[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...

[alwayseasy]

Funny how various US courts of law disagree with you and Rubio. The information the SIC vol.5 regroups was used to convict quite a few of Trump's campaign associates.

[tha0xa1]

>Funny how various US courts of law disagree with you and Rubio

No they don't.

>The information the SIC vol.5 regroups was used to convict quite a few of Trump's campaign associates.

Not for anything related to collision or election fraud.

[ModernMech]

> Not for anything related to collision or election fraud.

Manafort was charged with crimes not related to Russian collusion in hopes of getting him to flip on Trump. It was working too, which is how Mueller’s team learned Manafort was feeding internal campaign to a Russian Intel officer, while Russia was waging a psyops campaign against American voters. This strikes at the heart of the collusion claims.

That was until Trump started dangling the idea of a pardon and Manafort clammed up.

[alwayseasy]

Roger Stone.