There is a general consensus that Russia meddled in the US election. This is a pretty big deal, and no one is seriously contesting this fact (other than Trump and Putin).
See, now this is just another Anti-Trump liberal distorting reality in a blithe way to suit a narrative that already has the president guilty before investigations are complete and charges even considered.
Trump is not seriously contesting that the Russians meddled in the election if by meddle
you mean involved themselves in hacking e-mail accounts and spreading disinformation. While it's true that he has hardly made it the #1 concern of his presidency and doesn't condemn it as if they stole copies of the original Constitution and Declaration of Independence and burned them, you should know full well that that is not the same as seriously contesting
that they meddled
. Lumping him with Putin when it is inaccurate at the least to assert they share the same opinion on the issue is another cute trick meant to cover for the fact that there is no there there.
If by meddle
you mean actually manipulating vote counts (or even making the effort to) then you are correct that he seriously contests such an allegation, but then so does just about ever member of the intelligence community we've heard from.
It's hardly surprising or unreasonable that he would not wish to embrace the notion of Russian meddling
since it is clearly the underpinning of the Opposition's strategy for destroying his presidency, and if he were to simply get in line with the rhetoric of the Maxine Waters of the nation and join the chorus shrieking that the Russians stole the election from Clinton he would be delegitimizing his own victory. Nice try, but don't expect him to cooperate.
You folks crack me up. Not only do you want to hang him for colluding with the Russians you try and insinuate that any push back from him is proof of his guilt or of his disregard for the institutions of democracy.
We (or at least the NYT and WaPo) seem to know everything that is going on with and around Trump. Somehow we now know that he referred to Comey in unflattering terms when he met with the Russians, that he revealed classified information to the Russians, that he asked Comey to drop the Flynn investigation, that a Trump Administration official "close to Trump" is a "person of interest" in the FBI investigation, that he demanded Comey swear fealty to him personally and that he puts ketchup on his steak. Yet somehow the crack investigative reporters at these two papers with a seemingly limitless source of current and former government officials and employees who are willing to leak anything and everything (including classified information) to them, can't come up with even heresay evidence of collusion. It's the one and only thing multiple parties involved in these investigations have managed to keep hidden; close to their vests
. Amazing! But I guess it proves your theory that three or four dozen members of Congressional committees and their staffers as well as a dozen or more FBI agents and their superiors can really keep a secret when it's that the president of the United States conspired with a foreign government in an attempt to rig a presidential election.
Of course the FBI is taking the question seriously. FBI investigators are not in the habit of treating any investigation frivolously and especially not high profile ones. You write this with the clear intent of implying that if the FBI investigators are diligently doing their jobs (taking the question of collusion seriously
) that this is an indication that they believe the answer is "there was collusion"
and are bound and determined to unearth the necessary evidence to bring charges against someone. When was the last time one of the agents assigned to the investigation briefed you? Where did you read that one of them or even an anonymous person who is familiar with one of them
informed a reporter that they are "certainly taking the question [of collusion] seriously"
and it's because they are convinced that there was collusion?
You're not a MSM reporter so this sort of disingenuous trickery with phraseology is nothing more than annoying but when journalists do it is professional malpractice and part of an effort to negate the results of a fairly held democratic election because they don't like the result and they detest the man who won.
There may be general consensus that Russia once again meddled (as noted elsewhere this is almost certainly not the first time they have made the effort) in the election by assisting in the revelation of e-mail from the accounts of Podesta and the DNC, positioning trolls in social media sites, and disseminating misinformation, but that's the extent of the consensus. It doesn't extend to manipulating vote counts, bribing or blackmailing election officials, or collusion between the Russian government and the Trump campaign. It doesn't even extend to the effect the meddling had on the election. The leaked e-mail simply provided further confirmation of what many millions of Americans already suspected and believed. The sort of wild fake news stories the Russians are thought to be responsible for (e.g. child pornography rings in DC pizza places) was hardly taken serious by great swathes of voters who would have otherwise cast their ballots for HRC. And when was the last time an internet troll of any nationality persuaded you to change any position you held, let alone who you wanted for president, because of something written in a forum like this one? The impact of the meddling, such as it was, has been hyped to an extreme because it has to be if Russian Interference
is to be used as the explanation for Clinton blowing an election, the general consensus
about which was that it was her's to lose.
What does it say about Clinton if what caused her to lose wasn't that the American wanted Donald Trump for their president, but instead, confirmation of the corruption and malfeasance which surrounded her as the source; in the words and keystrokes of her own party's national organization, her own Campaign Chairman, and the director of the FBI? Little if any of the confirming words were seriously contested with detailed refutations; instead the argument and complaint seemed to be "It was terribly unfair that those facts were revealed and some of them were revealed through a criminal operation aided by a foreign nation!"
And if the rest of the keystone kops interference of the Russians (trolls and fake news stories) actually contributed to her loss, she was doomed from the start.