I would like to see a link. I just googled off of memory and used the least partisan link that I could see which was the BBC.
Edit to add: I have not followed the news that closely, so I am open to new information. But I think this exchange proves the overall point on censorship, there were extraordinary claims that were refuted for having no evidence. Investigations were had, preliminary reports said no misconduct but now you say that later reports are more damming.
If we treated the situation the same, the news and twitter would have not amplified the voices but silenced them and we would have had no investigation.
Here's the details from a popular online encyclopaedia website which I would expect to be factual and relatively neutral on important public subjects like this :
"... the report states that Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election was illegal and occurred "in sweeping and systematic fashion" but was welcomed by the Trump campaign as it expected to benefit from such efforts. It also identifies links between Trump campaign officials and individuals with ties to the Russian government, about which several persons connected to the campaign made false statements and obstructed investigations."
Edit to add: I have not followed the news that closely, so I am open to new information. But I think this exchange proves the overall point on censorship, there were extraordinary claims that were refuted for having no evidence. Investigations were had, preliminary reports said no misconduct but now you say that later reports are more damming.
If we treated the situation the same, the news and twitter would have not amplified the voices but silenced them and we would have had no investigation.