I don't understand why this is not collusion/conspiracy.

[garybeck]

10. how do you define "agreement"?

if two people meet and one person hands someone some documents and the other person takes them and uses them for a specific purpose, didn't there have to be an agreement to meet at that location in the first place? didn't there have to be an agreement to get the information and bring it there? are we supposed to think that they just happened to meet by chance and he just happened to have the polling data in his pocket? an agreement is required for any of this to happen. people don't just pull papers out of their pocket and hand them to someone.

and anyway, the media's repeated mantra that there isn't evidence of collusion/conspiracy is patently false. there are many contacts with russians and the campaign. maybe they could say there isn't enough evidence to indict/convict at this time. but they should stop saying the report concludes there wasn't conspiracy, and only focusing on obstruction. there is clear evidence of both.