> "They made it all up." [1]
Yeah, this is the typical refrain. "It's all a hoax!". To debunk your sources all I need to do is refer you to the Mueller report Vols I and II, as well as the Senate Intel report Vol V. specifically. All of the posts you link fail to account for Manafort having contact and sharing information with a Russian intelligence officer while Russia was hacking Democrats. I get not wanting to engage with this fact, because it shows direct collusion with Russia at the highest level of the Trump campaign, and it's quite convenient for you to claim that it's just made up, but I really must insist.
The Republican-lead Senate Intel Committee, chaired by Republican Senator Marco Rubio, authored a report that said the Trump campaign passed internal data to a Russian intel officer. What do you say to this? That they made it up? Why did Marco Rubio make this up? Why did all the other Republicans on the committee agree to publish this report with made up information that would hurt Trump, and be 100% counter to their message that the Trump campaign did not collude with Russia? Republicans controlled that committee, so they could have written anything they wanted. Why did they write that specifically? What's your actual theory here?
> A committee does not have the same requirements as a court of law and is permitted to be speculative in it's findings.
You haven't presented any court findings yourself, so I'm not sure why you take issue with the Mueller Report and Republican-chaired Senate Intel report as not meeting a high enough standard for you.
Anyway, your Wikipedia link about the Steele Dossier doesn't help your case. It says much of what the Steele Dossier contained turned out to be true or at least has not been disproven at this point.
> Trump was acquitted on all impeachment charges and no criminal collusion with Russia was established.
Trump was never charged or impeached for his conduct with Russia, not for reasons at all relating to his conduct mind you.
But I must note the juxtaposition of "court of law" and "Trump was acquitted on all impeachment charges" in your reply. Impeachment is not a fact-finding process, and the standards of evidence during impeachment are actually far below what you would expect from a court of law. The verdict is rendered by politicians, so insisting on a standard of evidence and then pointing to a political process as proof of innocence doesn't track.
But since you brought it up, the first impeachment acquittal shouldn't be taken to mean Trump was not guilty of extorting Ukraine. He absolutely was, and it was proven without rebuttal during the impeachment process. The defense raised was not that he didn't do it, but that he had the right and power to do it. Republicans acquitted Trump on that basis. It was an affirmation of the raw exercise of power for personal gain as a legitimate tool of statecraft. If you listen to the speeches given as rationales for their votes, plenty of Republican senators concede that Trump engaged in the alleged extortion scheme, but that he had learned a lesson and was sufficiently chastised by the mere blight of having been impeached.
> "Accuse the other side of that which you are guilty"
That's exactly what Trump did... he was called out on colluding with Russians, and then he turned around and said it was Hillary who actually colluded.
Be honest, have you actually read the Mueller Report or Senate Intel Report? Because you don't make points I would expect someone who has read these documents would make. It seems like your entire knowledge of the events in question come from right wing media sources, and I really have to ask: if you haven't read these reports, why have you formed such strong opinions about them? And if you have read those reports, why don't you engage with the specific evidence raised in them instead of dismissing them outright and bringing up right wing media sources?