UHND.com - Notre Dame Football, Basketball, & Recruiting

NOTE: The 2020 GOP-led Senate Intelligence Committee was comprised of 8 Republicans and 7 Democrats. The GOP members wrote the Closing Statement...but the Democrats disagreed and believed there was Collusion...as evidenced by the unanimous findings of hundreds of interactions between Trump Campaigners and Russians. So, but for one vote, there would have been a finding of Collusion...based on documented findings...not opinions. You're clinging to Semantics as opposed to Evidence...and as the Committee also found, it creates serious risks for our National Counter Intelligence security. Who's side are you on...America's...or Trump's MAGAs who work with our worst enemy to win an election. Ponder the fact that Putin wanted Trump elected...the man every one of military service members train to fight actually considered it a victory for him to see Trump in the Oval Office.

---------------------
AI Overview

The 2020 Senate Intelligence Committee report, despite finding that Paul Manafort, Trump's campaign chairman, shared polling data with Konstantin Kilimnik, identified by the report as a Russian intelligence officer, did not use the term "collusion" to describe the relationship between the Trump campaign and Russia.

The report did not use the term "collusion" for these reasons:

Focus on Criminal Conspiracy: The report, similar to the Mueller Report, focused on whether there was enough evidence to prove a criminal conspiracy between the Trump campaign and the Russian government to interfere with the election. Although the report found numerous contacts and a willingness by the Trump campaign to engage with Russian efforts to influence the election, it found no evidence to prove a criminal conspiracy beyond a reasonable doubt.

Difficulty in Obtaining Evidence: The report noted that both Manafort and Kilimnik used encrypted communication methods. This made it difficult to understand the nature and purpose of their interactions. Manafort also did not fully cooperate with investigators.

"Grave Counterintelligence Threat": The report emphasized the seriousness of Manafort's actions, even without finding a provable criminal conspiracy. It characterized his interactions with Kilimnik as a "grave counterintelligence threat".

Partisan Interpretations: The report's findings, especially regarding Manafort and Kilimnik, were viewed differently by Democrats and Republicans. Democrats interpreted the evidence as demonstrating collaboration or "collusion." Republicans emphasized the lack of proof for a criminal conspiracy. The Republican appendix to the report explicitly stated, "After more than three years of investigation by this Committee, we can now say with no doubt, there was no collusion," while the Democratic appendix asserted that the report "unambiguously shows that members of the Trump campaign cooperated with Russian efforts to get Trump elected".

In short, the Senate report presented extensive evidence of contacts and interactions between the Trump campaign and individuals with ties to Russian intelligence. It highlighted the counterintelligence risks posed by those interactions. However, the committee did not use the term "collusion." This was due to the legal definition of criminal conspiracy and the challenges in obtaining definitive evidence to support such a charge.
--------------------

Do you honestly think for one moment that the hundreds of interactions between the Trump campaign and Russians were totally benign and had nothing to do with getting Trump elected? As a good Catholic boy...please answer honestly.