Present some then. Thus far the best that I’ve seen is $100k in FB ads to peddle the divisive topics typically peddled by the democratic establishment.
This is not what I’d call hard evidence. This is testimony, by people whose careers depend on saying there was interference. Fact of the matter is, around this time last year the same outlets you link here (except cspan) we’re projecting that Trump had a 7% chance of winning the election. In the presence of “interference”, the odds would probably be different. It’s only when the anointed heir to the throne didn’t win that anyone started talking about “interference”.
No, I mean documented, actual evidence either presented as-is, or at least reviewed first hand by a neutral, trusted third party. Not some kooky WaPo bullshit.
What counts as a neutral, trusted third party. With respect to this issue, does the US intelligence community count? If so, then does the second link, a link to the report meet your standards of evidence?
If not, then I'm not sure what kind of third party you are imagining. What would be the intelligence community's reason to coordinate and issue false statements on this?
