Two can play at the gish gallop game. Please point me to the line in the Mueller report which 'explicitly states' that 'there is no evidence Trump colluded with Russia to interfere with the election.'
If this section of the report is any less imaginary than the great Korean wall I assume you would have pointed to that, and not vague snippets referring to insufficient evidence to support specific criminal charges, following Mueller's actual statements on collusion and evidence which were that "we applied the framework of conspiracy law, not the concept of collusion" and "A statement that the investigation did not establish particular facts does not mean there was no evidence of those facts".
Perhaps you wish to argue that the Trump campaign meeting with Russian agents for the primary purpose of receiving documents about Hillary Clinton as part of what Mueller established to be an organised Russian campaign to support his election using unlawfully obtained material does not meet your personal thresholds for "collusion" between the two campaigns. Understanding of the applicability of what Mueller calls "the commonly discussed term collusion" to the established fact of the Trump campaign taking that meeting is a matter of opinion rather than fact, after all. The Mueller report did, however, establish that the meeting was not invented by propagandists but definitely took place.
So you can't point to any evidence, despite insisting and "knowing" it exists. The fact that the Mueller report states they found no evidence the Just like this invisible Korean wall.
Yes, your failure to find the page where "the Mueller report states they found no evidence" as requested is very much like the failure to find the Korean wall.
I think we're going round in circles now, but I understand that if your claim that Russiagate was just propaganda rests on claiming that Mueller stated there was no evidence of any collusion, it's particularly hard to refute direct quotes from Mueller that he didn't assess whether they fit the "concept of collusion" and him not establishing stuff didn't mean there was no evidence for it. But perhaps he contradicted himself by stating that they found no evidence of any collusion in invisible ink only you can read?
It seems entirely reasonable for millions of people to continue to believe that the Mueller-established facts of Russian hacking, Trump campaign enthusiasm about using the hacked material and Trump campaign meetings with declared Russian operatives for the stated purpose of receiving sensitive information point towards collusion between the campaigns if the only argument you are able to make against this conjecture is a claim that Mueller made a statement he did not make.
Wishing you and whatever your non-throwaway account is better faith lines of argument (preferably on different subjects) in the New Year.
This is your wild conspiracy theory. You can't just tell everyone else they have to prove it's not true otherwise that's proof it is true! Typical conspiracy theorist tactic.
You said there is evidence. Where is it? The idea that Trump colluded with Putin to interfere with the election under Obama's nose somehow and then hid all the evidence from the Mueller investigation somehow is utterly ridiculous. Such an extraordinary claim without evidence is just worthless.
Two can play at the gish gallop game. Please point me to the line in the Mueller report which 'explicitly states' that 'there is no evidence Trump colluded with Russia to interfere with the election.'
If this section of the report is any less imaginary than the great Korean wall I assume you would have pointed to that, and not vague snippets referring to insufficient evidence to support specific criminal charges, following Mueller's actual statements on collusion and evidence which were that "we applied the framework of conspiracy law, not the concept of collusion" and "A statement that the investigation did not establish particular facts does not mean there was no evidence of those facts".
Perhaps you wish to argue that the Trump campaign meeting with Russian agents for the primary purpose of receiving documents about Hillary Clinton as part of what Mueller established to be an organised Russian campaign to support his election using unlawfully obtained material does not meet your personal thresholds for "collusion" between the two campaigns. Understanding of the applicability of what Mueller calls "the commonly discussed term collusion" to the established fact of the Trump campaign taking that meeting is a matter of opinion rather than fact, after all. The Mueller report did, however, establish that the meeting was not invented by propagandists but definitely took place.