That's not actually true, and it is surprising to see DUers buying into that framing.

Atticus, did you follow this proceeding closely enough to catch just WHERE all that money on which he didn't pay taxes came from?

The dealings over which he was convicted had EVERYTHING to do with Russia.

aware that that was relevant or even discussed at the trial. Actually, I believe I recall Ellis admonishing the prosecution---needlessly--- that the charges "had nothing to do with Russia" or words to that effect.

The point of the OP was that Trump was---again---taking credit where no credit was due. Do you disagree?

It was.

The last time everyone was calling for Ellis' head on a pike was over some extraneous commentary he made during a discussion about how this indictment fell into the scope of the special counsel and why the Mueller team was pursuing these ostensibly "non-Russian" tax violations.

https://www.justsecurity.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/05/US-v-Manafort-full-text-transcript-hearing-motion-may-4-2018.pdf

But that goes on to say whether crimes were committed by colluding with Russian government officials with respect to the Russian government efforts to interfere with the 2016 election for president. That was pretty clear from the May letter.But then they go on to say committed a crime or crimes arising out of payments he received from the Ukrainian government before or during the tenure of President Viktor Yanukovych.

Well, we could argue all day here and not get very much clarity on whether there's a difference between the Ukraine and Russia. Of course, I wasn't there any later than about 40 years ago, but if you askthe average Ukrainian, they will tell you there's a huge difference. On the other hand, the government makes avery powerful point. Yankovych's operation was supported by the Russian government. He did essentially what they wanted him to do, but he's not there anymore. People are killing each other in the eastern Ukraine. My hunch is that it's Ukrainians and Russians that are mostly fighting.

"collusion" or any relationship or cooperation with Russia? Was the fact that much of the untaxed money came, directly or indirectly, from Russia in any way a part of what Mueller had go prove in order to convict?

There was some analysis on a progressive radio show that also alluded to the fact that while Manafort had been a political consultant for American politicians and there is the usual right wing clap trap about him being a "political animal" which is why he was chosen as the campaign chair, he really had not been operating on the American political scene for a long time and his main clients had been foreign dictators. At the time he was selected to be the chair, he supposedly only had one client, an oligarch from Russia. So it seems that the mere fact of his involvement with the Trump campaign was a foot in the door for connection to Russia.

"Where was it any part of the prosecution's burden of proof to show
"collusion" or any relationship or cooperation with Russia?"

I'm certain you were around for this.

1. This case was brought by the special counsel.

2. The special counsel's jurisdiction is limited to things having to do with the Trump campaign and Russia.

3. Manafort tried to get this thing dismissed on the basis of the right wing talking point you are repeating - that it has nothing to do with Russia.

So, yes, in order to get this show rolling, the connection with Russia was required to be proven.

That was the point of the argument in the transcript I posted to you already.

Here is how Ellis ruled on that issue, which was required to be proven:

https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.vaed.383106/gov.uscourts.vaed.383106.97.0_32.pdf

In sum, ¶ (b)(i) of the May 17 Appointment Order makes clear that the Special Counsel’s investigation into the payments defendant received from Russian-backed Ukrainian officials was authorized because the investigation involved potential links between a Trump campaign official — the defendant — and the Russian government via the Russian-backed Ukrainian President. The May 17 Appointment Order also confirms that the Special Counsel was authorized to prosecute the crimes alleged in the Superseding Indictment because evidence of these alleged crimes was uncovered as part of the Special Counsel’s aforementioned investigation.

I like this one better.

You are correct when you say "It was required to be proven in order to proceed". My OP used overly broad language in saying that the case "had nothing to do with Russia ". The effect was to sidetrack my own point, i.e., Trump's boast that Ellis's comment about "no collusion" was asinine, as the comment itself was "obiter dicta".

My apologies for my sloppiness of thought and phraseology and the angst it caused. Okay?

I thought I’d just simplify it.

And Trump wasn't convicted in any of them! Exoneration, I tells ya.

Nor was Trump convicted in any other country.

And it cannot be allowed to happen.

Trump's nonsense is intended for his supporters, and he wants to convince them to ignore anything that Trump does not say.

As to the spurious claim that Manafort's crimes had nothing to do with Russia, Manafort was a money launderer and his crimes connect Trump with Russia.

After all, "I" paid for that microphone!