President Trump offered another example on Tuesday night of how he’s become quite the troller-in-chief, tweeting a 53-second excerpt of a segment from that morning’s MSNBC Live in which NBC News Intelligence and National Security reporter/liberal bureaucratic mouthpiece Ken Dilanian revealed that “the Senate Intelligence Committee has not uncovered any direct evidence” of Trump-Russia collusion.
Just before 7:00 p.m. Eastern, the President tweeted this with a simple caption:
Thank you to @MSNBC! pic.twitter.com/VdRnirACAz
— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) February 12, 2019
Host Hallie Jackson came back from commercial at 10:24 a.m. Eastern and tossed to Dilanian, who dropped what was perhaps the most depressing news story of this partisan reporter’s career:
Hallie, after two years and after interviewing more than 200 witnesses, the Senate Intelligence Committee has not uncovered any direct evidence of a conspiracy between the Trump campaign and Russia. That's according to sources on both the Republican and the Democratic side of the aisle[.]
Dilanian noted that Chairman Richard Burr (R-NC) had recently made that claim in public, so he took it upon himself to check with Democratic sources “to understand the full context of his remarks because that was essentially a partisan comment from one side, but this is a bipartisan investigation and what I found is that the Democrats don't dispute that characterization.”
However, Dilanian used almost the rest of the segment to cover his rear among his lefty fans in the bureaucracy and on Twitter by muddying the waters.
Here’s two snippets of what he told Jackson (click “expand”):
The disagreement comes, though, over the pattern of contacts we've all seen and heard about over the last few years, more than 100 contacts between Trump campaign officials and Russians. The Democrats say that those are — those remain highly suspicious and that there’s a pattern that still raises questions. But the Republicans say we don't know in the end what those were, and Richard Burr said publicly look, the motives for those are unclear.
(....)
[T]he Democrats say this report will not be good for Donald Trump. It will question the judgment of many people in the Trump orbit for having the meetings and allowing themselves to be preyed upon by a Russian intelligence operation that sought to interfere in the election and to help Donald Trump. But, again, no direct proof of a conspiracy. As one Democratic aide said to me, we never thought we were going to find a contract between Trump and Vlad, saying, hey let's collude, but the question is how do we interpret the contacts between the Trump campaign and Russia?
To see the transcript of the full segment from February 12's MSNBC Live with Hallie Jackson, click “expand.”
MSNBC Live with Hallie Jackson
February 12, 2019
10:24 a.m. EasternHALLIE JACKSON: We want to get to some breaking news right now. NBC News exclusive reporting on the Senate Intelligence Committee. Their investigation into Russian election interference and what they have and have not uncovered. NBC's Ken Dilanian has just jumped in front of a camera to join me with his new reporting So, Ken, what are you hearing? What are you learning?
KEN DILANIAN: Hallie, after two years and after interviewing more than 200 witnesses, the Senate Intelligence Committee has not uncovered any direct evidence of a conspiracy between the Trump campaign and Russia. That's according to sources on both the Republican and the Democratic side of the aisle, Hallie, and careful viewers and readers will note that Senate Richard Burr, the chairman of the intelligence committee who loads this probe, essentially said that in an interview with another network last week, but what I've been doing since then is checking with my sources on the democratic side to understand the full context of his remarks because that was essentially a partisan comment from one side, but this is a bipartisan investigation and what I found is that the Democrats don't dispute that characterization. The disagreement comes, though, over the pattern of contacts we've all seen and heard about over the last few years, more than 100 contacts between Trump campaign officials and Russians. The Democrats say that those are — those remain highly suspicious and that there’s a pattern that still raises questions. But the Republicans say we don't know in the end what those were, and Richard Burr said publicly look, the motives for those are unclear. We may end up with a report that says you decide, American public, whether there was collusion. Another important fact here, Hallie, is that they are nearing the end of this investigation, we are told. But that once they interview their final witness, it will take another six or seven months to prepare a report. The American public may not see the fruits of this for some time, Hallie.
JACKSON: So you just got -- I have a couple questions, Ken, You answered one of them, which is a timeline on when we all, the American public, might get a chance to see this and it sounds like it might not be until much closer to the end of the year.
DILANIAN: That's right because, you know, they are nearing the end of their fact gathering process. Richard Burr said that. My sources are confirming. There aren't that many witnesses left to interview for senate investigators. But after they conclude that, then they're going to sit down and write their report and the Democrats say this report will not be good for Donald Trump. It will question the judgment of many people in the Trump orbit for having the meetings and allowing themselves to be preyed upon by a Russian intelligence operation that sought to interfere in the election and to help Donald Trump. But, again, no direct proof of a conspiracy.
JACKSON: Right.
DILANIAN: As one Democratic aide said to me, we never thought we were going to find a contract between Trump and Vlad, saying, hey let's collude, but the question is how do we interpret the contacts between the Trump campaign and Russia?
JACKSON: Not to put too fine of a point on it, but I want to make sure I'm understanding this because you are sharing this with me and with all of us at the same time and then I'll get Nancy and Shawna to react this, but if and when the president as he may inevitable do, points to this reporting and the conclusions and say look, the senate intelligence committee found I'm not guilty of conspiracy, he would be correct in saying that?
DILANIAN: Well, except — except that the use of term not guilty is not really appropriate.
JACKSON: Right.
DILANIAN: Because they're not a court of law and Robert Mueller has yet to weigh in, right, and that's a big question. Robert Mueller knows things that the senate investigators do not have access to. That said, Trump will claim vindication through this and he'll be partially right because investigators have access to highly classified information. So, for example, if there was an intercept between some Russian intelligence officers suggesting they were conspiring with the trump campaign,, they would see that. That has not emerged. So, that evidence does not exist, and trump will claim vindication. But Trump has set the bar so high, essentially if he’s convicted in a court of law of conspiring, in his mind he's innocent. That's not how many senators of both parties see it, Hallie.
JACKSON: Shawna, you've been listening to this conversation?
SHAWNA THOMAS: Yeah. I think there's two things I question about it, which is number one, if and when the report finally comes out from the Senate Intelligence Committee, is there any anything there that will cause especially some of these new House Dems to start to clamor and even if there isn't conspiracy or collusion for impeachment? I think the other thing is based on what Ken is saying, it’s all stuff we knew already. So not — and sure there's stuff they have that we don't know, but this idea of like, all these connections to the Russians or all these contacts with the Russians and that will look bad for the President, we've known that over a year. We've known that for longer and if that — if that is going to be something that turns off his base with respect to the 2020 election, it hasn't yet. So I question until we actually see the report how much of an effect this actually has on the President of the United States.
JACKSON: We'll have to leave it there. Ken Dilanian, I know you’re going to be coming back on this network on this air talking much more about your exclusive reporting. Thank you for breaking it with us right here on MSNBC.
