No, the actual evidence would be the investigation and report that says the opposite of what you're claiming. A baseless "this random person said it didn't happen!" claim isn't evidence.

Edit: what exactly do you think you just linked in your edit? That's an investigation by a Trump lackey into the origins of the investigations of Russian interference. You just provided proof that the initial investigation was not politically motivated and is credible. You're welcome to analyze the actual reports and evidence instead of clinging to the word of someone appointed by a convicted felon and fraudster in an attempt to prove they didn't cheat.