[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.

[tha0xa1]

Not for anything related to collision or election fraud.