"There is"
You claimed there was evidence that the NRA funneled Russian money. Then you gish galloped through a bunch of stuff that has nothing to do with Russia funneling money through the NRA. Now you're saying you didn't say there was evidence.
Fundamentally, you're trying to claim that circumstantial evidence isn't evidence, which is a nonsensical argument, especially when there's a fair bit of circumstantial evidence. Regardless, I apologize. I was continuing to focus on your initial attempt to attack what I said at the start on out of context grounds and because your argument hasn't changed since, I continued to treat it as you still attacking what was said initially. It's still pathetically weak, of course, but, I suppose that it's more relevant to later points made than it was in the beginning.
Ummm ok. Now what? Will you gish gallop again, or do you retract the claim that there is evidence Russia funneled money through the NRA?
You still don't know what gish galloping is, I see. "Gish galloping" is not what's been happening. Providing context (and circumstantial evidence) is not gish galloping, after all.
You're going to have to try harder since Mueller and the FBI already looked into Russian interference and this in particular. This false equivalence of your's doesn't pass muster. Just for kicks though, who was the father? Mueller?
Not the brightest bulb, are you?
To address Mueller specifically, Mueller was actually poked at in my original statement, as you might not recall. Mueller using a version of what constitutes campaign finance violations that's been specifically forbidden by Congress and ruled against in a court of law means that trying to invoke Mueller on the subject of campaign finance is laughable, at best. You can keep trying to blindly invoke the FBI, of course, while conveniently ignoring how there's a very good chance that they would have just let Mueller handle that and, well, Barr. Speaking more about Barr would bring us back a bit to the beginning, of course, given Barr's continual actions to try to protect Trump, including how he very quickly ended multiple FBI investigations directly related to Mueller's investigation, though the specifics of what the investigations were have not been made public, to my knowledge.
As for the father, those FEC Republicans rather look like they count, though there's a larger trend within the GOP to oppose or at the very least minimize and defund enforcement of campaign finance regulations (and white collar crime in general), so a credible argument can be made for the Republican Party itself.
Mildly related to that, I'll poke you towards a contextually relevant statement to that from CREW addressing the FEC, again, in the unlikely chance that you have any interest in actually educating yourself. This is general picture context, though, rather than Russia related specifically, since you seem to have incredible difficulty understanding the difference.
We’re Still Waiting on Explanations From the Republican FEC Commissioners
Ad hominem? The only negative things that I've stated, like "troll" have been in direct response to you giving more than ample evidence of their truth and making it perfectly clear why you earned said label. It's up to you whether to change your ways to be more honest or not.