No. There isn't. There are lots of people saying they have evidence and referring to other people who say no its true they really have evidence. When you dig it's just circular self-references all the way down.

There’s a whole mueller report that was started and run by GOP. Person who started it was Rosenstein, a republican. Who picked Mueller another Republican. Why would they fake evidence against their own president?

Again, "Muller has the evidence!" is pointing at someone and making a claim that never seems to have been backed up.

It seems to be rather hard to actually cite this mountain of evidence without looking like a partisan hack.

This is idle speculation at best. It doesn’t attach to evidence, and it cannot be dispositive.

Mueller charged Russians for the hack.

Indicted. Famously prosecutors can indict ham sandwiches. Conviction is different. No such thing here.

He convicted everyone that they could actually arrest.

If you twist it around enough, it sounds substantial. Then we have to slowly and tediously dig out that your end claim has utterly nothing to do with your beginning claim. Not the same countries, people, timelines, relationships, nothing.

Negative. No. Nothing of the sort. We have singularly a “trust me” from several deeply partisan individuals who have been caught directly in other lies.

That said, if you have this “plenty of evidence” please lay it forth at the feet of humanity very clearly. It would be tremendously valuable and conclusive.

In practice we have waving again and again with more hand waving and assurance on top. A heroic confabulation of nonsense.

Nope: https://consortiumnews.com/2017/07/24/intel-vets-challenge-r...

Yep.

The Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity has members who have done good work for the public and the country. However, the memo referenced in your link did not even have the backing all the group's members and its arguments have been persuasively criticized.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Veteran_Intelligence_Professio...

These results are debatable and inconclusive, which is the entire point. If you're going to accuse a sitting President of collusion, you had best have all your ducks in a row. Anything less can be perceived as, or even be indeed, partisan hackery.

Why are you bringing up Trump? This is about whether Russians hacked the DNC's email, that doesn't require collusion or even awareness from the Trump campaign.

But since you did bring him up, it reminded me that in July 2016, weeks after the DNC announced being breached, he publicly called on Russia to release information about Clinton. Candidate Donald J. Trump, verbally and in writing, called on a foreign government to interfere with the presidential campaign against his opponent; doing it in public doesn't make it okay.

"Russia, if you’re listening, I hope you’re able to find the 30,000 emails that are missing, I think you will probably be rewarded mightily by our press. Let’s see if that happens. […] By the way, they hacked — they probably have her 33,000 emails. I hope they do. They probably have her 33,000 emails that she lost and deleted because you'd see some beauties there. So let's see."

I don't think "collusion" is the right term for what he did (the attempts to access emails had started in March); I don't know what the right term is, I just know it's not okay.

Yeah, we get it. Years of life invested in following the mumbling press who assured with certainty that overturning just one more insider-source stone would reveal that holy grail, all for naught. The real “collusion” was hoping for transparency and accountability, which was denied by our intel agencies from the get-go. Everything after was merely a tail-chasing exercise.