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

Domestic...actively work with Russian agents to get aid in winning the 2020 election?

Read the linked article I provided to you...it explains why the Majority of the Committee was able to use a legal technicality (i.e. the Vol. 5 Report was not a Criminal Finding in the strictest sense) and therefore could avoid using the word "Collusion" or "Conspiracy".

If the 'Lawrfare' article is too much for you, here's an AI Summary...After reading all this, you think there's nothing wrong with what Trump authorized (remember his own son, met with a Russian agent in Trump Tower)....then don't ever refer to yourself as an American patriot.
------------------
AI Overview

The 2020 Senate Intelligence Committee report did not conclude there was "no collusion" in the sense of finding no improper interactions; rather, it concluded that the evidence did not establish a formal criminal conspiracy or explicit coordination between the Trump campaign and Russia.

The final report, which was bipartisan, detailed "significant," "substantial," and "highly suspicious" contacts between Trump associates and individuals with ties to Russian intelligence, describing the campaign's actions as a "grave counterintelligence threat". The difference between the evidence found and the ultimate conclusion hinges on legal definitions, partisan interpretation, and the threshold for "coordination."

Here is why the committee reached this conclusion despite the evidence:

Distinction Between "Collusion" and "Conspiracy": The committee, similar to Special Counsel Robert Mueller, focused on whether there was sufficient evidence to prove a criminal conspiracy (a legally binding agreement to commit a crime). While the report found that the campaign "eagerly" welcomed Russian help and tried to benefit from it, it did not find conclusive proof that they conspired to break the law.

Partisan Disagreements on Interpretation: The report was bipartisan in its findings of fact, but divided on its conclusions.

Democrats argued that the evidence (such as Paul Manafort sharing internal polling data with a Russian intelligence officer, Konstantin Kilimnik) "unambiguously" showed that members of the campaign cooperated with Russian efforts to get Trump elected.

Republicans argued in "additional views" that the report proved "no evidence of collusion" and that contacts were not coordinated.

Lack of "Smoking Gun" Proof: While the committee found extensive evidence of interactions, they noted limitations in their investigation, such as encrypted communications, deleted messages, and witnesses (like Manafort) who lied or were not forthcoming. The report indicated that for many of these interactions, the committee could not prove the intent or exact purpose behind them.

The "Manafort-Kilimnik" Factor: The report extensively detailed that campaign chairman Paul Manafort shared sensitive internal polling data with Konstantin Kilimnik, whom the committee identified as a "Russian intelligence officer". While the committee called this a "grave counterintelligence threat," they did not definitively establish what Kilimnik did with that data, stopping short of confirming a direct, witting conspiracy.

Summary of Findings vs. Conclusion

The committee found that Russia engaged in an extensive campaign to aid the Trump campaign, and that some advisers were willing to accept that help. However, the committee's final output did not definitively label these actions as "collusion," leaving that term open to interpretation by Democrats and Republicans.
----------------