[throwaway8078]

In your own provided source:

"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."

Your own source literally disproves what you're claiming.

I'll say it again, from your source:

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

[dleslie]

Yes, that quote says that the Mueller investigation failed.

However, the article is _about the Senate Committee_. This is a different thing than the Mueller investigation, and it succeeded where Mueller failed.

FTA:

> Among the probe's newest revelations is that Konstantin V. Kilimnik, an associate of Manafort's, was a "Russian intelligence officer." Manafort's contacts also posed a “grave counterintelligence threat,” according to the report.

> "Manafort worked with Kilimnik starting in 2016 on narratives that sought to undermine evidence that Russia interfered in the 2016 U.S. election," the report added.

> "At nearly 1,000 pages, Volume 5 stands as the most comprehensive examination of ties between Russia and the 2016 Trump campaign to date — a breathtaking level of contacts between Trump officials and Russian government operatives that is a very real counterintelligence threat to our elections," Sen. Mark Warner (D-Va.), the panel's vice chairman, added in a statement.

[throwaway8078]

>Yes, that quote says that the Mueller investigation failed.

It says nothing of the sort, it actually agrees with the Mueller investigation, and only adds to its legitimacy.

Nothing that you quoted points towards collusion between the Trump campaign and Russian officials. There were contacts with Russians from both the DNC and RNP, but once again:

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

Lack of evidence that Trump conspired. There is no collusion.

Thanks for proving my point with your source.

[dleslie]

You keep quoting the bits that are talking about the Mueller investigation and not the Senate Committee.

This? This is about Mueller. Not the committee.

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

[throwaway56098]

>You keep quoting the bits that are talking about the Mueller investigation and not the Senate Committee.

Wrong, I am quoting the bits that are taking about the US Senate Special Committee on Intelligence report.

>"the findings run parallel to the conclusions of Mueller's probe"

"the findings [of the US Senate Special Committee on Intelligence] run parallel to the conclusions of Mueller's probe"

It's reconfirming that the Senate committee findings run parallel, or in other words, come to the same conclusion, as the Mueller report.

[dleslie]

Good lord that's a reach.

In stating they ran parallel they meant that they're investigating the same offences at the same time. It ran parallel, but did not collaborate with, the Mueller investigation. It found more evidence and drew stronger conclusions.

[throwaway56098]

It's not a reach, it's factually what happened. Here's the summary from the lead on the US Senate Special Committee on Intelligence:

https://www.rubio.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/press-releases...

“We can say, without any hesitation, that the Committee found absolutely no evidence that then-candidate Donald Trump or his campaign colluded with the Russian government to meddle in the 2016 election."