Yes, he said it live on TV but in such a way as it could easily be argued in court that the intent was something else. I would also think any conspiracy would have to be a two way street. Just asking/suggesting action of another party without them implicitly agreeing or doing said action would be hard to prosecute...

When the 'illegal' "attempted collusion" is done on national television, as Trumps's was, I think law enforcement should be obligated to arrest the culprit before he leaves the stage. Failing to do so implies de-facto approval.

Or, I presume you're gonna say, "Well, we believe that after the public sinning on national TV, we think he likely sinned again and it was likely covert that time".

Give me a gawdam break!! The Orange Moron ain't that devious.

The campaign also communicated through back channels.

According to the NYT, very little new was uncovered by the report and the Steele Dossier was given to the FBI a month or so after it had started the investigation due to another incident rather then triggering it, as Durham admits in his report.

Do you think attempted collusion should be acceptable as long as it does not succeed?

There is absolutely no question about the fact that Trump solicited Russian help in his '16 contest with Hillary. WTF, he did it ON NATIONAL TELEVISION!!!

But the recently released Special Prosecutor" investigation of the FBI's "Steele Dossier", etc. bullshit proved that there was no actual collusion, no matter how much the orange moron would have liked.

Lets see your argument with back up...

Personally after reading the Mueller report and various other reporting, Russia did in fact interfere heavily with the election. They were much more anti Hillery than pro Trump, though they did like that Trump would likely sow chaos. There was a bit of communication between agents of Russia and the Trump campaign but in the end there was no direct collusion that we know of but that was not due to lack of trying on the part of the Trump campaign. With most criminal law attempting to do something is punished almost as harshly as succeeding...

Things are awfully quiet around here. How about doing one on something people care about, like maybe the ultimate debunking of "Russiagate"?

As a gay man, I am glad that the Democrats are standing with the LGBT+ community in denouncing the "Don't Say Gay" laws. But it is frustrating that the Democrats *aren't* explaining to the public that these are laws against *educators*, not gay, lesbian, nor trans children. The punishments will be levied against teachers, school boards, and, in the end, the taxpayers who fund public education.

These bills also have the added benefit of demonizing teachers' unions, so it's a "win-win" for the GOP.