Schiff: Evidence of collusion between Trump campaign, Russia 'pretty compelling'

House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam SchiffAdam Bennett SchiffSunday shows - Guns dominate after Democratic debate Schiff: Diplomacy with Iran 'only way out of this situation' Sunday shows preview: Democratic candidates make the rounds after debate MORE (D-Calif.) is pushing back against Senate Intelligence Committee Chairman Richard Burr's (R-N.C.) assertion that the Senate panel has not found evidence of collusion between President TrumpDonald John TrumpBusiness, ballots and battling opioids: Why the Universal Postal Union benefits the US Sanders supporters cry foul over Working Families endorsement of Warren California poll: Biden, Sanders lead Democratic field; Harris takes fifth MORE's campaign and Russia. 

Schiff said Sunday on CNN's "State of the Union" that there is "pretty compelling evidence" of collusion during the 2016 election. 

"You can see evidence in plain sight on the issue of collusion, pretty compelling evidence. Now, there's a difference between seeing evidence of collusion and being able to prove a criminal conspiracy beyond a reasonable doubt," Schiff said.

ADVERTISEMENT

Last week, Burr said that his committee doesn't "have anything that would suggest there was collusion by the Trump campaign and Russia."

The chairman's remark sparked pushback from Vice Chairman Mark Warner (D-Va.), who said he disagreed "factually" with Burr.

Schiff, who is leading the House Intelligence Committee's own investigation, pointed on Sunday to the Trump Tower meeting between senior Trump campaign officials and prominent Russians.

Schiff also noted former national security adviser Michael Flynn's conversations with then-Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak during the transition as well as communications between former Trump campaign aide George Papadopoulos and Russian-linked officials during the campaign. 

"All of this is evidence of collusion," Schiff said. "And you either have to look the other way to say it isn't, or you have to have a different word for it, because it is a corrupt dealing with a foreign adversary during a campaign."