What direct evidence do you have? I'm sorry, but with almost everything being a lie, I have to see actual proof. Your word is not good.
edit add.
I have searched for what you refer to, and find nothing.
Link please.
Sure. Let's start by defining "collusion." It just means to cooperate, sometimes (but not always) in a clandestine manner, to attain less-than-honorable ends. Collusion need not attain its ends to qualify as collusion. With that in mind, all three of the instances I cited are
de facto collusion. Here you go:
Item 1. Trump asked Russia to find Hillary Clinton's missing emails. That same day, Russia began operations to hack Hillary Clinton's personal and campaign related emails. One of those was successful, and resulted in a raft load of private emails within the Clinton campaign being published online. The right-wing media spun a lot of those emails to make them appear to say things they didn't really say, damaging the Clinton campaign. Trump asked Russia to do something illegal, Russia accommodated his request--they cooperated, and for less-than-honorable ends. I was watching that news conference live when it was broadcast by C-Span. It's a textbook case of collusion between Trump himself and Russia.
"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," Trump said in a July 27, 2016, news conference.
www.pbs.org
Item 2. The Trump Tower meeting between Donald Trump Jr. and Natalia Veselnitskaya. Donald Trump Jr. released the email exchange leading to the meeting, from which it was clear that he took the meeting to receive "dirt" on Hillary Clinton. Veselnitskaya wanted promises in return that Trump Jr. was not willing to give, so the dirt was never delivered, but that doesn't really matter as to collusion--that is, that the end sought by Trump Jr. did not manifest is irrelevant to whether it's an instance of collusion. Veselnitskaya was, we now know, a Russian agent (and Trump Jr. knew she was working for the Kremlin at the time he took the meeting, though he likely thought she was just an attorney and not also a spy). Again, it meets the definition--a highly placed member of the Trump campaign cooperated with a foreign agent to achieve a less-than-honorable end.
It is his most direct comment so far on the purpose of Trump Jr's talks with a Kremlin-linked lawyer.
www.bbc.com
Item 3. Paul Manafort admitted to sharing Trump campaign internal polling data with Konstantin Kilimnik, who is suspected of being a Russian intelligence officer (making him a step above Ms. Veselnitskaya in terms of the Russian intelligence services rank). He was later convicted on charges of tax evasion, for which the evidence of him sharing the data and receiving payment for it was brought up at his trial. The jury convicted him, so apparently, they believed it, but Manafort himself admitted to having shared the data in an interview. He claimed it was "old news" but it was, in fact, from only two weeks prior to his contact with Kilimnik. Again, a
de facto case of collusion--we know the Russians were using targetted messaging on social media to help Trump, and this data would have helped them understand how to refine and strengthen their efforts.
Mr Manafort has previously denied sharing polling data with suspected Russian spy Konstantin Kilimnik
www.independent.co.uk
As far as I can tell, the repeated claims that collusion was a "hoax" relies on the fact that Trump was never charged with a crime in connection to any of this. Bill Barr squashed the Mueller investigation and refused to prosecute Trump, though it seems clear the Trump fired Jeff Sessions and hired Barr for precisely that reason (i.e. to avoid being charged). However, collusion itself is not a crime--it merely ought to be. Try to imagine your reaction if Biden had been in any of these situations with, say, China. If, for example, it was revealed that a top Biden campaign official took a meeting with a Chinese spy to get dirt on Trump, even if that dirt were not delivered. Trump supporters would be (rightly) outraged...but that has a consequence as to the behavior that Trump and members of his campaign engaged in and how we ought to judge it.
