> many other places were pushing the Russia collusion conspiracy theory.
I might be out of touch but isn't it fairly established at this point that - for certain definitions of "collusion" - it was factually true?
i.e. not "Trump got together with Putin and hatched a plan" true but "both sides obliquely acknowledged the interests of the other with a nod and a wink" true?
Literally the only reason "oh it was just not true" is a prevailing bit of logic is because no one in power has cared to do a single thing about it, or even so much as announce that it's in no way acceptable.
No - I'm saying in addition to "Russia prefers Trump at the helm", there was some (direct or indirect) contact between the two parties and some awareness and (implicit or explicit) encouragement from the Trump camp for Russian actions.
Surely there is a meaningful distance between that and your formulation?
I might be out of touch but isn't it fairly established at this point that - for certain definitions of "collusion" - it was factually true?
i.e. not "Trump got together with Putin and hatched a plan" true but "both sides obliquely acknowledged the interests of the other with a nod and a wink" true?