> it’s a bipartisan fact that Russians made a big effort to influence at least the 2016 election
The Russian influence claims are way over exaggerated. The best evidence they found are in the order of 10k$, like ads for Facebook pages with barely any followers. There was no bombshell of anything that could have any kind of significant effects. For all we know those were armchair trolls on the Internet.
> You may find the Mueller report enlightening, then.
Have you actually read it or cherry picked the quote you like? Not only was it started on lies (one lawyer was convicted for altering documents) and concluded there was not enough to charge for illicit links between the Trump Campaign and any other Republicans, most of it is simply finding "links", like meeting for a project, with nothing about proving the content or the intent for collusion.
> Rather than taking a hard stance against Russia because of this, Trump officials have been convicted related to their lies about the situation.
Not exactly, they've all been convicted on technicalities and what was clear entrapment. The Michael Flynn is quite telling of that with how he was lured into a FBI interview at work where it was normal to talk to FBI agents, how with no representations or document he was "caught" not being factual about an event that happened years ago and how the judge sought an ex parte so he could refuse the prosecution's demand to dismiss the case.
> Alleging or assuming that trump knew about this and/or encouraged it is not a huge stretch given his history.
Why do you only take seriously the part that fits your conclusion but refuse to ignore the part where he had nothing to do with Putin? Don't expect to be taken seriously when your "damning proof" is a quote taken out of context and that the context contradicts you.
The Russian influence claims are way over exaggerated. The best evidence they found are in the order of 10k$, like ads for Facebook pages with barely any followers. There was no bombshell of anything that could have any kind of significant effects. For all we know those were armchair trolls on the Internet.
> You may find the Mueller report enlightening, then.
Have you actually read it or cherry picked the quote you like? Not only was it started on lies (one lawyer was convicted for altering documents) and concluded there was not enough to charge for illicit links between the Trump Campaign and any other Republicans, most of it is simply finding "links", like meeting for a project, with nothing about proving the content or the intent for collusion.
> Rather than taking a hard stance against Russia because of this, Trump officials have been convicted related to their lies about the situation.
Not exactly, they've all been convicted on technicalities and what was clear entrapment. The Michael Flynn is quite telling of that with how he was lured into a FBI interview at work where it was normal to talk to FBI agents, how with no representations or document he was "caught" not being factual about an event that happened years ago and how the judge sought an ex parte so he could refuse the prosecution's demand to dismiss the case.
> Alleging or assuming that trump knew about this and/or encouraged it is not a huge stretch given his history.
Confirmation bias. Not really an argument.
> https://www.c-span.org/video/?413263-1/donald-trump-urges-ru...
Why do you only take seriously the part that fits your conclusion but refuse to ignore the part where he had nothing to do with Putin? Don't expect to be taken seriously when your "damning proof" is a quote taken out of context and that the context contradicts you.