> That's not what the report says. I encourage anyone interested to read it or a summary from a credible source.

Yes it is. Is this a credible enough source for you?

https://www.justice.gov/archives/sco/file/1373816/download

Verbatim, p. 181

For that reason, this Office’s focus in resolving the question ofjoint criminal liability was on conspiracy as defined in federal law, not the commonly discussed term“collusion.” The Officeconsidered in particular whethercontacts between Trump Campaign officials andRussia-linked individuals could trigger liability for the crimeof conspiracy—either under statutes that have their own conspiracy language (e.g., 18 U.S.C. §§ 1349, 1951(a)), or under the general conspiracy statute (18 U.S.C. § 371). The investigation did not establishthat the contacts describedin VolumeI, Section IV, supra, amounted to an agreement to commitany substantive violation of federal criminal law—including foreign-influence and campaign-finance laws, both of which are discussed further below. The Office therefore did not charge any individual associated with the Trump Campaign with conspiracy to commit a federal offense arising from Russia contacts, either under a specific statute or under Section 371’s offenses clause.

The Office also did not charge any campaign official or associate with a conspiracy under Section 371’s defraud clause. That clause criminalizes participating in an agreement to obstruct a lawful function of the U.S. government or its agencies through deceitful or dishonest means. See Dennis v. United States, 384 U.S. 855, 861 (1966); Hammerschmidt v. United States, 265 U.S. 182, 188 (1924); see also United States v. Concord Mgmt. & Consulting LLC, 347 F. Supp. 3d 38, 46 (D.D.C. 2018). The investigation did not establish any agreement among Campaign officials—or between such officials and Russia-linked individuals—to interfere with or obstruct a lawful function of agovernment agency during the campaign or transition period. And, as discussed in VolumeI, Section V.A, supra, the investigation did not identify evidence thatanyCampaignofficial or associate knowingly and intentionally participated in the conspiracy to defraud that the Office charged, namely, the active-measures conspiracy described in Volume I, Section II, supra. Accordingly, the Office did not charge anyCampaign associate or other U.S. person with conspiracy to defraud the United States based onthe Russia-related contacts described in SectionIV above.

p. 183

he investigation did not, however, yield evidence sufficient to sustain any charge that any individual affiliated withthe TrumpCampaign acted as an agentofa foreign principal within themeaning of FARA or, in terms of Section 951, subject to the direction or control of the governmentof Russia, or any official thereof. In particular, the Office did not find evidence likely to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Campaign officials such as Paul Manafort, George Papadopoulos, and Carter Page acted as agents of the Russian government—or atits direction,control, or request—during the relevant time period.

-- end copy

Can you quote and reference the exact part of the document where they claim to have found evidence that Trump or campaign associates conspired with Russia?

> The rest of the parent rehashes tired old Trump propaganda. Let's move on.

No it doesn't, and no I won't. If you can't cope with discussing it or people asking questions, you can just move on. It's not propaganda to ask why Adam Schiff did not provide Mueller with any of that ample evidence he allegedly saw as an intelligence committee member. Nobody has asked that. Nobody has asked why Schiff either covered it up or lied about it. Was Schiff himself mislead by intelligence agencies? That's such a huge newsworthy story, it's not old or tired. Asking questions is not propaganda, you are the one engaging in propaganda slinging around your unsubstantiated claims and personal attacks.