In a striking rebuke, George Washington University law professor Jonathan Turley has publicly challenged Democratic Senator Adam Schiff of California for repeatedly claiming collusion between President Donald Trump and Russia during the 2016 presidential campaign without providing any substantiating evidence.
According to the Daily Caller, this story centers on Turley's criticism of Schiff's unsubstantiated allegations, alongside related developments like document releases and reports that question the basis of the FBI's investigation into Trump-Russia ties, as well as political consequences for Schiff.
The controversy traces back to the aftermath of the 2016 presidential election, when Donald Trump defeated former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. Following Trump's victory, Schiff, then a prominent member of the House Intelligence Committee, frequently appeared in the media alleging that there was coordination between Trump's campaign and Russian entities. These claims became a significant point of contention, shaping public discourse during the early years of Trump's presidency.
Schiff's assertions contributed to a broader narrative that dominated headlines and fueled investigations into potential foreign interference in the U.S. election. However, the foundation of these claims has been repeatedly questioned by subsequent findings and official reports. Turley has pointed out that Schiff's insistence on having evidence of collusion has never been backed by concrete proof, casting doubt on the credibility of such statements.
On July 18, Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard released documents and a memo that she described as evidence of a prolonged effort to undermine Trump after his 2016 win. These materials, according to Gabbard, outline what she termed a "years-long coup" against the then-newly elected president. The release added a new layer of scrutiny to the origins of the allegations Schiff had championed in public forums.
Further challenging Schiff's narrative, Special Counsel John Durham issued a report on May 15, 2023, examining the origins of the FBI's investigation into alleged ties between Trump's 2016 campaign and Russia. Durham's findings concluded that the FBI could not corroborate key claims from the Steele Dossier, a controversial document used to justify surveillance of Trump associates. The dossier, which played a central role in obtaining warrants to monitor communications of individuals like Carter Page, was later discredited, as noted in Durham's detailed assessment.
The political repercussions for Schiff have been significant in the wake of these developments. On January 24, 2023, then-House Speaker Kevin McCarthy removed Schiff from the House Intelligence Committee, accusing him of dishonesty on multiple issues, including his defense of the Steele Dossier.
Later, in June 2023, the House of Representatives formally censured Schiff for his repeated claims about Trump's alleged collusion with Russia, marking a rare and serious reprimand.
Turley, in his recent commentary on "America Reports" with Sandra Smith, emphasized the impact of the investigation on Trump's presidency. He noted that the probe into these allegations "consumed" much of Trump's first term, diverting attention and resources from other priorities. Turley argued that the initial push for these investigations succeeded in shaping a damaging narrative, despite lacking a solid grounding.
"What Ratcliffe is talking about releasing could tell the public what has – how this all began. Keep in mind, it worked. They rushed the second assessment, just as they flipped the first assignment at the end of the Obama administration," Turley told Smith. "Even when the CIA was telling them 'We don't see Russian collusion, we don't see any impact on the election.' They did that and seeded the eventual Russian investigation that consumed much of Trump's first term. So, it succeeded," he added. Turley's remarks underscore his belief that the origins of the investigation were flawed from the start, yet still had a profound effect.
"But that bill has come due now and we are going to find out how that came about," Turley stated, signaling a demand for clarity on how these allegations were initially pursued. He also directly addressed Schiff's role in perpetuating the narrative without substantiation, highlighting a persistent gap in evidence. "Keep in mind, some of these numbers are saying 'Well you know, this isn't new, we know about this all along.' But that's the problem, you have people like Representative Schiff, now Senator Schiff, who even contradicted the special counsel when he said there was no Russian collusion, saying 'I got secret information that shows he's wrong.' He never produced it because it doesn't exist," Turley asserted.
The ongoing debate over Schiff's claims and the subsequent investigations continues to resonate in political circles. Turley's critique reflects a broader frustration among some legal and academic figures over the lack of accountability for unsubstantiated public statements by elected officials.
The fallout from these events has left lingering questions about the integrity of political discourse and the use of intelligence in shaping public opinion.
As more documents and analyses come to light, the public may gain a clearer picture of the motivations behind the initial allegations against Trump. For now, Schiff remains a polarizing figure, with his past statements under renewed scrutiny due to Turley's pointed criticism. The intersection of politics, intelligence, and media narratives in this saga serves as a cautionary tale about the consequences of unverified claims in the public sphere.