[blueash]

Originally Posted by Northwoods

I'll give you one... During the Mueller investigation, Adam Schiff claimed that there was ample evidence that Trump colluded with Russia.
Schiff: 'Ample evidence' of collusion between Trump campaign, Russians

That was one person's claim. Yet the media didn't label it as "unsubstantiated" (as they have done repeatedly to Trump's claims that there was voting fraud). They reported it "as is."

The Mueller investigation reported that there was NO collusion. Yet MSM reported it as "news" for months.

Adam Schiff lied about the Trump probe — and the media let him

Some see that the bias of the MSM is obvious. Others are oblivious to the not-so-subtle wording in MSM stories.

I don't want to rehash the first impeachment, but your recitation of what was said and what was found is generously incomplete. The first link you provide to a US Today story is very very clear in what it says, well beyond the headline. In it Schiff says that there were several interactions between members of the Trump team and Russian operatives. He carefully states, fully reported in the story, of these interactions

"All of this is evidence of collusion," said Schiff, a former federal prosecutor. "Now, I've never said that there was proof beyond a reasonable doubt. That's for Bob Mueller to decide." ...
While it is up to Mueller to conduct the criminal investigation and file any charges he feels are warranted, it is up to the House panel "to tell the country as much as we can about what we have been able to learn," Schiff said.

Even if Mueller determines that he can't file criminal charges of conspiracy, the committee should inform people of any "unpatriotic" or "immoral" actions, even if they weren't illegal, Schiff said.

"It's not fine to work with a foreign power even if there is no violation of law involved," he said.

This MSM story is extremely clear and very accurate. There is no crime of collusion. No one has ever been criminally charged with collusion because such a crime does not exist. Collusion is a term to describe an interaction between parties that does not rise to a conspiracy. It describes an interaction, teamwork, mutual support toward a goal that many would see as nefarious but not illegal. Of course Mueller did find crimes committed by members of the Trump team, and Russians working toward a common goal:

Mueller's team has charged eight Americans once affiliated with Trump's campaign or administration, 13 Russian nationals, 12 Russian intelligence officers, three Russian companies, and two other people with federal crimes.

Of course the Mueller report did not make of finding of collusion, because it was looking for evidence of crimes and collusion is not a crime. It did find, and substantiate many interactions and episodes of coordination and cooperation.

Directly from the Mueller report page 181

this Office’s focus in resolving the question of joint criminal liability was
on conspiracy as defined in federal law, not the commonly discussed term “collusion.” The Office considered in particular whether contacts between Trump Campaign officials and Russia-linked individuals could trigger liability for the crime of conspiracy—either under statutes that have their own conspiracy language (e.g., 18 U.S.C. §§ 1349, 1951(a)), or under the general conspiracy statute (18 U.S.C. § 371). The investigation did not establish that the contacts described in Volume I, Section IV, supra, amounted to an agreement to commit any substantive violation of federal
criminal law—including foreign-influence and campaign-finance laws, both of which are discussed further below. The Office therefore did not charge any individual associated with the Trump Campaign with conspiracy to commit a federal offense arising from Russia contacts, either under a specific statute or under Section 371’s offenses clause.

Your statement: "The Mueller investigation reported that there was NO collusion" is patently wrong. The report clearly says collusion is not a term on which it makes a determination as collusion is not a legally prohibited act and is not legally defined.

You can say the report did not say "collusion happened" because it cannot define and charge such activities as did occur as "collusion"

Congressman Schiff as cited in the article and the Mueller report when finally issued [and the full unredacted report is still not available] are 100% in agreement. Stuff happened as described in the contacts described in Volume I, Section IV which was not conspiracy per the legal requirements. Now explain to me again how what US Today reported was a lie?