Schiff on coincidences [...]

Monday, March 20th, Democrat Schiff at the Intelligence Committee briefing with FBI and NSA laid out the reasons to be suspicious of interference and collusion with Russia:

Schiff used that time to launch a bold argument of why Democrats are suspicious Trump campaign associates colluded with Russia during the election. Among the connections Schiff pointed out:

One of Trump's national security advisers during the campaign, Carter Page, has ties to Russia and has praised its president, Vladimir Putin.
Former Trump campaign manager Paul Manafort had been on the payroll for pro-Russian interests in Ukraine.
Trump officials met with the Russian ambassador to Washington during the Republican National Convention. At that convention, Republicans changed their platform to remove a section that supported giving weapons to Ukraine as it battles Russia for territory.
Former Trump adviser Roger Stone boasted in a speech that he knew of impending WikiLeaks documents related to Hillary Clinton's campaign before they were published.
Former national security adviser Michael Flynn and current Attorney General Jeff Sessions would avoid disclosing their conversations with the Russian ambassador during or shortly after the campaign.

After laying that out, Schiff (rhetorically) asked:

“Is it possible that all of these events and reports are completely unrelated and nothing more than an entirely unhappy coincidence? Yes, it is possible. But it is also possible, maybe more than possible, that they are not coincidental, not disconnected and not unrelated, and that the Russians use the same techniques to corrupt U.S. persons that they employed in Europe and elsewhere? We simply don't know. Not yet. And we owe it to the country to find out.” ([Source](https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2017/03/22/meet-rep-adam-schiff-the-quiet-lawmaker-fast-becoming-democrats-face-of-opposition-to-president-trump/?utm_term=.0167881adaa0))

When does a series of coincidences equate to the equivalence of a fact? We have the notion of circumstantial evidence in courts of law. When does that apply in the evidence gathering around Russiagate?

Wikity users can copy this article to their own site for editing, annotation, or safekeeping. If you like this article, please help us out by copying and hosting it.

Destination site (your site)
Posted on