If you can point out who exactly you think coordinated with Trump that'd be great.
Pappadopolous was convicted for lying about his attempts, approved by higher ups in the campaign, to coordinate with Russia.
Stone was indicted for lying about his role in coordinating between the Trump campaign and WikiLeaks about the DNC document release in which, from other indictments, WikiLeaks was acting as either an agent or dupe of Russian intelligence.
Irrelevant, the actual facts charged in the indictment involve collusion. “Collusion” isn't a legal charge, it's a fact pattern, and it's part of the fact pattern in both the Stone and Pappadopolous indictments. The claim that there are no indictments involving collusion is false.
> And Stone denies the accusation.
Which is irrelevant to any claims about the content of indictments of findings of the Mueller probe. It would be relevant if the claim was “no convictions involving collusion” or “no confessions involving collusion”, though Pappadopolous would still disprove both of those claims.
As there is no actual crime of collusion for which a person can be indicted, this is a subjective viewpoint.
On any other level, “collusion” is a word with a clear meaning, and the Stone and Pappadopolous indictments (the latter of which is subject of a conviction with guilty plea and detailed statement of the offense confirming this) involve what is unambiguously actual collusion between the Trump campaign and WikiLeaks (on a matter which the facts alleged in other indictments identify WikiLeaks as advancing a Russian propaganda operation) and attempted (from the Trump campaign side) collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia directly.
Everything that denied this is lies and sophistry to support lies.
It seems to me that the lack of further Mueller indictments denies it. But, we could argue it either way, and that is what makes it subjective.