It is not proof, it is not even evidence, “Remember when every intel agency in America said Russians hacked her e mails? But that’s not proof, right?” It is a hearsay accusation and not admissible if the facts behind the assertion are available for presentation. If the real proof behind the accusation is presented and meets the standard of beyond a reasonable doubt then someone is guilty. I think a jury needs to see the evidence or better yet a prosecutor to see if it supports formal charges and a Grand Jury to see if a trial is warranted. You seem to have convicted someone, not sure who based on hearsay accusations made in the press, leaked to the press or in rare cases testimony made to congress but you certainly have not seen the evidence yourself.
Trump saying publicly that he hopes the Russians can release Hillary’s e-mails is not collusion, it is encouragement. Collusion is helping the Russians or offering the something in exchange for releasing Hillary’s e-mails. Collusion? Nobody has even shown the campaign was cooperating with the Russians. It seems like they would have if they could have but all the attempts seem to have fizzled.
TEK
