[gthtjtkt]

Your own article disagrees with you:

> The committee's findings are a more in-depth look at the interference than Mueller's investigation, but the findings run parallel to the conclusions of Mueller's probe, which found overwhelming evidence of Russia's efforts to interfere in the election through disinformation and cyber campaigns but a lack of sufficient evidence that the Trump campaign conspired with the Kremlin to impact the outcome of the 2016 election.

Mueller didn't indict a single US citizen for conspiring with Russia.

It didn't happen.

[dleslie]

The article isn't about the Mueller report, it's about the Senate Committee. The Senate Committee did conclude that collusion with Russian nationals, and possibly intelligence, occurred; they did so _separately_ from the Mueller investigation.

[gthtjtkt]

I'll quote it again since you didn't read:

> the findings run parallel to the conclusions of Mueller's probe, which found overwhelming evidence of Russia's efforts to interfere in the election through disinformation and cyber campaigns but a lack of sufficient evidence that the Trump campaign conspired with the Kremlin to impact the outcome of the 2016 election.

That's from the article you linked.

a lack of sufficient evidence that the Trump campaign conspired with the Kremlin to impact the outcome of the 2016 election.

Do you see that part?

[dleslie]

I do see that part, did you see the rest of that quoted paragraph?

The _subject_ of that quote is the Mueller investigation, _not_ the Senate Committee.

> the findings run parallel to the conclusions of Mueller's probe, which found overwhelming evidence of Russia's efforts to interfere in the election through disinformation and cyber campaigns but a lack of sufficient evidence that the Trump campaign conspired with the Kremlin to impact the outcome of the 2016 election.

It's stating that _Mueller's probe_ found evidence of efforts, but not sufficient evidence of conspiracy. This is _not_ stating that the committee did not.

[gthtjtkt]

It says they found the same thing: a lack of sufficient evidence that the Trump campaign conspired with the Kremlin to impact the outcome of the 2016 election.

[nl]

It's possible to parse that quote two ways, but it's pretty easy to find another source (or read the Senate report yourself)

To quote The Intercept[1], on Paul Manafort in the Senate report:

One of Manafort’s closest aides during his time in Ukraine was Konstantin Kilimnik, who the Senate report identifies as a Russian intelligence officer. Kilimnik also served as Manafort’s liaison with Deripaska.

While he was working for Trump during the 2016 campaign, Manafort stayed in contact with Kilimnik and gave him the Trump campaign’s internal polling data, which showed that the key to defeating Clinton was to drive up negative attitudes about her among voters.

The Senate report says that the intelligence committee “obtained some information suggesting Kilimnik may have been connected to the GRU’s hack and leak operation targeting the 2016 election.” The report adds that “this information suggests that a channel for coordination on the GRU hack operation may have existed through Kilimnik.” The report adds that in interviews with Mueller’s prosecution team, “Manafort lied consistently about one issue in particular: his interactions with Kilimnik.” Manafort decided to “face more severe criminal penalties rather than provide complete answers about his interactions with Kilimnik.” The Manafort-Kilimnik relationship, the Senate report concludes, represents “the single most direct tie between senior Trump campaign officials and the Russian intelligence services.”

To emphasise a direct quote from the Republican-led Senate Committee: "the single most direct tie between senior Trump campaign officials and the Russian intelligence services."

Now it's possible that Manafort was doing this because he was greedy and getting money from the Russians (he was getting paid by them), and it's possible to argue that it wasn't collusion because Trump fired him.

And of course "collusion" is a messy thing anyway - there is no clear definition, and no crime called "colluding".

The whole report is worth reading[2].

[1] https://theintercept.com/2020/09/03/trump-russia-senate-repo...

[2] https://www.intelligence.senate.gov/sites/default/files/docu...