[throwaway56098]

>Impressive, a throwaway account that uses the very controversial summary that Barr

Or use the latest findings from the lead on the Senate Intel report: 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."

Unfortunately it has to be a throwaway because these kinds of facts might as well be thought crimes here.

[alwayseasy]

Once again, you're not linking to a source document that explicitly presents evidence. In fact there are clearly more than a hundred pages about Trump and Russians engaging in activity around the 2016 campaign.

You link to a partisan Senator who, by the way contributed to the Donald Trump campaign, says he found no-evidence.

The thought crime here is leaning into the weasel-word of "collusion" when it isn't clearly defined by Rubio or even the report or "Russian government" to cop out of the deep involvement of ex-spies and oligarchs out of Russia.

Source: https://www.intelligence.senate.gov/sites/default/files/docu...

[throwaway56098]

>Once again, you're not linking to a source document that explicitly presents evidence.

This is the exact document that Rubio is referencing in his press release I linked above. The evidence presented explicitly presents no evidence of Trump colluding.

>You link to a partisan Senator

Rubio was the head chair of the investigation, not some random senator.

>The thought crime here is leaning into the weasel-word of "collusion" when it isn't clearly defined by Rubio

Facts and legal definitions are not "weasel-words".

Your linked source just proves the following statement:

"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."

You can continue to believe fake news, but that doesn't make it reality.

[alwayseasy]

Collusion in the context of election campaigns has no legal definition. If I'm the one who believes in fake news I wonder why you're the one sourcing your beliefs from controversial and disavowed summaries and partisan actors.

[tha0xa1]

>I wonder why you're the one sourcing your beliefs from controversial and disavowed summaries and partisan actors.

NPR, official press releases from the chairs of senate intelligence committees, etc. have not been disavowed and the facts agree with me.

Again, if you stop believing fake news and actually read what has been linked above, you will find that:

“Over the last three years, the Senate Intelligence Committee conducted a bipartisan and thorough investigation into Russian efforts to influence the 2016 election and undermine our democracy. We interviewed over 200 witnesses and reviewed over one million pages of documents. No probe into this matter has been more exhaustive."

“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."

[alwayseasy]

I've read your links but somehow it feels you haven't read mine as they offer later rebuttals to your sources.

You may insist that Rubio said something about the report is an official source but his words are contradicted by the report itself.

But ok I'll concede your following point that relies on "collusion" and "government" : the report didn't find "evidence that then-candidate Donald Trump or his campaign colluded with the Russian government to meddle in the 2016 election."

You are not addressing the central point of the SIC volume 5 report: Trump and his campaign engaged in criminal and unethical activity with Russian ex-spies, agents run by Russia and oligarchs.

[tha0xa1]

>I've read your links but somehow it feels you haven't read mine as they offer later rebuttals to your sources.

They offer no rebuttals, they only strengthen and agree with my points.

>You may insist that Rubio said something about the report is an official source but his words are contradicted by the report itself.

Except they're not. Rubio is the head chair of the committee that drafted the report. The report agreed with him.

>You are not addressing the central point of the SIC volume 5 report: Trump and his campaign engaged in criminal and unethical activity with Russian ex-spies, agents run by Russia and oligarchs.

Except it says the exact opposite of that...