Bipartisan House Intelligence Committee member U.S. Rep. Peter King is speaking out on the Trump/Russia collusion investigation. King claims that he has “not seen one bit of evidence” to suggest the investigation is based on reality. His assertion adds another voice to an increasing number of bipartisan leaders speaking out in support of Trump, each claiming the investigation is a little more than a partisan attempt to discredit the President.
• King does believe there is potential evidence of collusion, but not at the hands of the Trump campaign. Instead, he believes the evidence lies with the Clinton campaign instead. “So many Russians had paid money to Bill Clinton and also the Clinton Foundation,” he said in an interview with news media. “…if you wanted to make a case, there was more possibility of the Russians being involved in the Hillary Clinton campaign.
• King has repeatedly slammed the Trump/Russia collusion in interviews, not just recently, but also over previous weeks. His most recent statement suggested that the investigation was an “unconscionable,” partisan weaponization of the FBI, an “unverified dossier,” and FISA warrants to surveil a political campaign based on “circular reasoning.”
• King also drew attention to a recent memo released by House Intelligence Committee Chairman, Devin Nunes. After reviewing the memo, he reported finding “not one factual error,” suggesting that the document does effectively exonerate Trump.
• The Nunes Memo has come under fire from both the FBI and Democrats for failing to include critical information that may paint a much different picture of the investigation. The FBI itself reviewed the document and found “no factual errors,” but disagreed with the document’s conclusion slamming top FBI officials.
• Democrats are currently drawing up their own version of the Nunes memo. They believe their document will shed new light on the topics discussed within it, potentially highlighting logical fallacies and deception within the original document.
• Despite King’s strong opinions, he cautions Americans not to simply switch targets, saying that he “…wouldn’t be in support of that either.” Instead, he suggests that the evidence is “…not a basis to be investigating [with] a warrant to wire tap in a presidential campaign.”