When will Trump be impeached? -2019 Better late than never- Congratulations!

Mr. D

You clearly aren't getting it. Its not a question of whether or not it means something.

The FBI director and DOJ deputy director overseeing the investigation say its "something" and that it should not be released.

Why you think your opinion on the memo trumps Wray/Rosenstein is an indicator that your think very highly of yourself.

I think you're trying to be diplomatic about the OofJ or collusion case and in a way I can respect that. But the signs are all there for both cases. I wonder what it'll take for people on the fence to believe Trump and his peeps are just money grubbing real estate agents who rode a tide of racism and anti-establishment sentiment. They didn't think they'd actually win. This is evidenced by the fact that Wikileaks and DTjr exchanged emails the night of the election. Wikileaks emailing simply...."wow" at the news of Trumps victory.

Fushion GPS co-founder on why he investigated Trump and his ties to Russian mafias and the like.."I investigate business stuff and financial crime and corruption and those kind of things,” he reflected at the end of the seven-hour testimony. “That’s my gig… You know, we threw a line in the water and Moby Dick came back…”

You ever ask yourself why no banks would lend Trump money? Ya know...a real estate mogul not being able to get money from US banks has never struck you as weird? Where was he getting all his money? Oh yeah thats right Eric Trump bragged about having access to tens of millions through Russian ties.

Trump was right..he could walk out into 5th avenue and shoot someone and his followers would still like and defend him.

Mr. D

You clearly aren't getting it. Its not a question of whether or not it means something.

The FBI director and DOJ deputy director overseeing the investigation say its "something" and that it should not be released.

Why you think your opinion on the memo trumps Wray/Rosenstein is an indicator that your think very highly of yourself.

First can they not just redact parts of the memo if it is for security reasons?  Secondly has it not been the left the whole time saying they need to know everything about everything?

I think you're trying to be diplomatic about the OofJ or collusion case and in a way I can respect that. But the signs are all there for both cases. I wonder what it'll take for people on the fence to believe Trump and his peeps are just money grubbing real estate agents who rode a tide of racism and anti-establishment sentiment. They didn't think they'd actually win. This is evidenced by the fact that Wikileaks and DTjr exchanged emails the night of the election. Wikileaks emailing simply...."wow" at the news of Trumps victory.

Great we see where you lie.  Glad to see you throw in racism and great fact about winning, what does that even mean or matter?

Fushion GPS co-founder on why he investigated Trump and his ties to Russian mafias and the like.."I investigate business stuff and financial crime and corruption and those kind of things,” he reflected at the end of the seven-hour testimony. “That’s my gig… You know, we threw a line in the water and Moby Dick came back…”

You might want to read up on Fushion GPS.

You ever ask yourself why no banks would lend Trump money? Ya know...a real estate mogul not being able to get money from US banks has never struck you as weird? Where was he getting all his money? Oh yeah thats right Eric Trump bragged about having access to tens of millions through Russian ties.

Is this another "fact" of yours?  "No banks would lend Trump money", can you provide a source for this?
Ohhh, then the Eric Trump thing, nooo according to vanityfair it is way more $100 million, get your facts straight.

Trump was right..he could walk out into 5th avenue and shoot someone and his followers would still like and defend him.

And then we have someone like you, that could never be appeased no matter what Trump does.

Mr. D

You clearly aren't getting it. Its not a question of whether or not it means something.

The FBI director and DOJ deputy director overseeing the investigation say its "something" and that it should not be released.

Why you think your opinion on the memo trumps Wray/Rosenstein is an indicator that your think very highly of yourself.

First can they not just redact parts of the memo if it is for security reasons?  Secondly has it not been the left the whole time saying they need to know everything about everything?

Not that I think it will resolve your 'deep state conspiracy suspicions' but take note of the last couple of sentences in particular of their explanation.

The FBI takes seriously its obligations to the FISA Court and its compliance with procedures overseen by career professionals in the Department of Justice and the FBI. We are committed to working with the appropriate oversight entities to ensure the continuing integrity of the FISA process.

With regard to the House Intelligence Committee’s memorandum, the FBI was provided a limited opportunity to review this memo the day before the committee voted to release it. As expressed during our initial review, we have grave concerns about material omissions of fact that fundamentally impact the memo’s accuracy.

https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2018/01/fbi-denounces-nunes-memo-in-statement.html

In other trump news:

"The Trump administration’s proposal to dramatically ramp up offshore drilling could lead to 5,571 oil spills dumping 34.4 million gallons of oil into ocean waters off Alaska, the West Coast, East Coast and Gulf of Mexico, according to a new Center for Biological Diversity analysis.

According to the Center’s analysis:

-About 53 percent of the spills would likely occur in the Gulf of Mexico (mostly in the Central and Western Gulf);
-About 28 percent would happen in northern Alaska (mostly in the Chukchi and Beaufort seas);
-About 12 percent of spills would be along the West Coast (mostly in Southern California);
-About 7 percent would be off the East Coast, mostly in the north and mid- Atlantic;
-Catastrophic events like the Deepwater Horizon spill could dramatically increase the total oil spilled, given the Trump administration’s proposed rollback of safety rules.

On the West Coast alone, carrying out Trump’s plan is expected to cause 657 spills, dumping more than 4 million gallons of oil into coastal waters of the Pacific.

The dude's dirty, any way you look at it.

Is this another "fact" of yours?  "No banks would lend Trump money", can you provide a source for this?

Literally hundreds of newspaper stories are about this, and they basically say, "American banks won't lend him money, so he goes to a famously iffy German bank and the Russian mob."

So I tried to find someone reporting the reverse, and found this: https://www.marketwatch.com/story/donald-trump-has-had-no-trouble-getting-big-loans-at-competitive-rates-2017-06-22

Oddly, or maybe not, when you read the article, it provides absolutely no evidence US banks have lent Trump big money in decades.  For example, in the nut graf:

Contrary to countless reports portraying President Donald Trump’s relationship with banks as toxic, a new MarketWatch analysis shows Trump has virtually no trouble getting loans on good terms these days. Big banks like Barclays BCS, -0.09% also welcome Trump’s money in brokerage accounts and one of the biggest, J.P. Morgan Chase JPM, +0.05%  , oversees his family trusts, according to a recent presidential disclosure.

To "welcome Trump's money" and "oversee family trusts" are nothing at all like giving him big loans.  The loans discussed in the article are all from foreign banks, so I'm going to conclude he indeed has trouble getting big loans from US banks.

Is this another "fact" of yours?  "No banks would lend Trump money", can you provide a source for this?

Literally hundreds of newspaper stories are about this, and they basically say, "American banks won't lend him money, so he goes to a famously iffy German bank and the Russian mob."

So I tried to find someone reporting the reverse, and found this: https://www.marketwatch.com/story/donald-trump-has-had-no-trouble-getting-big-loans-at-competitive-rates-2017-06-22

Oddly, or maybe not, when you read the article, it provides absolutely no evidence US banks have lent Trump big money in decades.  For example, in the nut graf:

Contrary to countless reports portraying President Donald Trump’s relationship with banks as toxic, a new MarketWatch analysis shows Trump has virtually no trouble getting loans on good terms these days. Big banks like Barclays BCS, -0.09% also welcome Trump’s money in brokerage accounts and one of the biggest, J.P. Morgan Chase JPM, +0.05%  , oversees his family trusts, according to a recent presidential disclosure.

To "welcome Trump's money" and "oversee family trusts" are nothing at all like giving him big loans.  The loans discussed in the article are all from foreign banks, so I'm going to conclude he indeed has trouble getting big loans from US banks.

I think my problem with that was the "no bank" and if as you say numerous newspaper stories have reported on this, shouldn't they provide evidence?  Example:  Trump tried to apply for a loan at Citibank on January 10th and was denied the loan.  Instead they say some banker we talked to said no bank would ever give a loan to Trump.  This is not to say I think he wouldn't have trouble getting loans, due to his bankruptcies, but the news rarely uses facts, misleads and tries to push whatever agenda they have.     
 

Mr. D

You clearly aren't getting it. Its not a question of whether or not it means something.

The FBI director and DOJ deputy director overseeing the investigation say its "something" and that it should not be released.

Why you think your opinion on the memo trumps Wray/Rosenstein is an indicator that your think very highly of yourself

I don't think my opinion does. I'm voicing my support of the elected members of Congress, as well as the President, in wanting that memo to be released so we can judge for ourselves. Like I said, it could well be nothing, but I suspect they're more worried about reputation than actual security.

Additionally, the FBI and our intel community don't exactly have the cleanest history. The building is named after J. Edgar. James Clapper, anti-Trumper, perjured himself before Congress on NSA wiretapping and surveillance. The CIA gave us Saddam's WMDs.

I think you're trying to be diplomatic about the OofJ or collusion case and in a way I can respect that. But the signs are all there for both cases.

The signs are that Russia is nothing. You can belive that the entire GOP is compromised by Russia or you can believe that they aren't lynching Trump because they know it's not true outside of a Scooter Libby-Iran Contra level scandal. Those can damage an admin for a few months, but aren't fatal.

And meeting some Russian who promises evidence of crimes but has none and nothing more comes of it is NOT collusion.

This is before we get to the fundamentall question of what our relationship with Russia should be and the wisdom of the Clinton-NeoCon Russian confrontation policy?

Fushion GPS co-founder on why he investigated Trump and his ties to Russian mafias and the like.."I investigate business stuff and financial crime and corruption and those kind of things,” he reflected at the end of the seven-hour testimony. “That’s my gig… You know, we threw a line in the water and Moby Dick came back…”

Yeah, you really need to read up on FusionGPS. They likely served as intermediaries between the Clinton campaign and Russian agents to try and smear Trump. They were paid by the Clibton campaign. They met with the Russian lawyer that met with Trump Jr. immediately before and after she met with Trump Jr. Sje obtained a special visa waiver to enter.

Have you ever stoppedto notice that the biggest proponents of the Trump-Russia stuff are NeoCons and Clinton NeoLibs? That doesn't strike you as odd? Are glad to be a NeoCon pawn?

I think my problem with that was the "no bank" and if as you say numerous newspaper stories have reported on this, shouldn't they provide evidence?  Example:  Trump tried to apply for a loan at Citibank on January 10th and was denied the loan.  Instead they say some banker we talked to said no bank would ever give a loan to Trump.  This is not to say I think he wouldn't have trouble getting loans, due to his bankruptcies, but the news rarely uses facts, misleads and tries to push whatever agenda they have.

So you're just playing devils advocate because the news doesn't have a time, date, and the personal bankers information on when Trump gets denied a loan? Sounds to me like you're backtracking here.

Oh, and when I mentioned Eric Trump bragging about getting tens of millions from Russian banks and then you return with a "over a hundred million!" Ya know, you proved my point even more so.

I could never be appeased by what DJT does? Lets break down the essentials here...

1. Denies basic climate change science and is trying his best to halt investment into renewable energies.
2. Thinks a Wall is the best answer to illegal immigration. Which, mind you, he LIED and said Mexico will pay for it.
3. Said he would repeal and replace Obamacare with a plan that would cover everybody for cheaper. Care to  speak about that campaign promise?
4. Attacks the bedrock of separation of powers by interfering with FBI/DOJ investigations.
5. Uses fu*king twitter to attack even his "enemies". The PRESIDENT OF THE U.S. using twitter to attack people...
6. Perpetuating the Zionist agenda despite international condemnation. 
7. And the worst of all I think...hes a pure ULTRA capitalist.

So if what you're saying is that I could never be appeased by someone like this then you're god damn right.

p.s. these aren't subjective opinions. All of them are documented and well known.

Is this another "fact" of yours?  "No banks would lend Trump money", can you provide a source for this?

Literally hundreds of newspaper stories are about this, and they basically say, "American banks won't lend him money, so he goes to a famously iffy German bank and the Russian mob."

So I tried to find someone reporting the reverse, and found this: https://www.marketwatch.com/story/donald-trump-has-had-no-trouble-getting-big-loans-at-competitive-rates-2017-06-22

Oddly, or maybe not, when you read the article, it provides absolutely no evidence US banks have lent Trump big money in decades.  For example, in the nut graf:

Contrary to countless reports portraying President Donald Trump’s relationship with banks as toxic, a new MarketWatch analysis shows Trump has virtually no trouble getting loans on good terms these days. Big banks like Barclays BCS, -0.09% also welcome Trump’s money in brokerage accounts and one of the biggest, J.P. Morgan Chase JPM, +0.05%  , oversees his family trusts, according to a recent presidential disclosure.

To "welcome Trump's money" and "oversee family trusts" are nothing at all like giving him big loans.  The loans discussed in the article are all from foreign banks, so I'm going to conclude he indeed has trouble getting big loans from US banks.

I think my problem with that was the "no bank" and if as you say numerous newspaper stories have reported on this, shouldn't they provide evidence?  Example:  Trump tried to apply for a loan at Citibank on January 10th and was denied the loan.  Instead they say some banker we talked to said no bank would ever give a loan to Trump.  This is not to say I think he wouldn't have trouble getting loans, due to his bankruptcies, but the news rarely uses facts, misleads and tries to push whatever agenda they have.     
 

Well, first of all, I don't think denying loans is something banks should really talk about publicly.  But his only public financial disclosure we have clearly shows he only has loans from that dirty German bank and a couple of Russian mob-linked ones--it doesn't take Sherlock Holmes to figure it out.

Secondly, "the news rarely uses facts"?  Bye.

They were paid by the Clibton campaign

Who started the initial funding of Fushion GPS?

The Washington Free Beacon. They funded it from 2015 up until May 2016. Who is the WFB? A conservative website with a hedge fund billionaire Paul Singer. Paul Singer is a republican.

So when you suggest that Fushion GPS was a tool used by the Democrats you're leaving out a major part of the story. Why would you do that? For obvious reasons.

"Fushion GPS was funded by the KILLARY!"

Well, who started the funding for the opposition research??? Hmmmmmmmm

They were paid by the Clibton campaign

Who started the initial funding of Fushion GPS?

The Washington Free Beacon. They funded it from 2015 up until May 2016. Who is the WFB? A conservative website with a hedge fund billionaire Paul Singer. Paul Singer is a republican.

So when you suggest that Fushion GPS was a tool used by the Democrats you're leaving out a major part of the story. Why would you do that? For obvious reasons.

"Fushion GPS was funded by the KILLARY!"

Well, who started the funding for the opposition research??? Hmmmmmmmm

Yes Fusion GPS has worked with Republicans. Many Republicans were dead-set against Trump and openly preferred Clinton to Trump. That doesn't chang the fact that Clinton campaign funding was used to cojure up this report and might well have involved links with Russians as well as the use of unverified and potentially unreliable intel to justify any surveillance of Trump as well as servibg as the basis for the collusion narrative.

That doesn't change the fact that Clinton campaign funding was used to cojure up this report

How can Clinton campaign funding conjure up a report that was already under way via the funding of Republicans?

Seriously though. The report was already in existence before the HRC campaign found out about it.

Once Trump secured the Republican nomination the Republicans stopped their funding of the Dossier and thats when the Clinton Campaign stepped in. The source of the funding does not matter in this instance. But nice try.

Secondly, the Dossier was not, I repeat was NOT, the source the FBI used to get their warrant for surveillance of Trump and his surrogates. The FBI was already underway in its investigation of Carter Page and his connections to Russian Spies. One of those Russian spies being convicted and serving time.

Once Trump brought in Carter Page he sealed his fate, man.

The Dossier only corroborated what the FBI had already found out through their intelligence gathering via a FISA warrant on Carter Page.

Classic Republican misdirection tactics...spreading false narratives about the Christopher Steele Dossier. Its like watching Sean Hannity when I read your posts (because i do watch him). You can fact check me on whether or not the dossier was the PRIMARY source for the FISA warrant on initial surveillance of Carter Page.   I'll wait

They were paid by the Clibton campaign

Who started the initial funding of Fushion GPS?

The Washington Free Beacon. They funded it from 2015 up until May 2016. Who is the WFB? A conservative website with a hedge fund billionaire Paul Singer. Paul Singer is a republican.

So when you suggest that Fushion GPS was a tool used by the Democrats you're leaving out a major part of the story. Why would you do that? For obvious reasons.

"Fushion GPS was funded by the KILLARY!"

Well, who started the funding for the opposition research??? Hmmmmmmmm

Yes Fusion GPS has worked with Republicans. Many Republicans were dead-set against Trump and openly preferred Clinton to Trump. That doesn't chang the fact that Clinton campaign funding was used to cojure up this report and might well have involved links with Russians as well as the use of unverified and potentially unreliable intel to justify any surveillance of Trump as well as servibg as the basis for the collusion narrative.

Oh man, this is priceless.

It's teh conspiracies!!!!!111111 You lot are as bad as the other lot.

"There’s so much deception and obfuscation going on here that it’s hard to know where to start.

First, Mr. Nunes and his fellow Republicans have treated the dossier like the holy grail for the Russia investigation, but it didn’t reach the F.B.I. until the inquiry was already underway — prompted in mid-2016 by suspicious contacts between Russians and George Papadopoulos, a foreign policy adviser to the Trump campaign. Mr. Papadopoulos has pleaded guilty to lying about those contacts and is now cooperating with the special counsel’s investigation.

Second, the F.B.I. didn’t zero in on Mr. Page for the hell of it. He has been in the government’s sights since 2013, when investigators learned he was being targeted for recruitment by a Russian agent. To obtain a warrant to spy on someone like Mr. Page, an American citizen, investigators must show probable cause that he is working as a foreign intelligence agent. This would require reams of documentary and other evidence gathered over the years, of which the dossier would have been only one part. In addition, the 90-day warrant for Mr. Page has already been extended at least once, which means investigators had to show the intelligence court new information, beyond the dossier, justifying the basis of the original warrant.

Third, even if Mr. Nunes shows that investigators did not tell the court who financed the dossier — which originated as a Republican-backed effort during the primaries — that is hardly a scandal. It’s not clear that the court, in Mr. Page’s case, relied on the dossier at all, but even if it did, courts rarely deny warrants on the grounds that an informant had some bias. They always assume some bias exists, as it frequently does, and then weigh the information in light of that assumption.

Finally, the idea that investigators were out to fool a federal judge shows a profound ignorance of how the intelligence courts actually work, and of the degree of vetting that precedes every warrant application. As one former F.B.I. agent explained, a conspiracy to obtain a warrant based on bad information would have required the involvement of at least a dozen agents and prosecutors, a corrupt or incompetent federal judge and the director of the F.B.I. — all working in concert to undermine Donald Trump."

That about sums things up.

Release the Memo!

Wow! What a partisan hack job and attack on the FBI. Putin's delighted with this outcome.

"In 2016, the Russian government engaged in an elaborate plot to interfere in an American election and undermine our democracy. Russia employed the same tactics it has used to influence elections around the world, from France and Germany to Ukraine, Montenegro, and beyond. Putin’s regime launched cyberattacks and spread disinformation with the goal of sowing chaos and weakening faith in our institutions. And while we have no evidence that these efforts affected the outcome of our election, I fear they succeeded in fueling political discord and dividing us from one another.

“The latest attacks on the FBI and Department of Justice serve no American interests – no party’s, no president’s, only Putin’s. The American people deserve to know all of the facts surrounding Russia’s ongoing efforts to subvert our democracy, which is why Special Counsel Mueller’s investigation must proceed unimpeded. Our nation’s elected officials, including the president, must stop looking at this investigation through the warped lens of politics and manufacturing partisan sideshows. If we continue to undermine our own rule of law, we are doing Putin’s job for him.”

John McCain

Is this another "fact" of yours?  "No banks would lend Trump money", can you provide a source for this?

Literally hundreds of newspaper stories are about this, and they basically say, "American banks won't lend him money, so he goes to a famously iffy German bank and the Russian mob."

So I tried to find someone reporting the reverse, and found this: https://www.marketwatch.com/story/donald-trump-has-had-no-trouble-getting-big-loans-at-competitive-rates-2017-06-22

Oddly, or maybe not, when you read the article, it provides absolutely no evidence US banks have lent Trump big money in decades.  For example, in the nut graf:

Contrary to countless reports portraying President Donald Trump’s relationship with banks as toxic, a new MarketWatch analysis shows Trump has virtually no trouble getting loans on good terms these days. Big banks like Barclays BCS, -0.09% also welcome Trump’s money in brokerage accounts and one of the biggest, J.P. Morgan Chase JPM, +0.05%  , oversees his family trusts, according to a recent presidential disclosure.

To "welcome Trump's money" and "oversee family trusts" are nothing at all like giving him big loans.  The loans discussed in the article are all from foreign banks, so I'm going to conclude he indeed has trouble getting big loans from US banks.

I think my problem with that was the "no bank" and if as you say numerous newspaper stories have reported on this, shouldn't they provide evidence?  Example:  Trump tried to apply for a loan at Citibank on January 10th and was denied the loan.  Instead they say some banker we talked to said no bank would ever give a loan to Trump.  This is not to say I think he wouldn't have trouble getting loans, due to his bankruptcies, but the news rarely uses facts, misleads and tries to push whatever agenda they have.     
 

Well, first of all, I don't think denying loans is something banks should really talk about publicly.  But his only public financial disclosure we have clearly shows he only has loans from that dirty German bank and a couple of Russian mob-linked ones--it doesn't take Sherlock Holmes to figure it out.

Secondly, "the news rarely uses facts"?  Bye.

Do you Know Sherlock Holmes? Wow! I like him, can you introduce me? 

Secondly, "the news rarely uses facts"?.  Yes the news has been on top of the facts since Trump was elected?  Do you get your news feed from North Korea or something?

So the Nunes memo actually confirms that the supposed democrat funded Russian dossier was not the original stimulus for the FISA warrant and the FBI counterintelligence operation.

5) The Page FISA application also mentions information regarding fellow Trump campaign advisor George Papadopoulos, but there is no evidence of any cooperation or conspiracy between Page and Papadopoulos. The Papadopoulos information triggered the opening of an FBI counterintelligence investigation in late July 2016 by FBI agent Pete Strzok. Strzok was reassigned by the Special Counsel’s Office to FBI Human Resources for improper text messages with his mistress, FBI Attorney Lisa Page (no known relation to Carter Page), where they both demonstrated a clear bias against Trump and in favor of Clinton, whom Strzok had also investigated. The Strzok/Lisa Page texts also reflect extensive discussions about the investigation, orchestrating leaks to the media, and include a meeting with Deputy Director McCabe to discuss an “insurance” policy against President Trump’s election.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2018/02/02/the-full-nunes-memo-annotated/?utm_term=.3e6948582f60

Is Alexander, (Lexi ), Downer a deep state conspirator too?



He was the Aussie diplomat who ratted out Papadopoulos to the FBI.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-12-31/alexander-downer-allegedly-linked-to-us-russia-investigation/9295180

By the way Trump fans, he is also a former leader of the Liberal Party of Australia. 
The plot thickens!

Is this another "fact" of yours?  "No banks would lend Trump money", can you provide a source for this?

Literally hundreds of newspaper stories are about this, and they basically say, "American banks won't lend him money, so he goes to a famously iffy German bank and the Russian mob."

So I tried to find someone reporting the reverse, and found this: https://www.marketwatch.com/story/donald-trump-has-had-no-trouble-getting-big-loans-at-competitive-rates-2017-06-22

Oddly, or maybe not, when you read the article, it provides absolutely no evidence US banks have lent Trump big money in decades.  For example, in the nut graf:

Contrary to countless reports portraying President Donald Trump’s relationship with banks as toxic, a new MarketWatch analysis shows Trump has virtually no trouble getting loans on good terms these days. Big banks like Barclays BCS, -0.09% also welcome Trump’s money in brokerage accounts and one of the biggest, J.P. Morgan Chase JPM, +0.05%  , oversees his family trusts, according to a recent presidential disclosure.

To "welcome Trump's money" and "oversee family trusts" are nothing at all like giving him big loans.  The loans discussed in the article are all from foreign banks, so I'm going to conclude he indeed has trouble getting big loans from US banks.

I think my problem with that was the "no bank" and if as you say numerous newspaper stories have reported on this, shouldn't they provide evidence?  Example:  Trump tried to apply for a loan at Citibank on January 10th and was denied the loan.  Instead they say some banker we talked to said no bank would ever give a loan to Trump.  This is not to say I think he wouldn't have trouble getting loans, due to his bankruptcies, but the news rarely uses facts, misleads and tries to push whatever agenda they have.     
 

Well, first of all, I don't think denying loans is something banks should really talk about publicly.  But his only public financial disclosure we have clearly shows he only has loans from that dirty German bank and a couple of Russian mob-linked ones--it doesn't take Sherlock Holmes to figure it out.

Secondly, "the news rarely uses facts"?  Bye.

Do you Know Sherlock Holmes? Wow! I like him, can you introduce me? 

Secondly, "the news rarely uses facts"?.  Yes the news has been on top of the facts since Trump was elected?  Do you get your news feed from North Korea or something?

You still here?

"In 2016, the Russian government engaged in an elaborate plot to interfere in an American election and undermine our democracy. Russia employed the same tactics it has used to influence elections around the world, from France and Germany to Ukraine, Montenegro, and beyond. Putin’s regime launched cyberattacks and spread disinformation with the goal of sowing chaos and weakening faith in our institutions. And while we have no evidence that these efforts affected the outcome of our election, I fear they succeeded in fueling political discord and dividing us from one another.

“The latest attacks on the FBI and Department of Justice serve no American interests – no party’s, no president’s, only Putin’s. The American people deserve to know all of the facts surrounding Russia’s ongoing efforts to subvert our democracy, which is why Special Counsel Mueller’s investigation must proceed unimpeded. Our nation’s elected officials, including the president, must stop looking at this investigation through the warped lens of politics and manufacturing partisan sideshows. If we continue to undermine our own rule of law, we are doing Putin’s job for him.”

John McCain

Counterpoint: Our lack of faith in our institutions is largely due to the Iraq War, the 2008 financial panic, outsourcing, partisan news outlets (yes, the Right is worse but the MSM doesn't help things), and things like Clapper lying under oath about NSA surveillance.

Also, "elaborate plot"? You mean spending 200k on facebook ads? Really? Attempts to contact the Trump admin with political dirt that went nowhere? The wikileaks emails which featured such sordid details as John Podesta wondering if the conference call was scheduled at 2:15 or 2:45?

If anything undermines confidence, it's this sham of a story that a few twitter bots and Carter Page giving a speech in Moscow=Manchurian Candidate and the political witch hunt that has followed. There's 1000 reasons that Trump was elected. Moscow is like, number 998 but it's being treated as the primary cause.

By all means the Dems message to swing voters should be "You voted from Trump because you were duped by Russian bots spreading a meme of Trump and Jesus shaking hands". I'm sure that will go over well.