https://www.npr.org/2019/03/24/706318191/trump-white-house-h...
"Special counsel Robert Mueller did not find evidence that President Trump's campaign conspired with Russia to influence the 2016 election, according to a summary of findings submitted to Congress"
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.
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...
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.
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."
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.
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...
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.
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.
In August, of this year, the a US Senate Committee on Intelligence found that the Trump campaign colluded with Russian nationals, and possibly Russian intelligence.
Independently of Mueller.
"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."
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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."
He's speaking directly about the report, and it was linked in the press release above, if you cared to click on it.
https://thehill.com/policy/national-security/512487-senate-p...