>The Wikipedia article doesn't actually provide a citation for that conclusion, and if you follow the link through to the article about "The Special Counsel's r

>The Wikipedia article doesn't actually provide a citation for that conclusion, and if you follow the link through to the article about "The Special Counsel's report", i.e. the Mueller Report, you'll find that: Yes it does, it links to the Mueller Report Wikipedia page that directly states: "Volume I of the report concludes that the investigation "did not establish that members of the Trump campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities."" With several linked sources. >Bear in mind that Mueller was a Republican special counsel, whose remit was set by Trump's DOJ, and that: And? There were multiple Democrats in the special counsel that also did not find any collision. "On May 1, Barr testified that he "didn't exonerate" Trump on obstruction ... Mueller testified to Congress that a president could be charged with crimes including obstruction of justice after the president left office." Obstruction is not collusion. I can hear the goalposts screeching from here. >so he was prevented by policy (not the law or the facts) from bringing charges against Trump. And no one, not any of the state or federal ADAs/AGs/etc. brought any charges up for collision... because there was no evidence of it as reported by Mueller. QED. >In any case, the Senate investigation (which is what I originally quoted) came later, and was more forthcoming about the connection between Trump's team and Russia. And also found nothing. I'll say it again: There is no evidence that Trump and Co. colluded with the Russians. What you believe is an Alex Jones level conspiracy theory that just so happens to be politically expedient to believe.