a real reporter asked a real member of Congress:
2. “What does it say about our legal system that this investigation, with all the powers of the state behind it, can’t find illegality in any of that with respect to the man in the middle of it?”
3. “Does this new lower standard suggest to you that the American legal system is flawed and vulnerable when it comes to ethics and corruption and the definition of treason?”
4. “What is the key to leadership at this time and in this era, generally, and in your position now, with Republicans calling for your resignation?”
5. “President Richard Nixon resigned only because congressional Republicans chose the Constitution over him. Do you expect Republicans will do that before the end of Trump’s term? Isn’t this actually a political conflict that can be solved only by elections?”
6. “How does the ship of state right itself? And do you expect a situation where other foreign powers, seeing how Russians got away with it in 2016, jump in?”
Absent from this nauseating display of subservience is the simple question: “Where is the ‘evidence’ you promised, congressman?” Is that really so hard? It is a simple question. How do you conduct a thousand-plus word interview with one of the chief hypemen of the collusion story and not ask him about all the “evidence” he promised would be forthcoming?
I know the answer, but I want to hear Burleigh say it.
