Just so readers are aware, the Washington Examiner is a conservative leaning org. The "no evidence" quote was pulled from this sentence: "There was no evidence of that included in our report."[1] There is a difference between "not aware of evidence" and "no evidence".

[1] https://www.mediamatters.org/research/2017/05/09/parroting-t...

That is really highly misleading that they would state it that way.

Instead of relying on selected quotes from the Washington Examiner, you could read the (declassified version of) the report:

https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/3254229/ICA-2017-...

From my quick skim, I would say that the report isn't about collusion between Russia and the Trump campaign but about how Russia's means and motives in interfering in the election.

Why does he use language like "We did not include any evidence in our report"?

Does this imply that there was evidence and he did not include it?

It's more-or-less a Glomar response, crafted to neither confirm or deny that evidence exists. This is frankly the right thing to say when there's an ongoing investigation and the results aren't made available to the speaker.

I watched that NBC interview here: http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/politics-news/former-dni-jam.... Right after Clapper answered, the interviewer asked him whether the information exists, and Clapper answered that it does not to his knowledge, but he does not know whether more information has come to light since he left office.

The full question and answer which addresses this: https://youtu.be/FrS8kid6baw?t=34m14s

The entire existence of spooks is about deception. That's why they don't speak directly or truthfully.

I thought Clapper clarified today that he didn't mean there was no evidence, only that he was uninvolved and did not know of any evidence.

Lack of knowledge of evidence != no evidence.

The only person that is able to answer definitively whether the investigation into Trump and his administration has produced credible evidence of collusion with Russia was just fired by Trump today.

Fired. Not murdered.

Yes, but anything he says from now on can be dismissed as being based on out-of-date information.

So Comey was personally conducting the investigation solely on his own?

No, he was leading the agency that was conducting the investigation. And a pliant leader, appointed by Trump, may not continue to do so.

Or he may simply actively sabotage an investigation so it ends up saying that nothing is awry.

but he didn't know of the FBI investigation at first, and is not privy to the details of that one.

Not to mention he's quite out of the loop these past three plus months, being formerly employed, and all.

Clapper and Yates also testified yesterday that they weren't privy to the results of the FBI's ongoing counterintelligence investigation, which is where evidence of collusion would come from.

Graham is a Senator from South Carolina, not North Carolina

Did the left wing media convince Trump to fire his FBI Director in the middle of a high-profile investigation?

> Every single person reading this knows that ...

I am reading this and I disagree, therefore your statement is false. Gen. Flynn was fired - by Trump - for not disclosing his discussions with Russians. So it's not a total fabrication.

I also think your (now flagged) parent comment is mistaken, in that, I, personally, don't know it's a witch hunt and total fabrication. Is it possible that there's no there there? Well, yes. But, is it certain? Of course not. Is it even unlikely? I'd give it 50/50 odds.

Can I imagine that if approached via some tangential proxy for Russia or Wikileaks, that Trump, or someone in his campaign might have agreed that hacking Clinton, or releasing her campaign's emails was a good idea -- given my impression of his disregard for norms and desire for mischief, and a win at all costs, I can totally see him saying go for it, without considering the consequences. He was definitely knowingly underhanded throughout.

So, I don't doubt if he'd had the opportunity that he would take it, thinking he's immune to all consequences. But, then I'd have to wonder if the Russians would really approach him. That's where my doubt comes in. But, given his shocking and irrational fawning over Russia, the financial and other ties several of his campaign aids to Russia, maybe. That he publically asked for hacks Clinton's emails didn't help optics.

Maybe all his evasions and bizarre behaviors are to compensate for his insecurities about his net-worth, and not winning a popular majority, and his macho man-crush on dictators, and his want to be seen as strong as they.

But his historic lack of transparency is what's feeding the "conspiracy" more than anything else. He could probably put all this to bed instantly, but not while protecting his fragile ego.