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.

>Given that, I think it's entirely appropriate to also look at the Republican-controlled Senate report that the OP linked, which says it did.

Wrong, it said it did not find collision.

Here's the summary from the lead on the US Senate Special Committee on Intelligence:

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."

It's not a reach, it's factually what happened. Here's the summary from the lead on the US Senate Special Committee on Intelligence:

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."

>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.

>You keep quoting the bits that are talking about the Mueller investigation and not the Senate Committee.

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.