it's not moving the goalposts. i granted that it was exactly what i asked for. but the exact scenario said evidence is given, gives nothing to any form of case. it would be like you saying winter should be banned, and winter getting banned the same day. mere coincidence. unless for whatever reason, coincidence is now enough evidence to jail people? you have meetings, but not collusion. if there was more than the utmost barebones evidence, this would already be over, and you know that. as for it being usable as evidence, the defense is simple: why would Russia need a signal? if they were colluding by that point, then why would they pick the day he said it, to start instead of literally any other day? is that how they make alibis now? by taking refuge in audacity?
yep, and none of those indictments are actually for collusion, most of them are counts of fraud. false bank accounts, and tax evasion are the word of the day for those accusations. none of the actual american relations involve trump either. the russians who are currently under the scope have already been stated to have not influenced a thing about the elecions (meaning they had nothing to do with hillary's loss at the polls) one of them are related to false ID's, (somehow only bad when it's not from mexico). one was an obstruction of justice charge, with does nothing for the actual case. as or the impeachment case, it's an attempt to make the system easier to rig for impeachment. not a good idea by any means, because it's a wweapon that can be used by both sides. holding it to proper rigidity is absolutely necessary, and the republican party would be foolish to try and push through with the plan. as for the claims that trump is guilty of obstruction of justice, trump is making tweets about his case. if that counts as obstruction of justice, then everybody who ever bitched about investigations into them on their media feed would be guilty. and no, presidential status does not change this. we all know trump wants him to quit wasting our time, trump tweeting about it applies no pressure beyond that of public annoyance, and if that's enough to end the case, then i'd say they never had anything to begin with.
which brings us back to the start. they still have 0 solid collusion evidence. they have fake bank accounts and money laundering, and if that's evidence of collusion with a country (corruption it is unquestionably, collusion it is not by any means) then you could spear almost the entirety of congress with such a long reaching legal weapon. collusion though? none yet. and thanks to the russian leaks, we all now know that if the FBI had that evidence, they'd be using it as soon as possible. they don't, they've been trying to find it for two years, and all they've got to show for it is that people in politics are trying to hide their money from tax collectors. and that's been known since forever.