The other day I watched a video with Ben Shapiro on Bill Maher - maybe you don't like the guy, but I love him. He's hard to rattle and he stays on point.
At one point, Ben starts a question with another question - Do you believe that Trump colluded with the Russians to get elected?
Absolutely. Absolutely. And the audience cheered his response.
If I'd have been Ben, I might have thrown up my hands as though he declared Santa and the Easter Bunny to be real.
How do you discuss something like that?
For the - persons - who are going to chime in and say, of course they interfered - that's not the issue. No one disputes they
interfered. But the sum total of all their "interference" is so utterly trivial, I have likened to raising the world's oceans by peeing
in it. It may have happened, but it was insignificant. For those who further argue that they might have "persuaded" a crucial bloc
of voters in critical states, I'd have to say - that's what campaigns with a billion dollars and thousands of employees are supposed to
do. If a dozen and a half Russians with a few computers and a few ads can turn an election, I have lost all faith in our campaigns
in our country, because they were able to do with almost nothing that which the ACTUAL candidates weren't able to do in a year
and a half, thousands of employees and billions of dollars.
What is at issue is - did Trump or part of his campaign go to the Russians and seek their efforts to derail and turn an election?
Because we DO know that - indirectly - the Democrats absolutely did, and are not actually claiming otherwise. Did he "ask for
dirt"? Not illegal. Did he promise them something in exchange for their work? Yes, illegal - but if they did, he got totally ripped
off, because they didn't do hardly anything.
What do *I* think? Somewhere from early in the campaign - when Trump expressed admiration for Putin's ability to rule his
nation - the Dems got the idea that he of course admired the darker side of Putin, and wanted to pin that on him. They created
a number of situations designed to make him look bad, as a sort of insurance (very much in the same way the current
Kavanaugh situation had an "insurance policy", because - to be honest - if it was the slightest bit important to the Dems to
right a wrong, they would have brought it up right away).
When Hillary lost - to their surprise - it was too late to turn the election by bringing up all the Russia stuff. The timelines shows -
they "knew" all this stuff. All summer of 2016. Obama "knew" about it. Law enforcement "knew". So if they KNEW it - why didn't
it come up until after they lost?
There's really only one good reason - they knew it was a fraud, and it didn't need to be brought up IF HILLARY was going to win.
Why risk a ridiculous stunt, if she was winning? Losing wasn't going to happen, so they didn't drop the ball. Once they lost, the
only reaction would be poisoning the well.
----------------------------------------------------------------
What I don't get is - why are they doubling down on stupid?
Because they're in too deep. They have to hope it will win, because they can't back down and admit they were making it up.
The other day, I heard a Dem pundit say, well, Watergate took two years. Actually - a year and a half. By that time, it was
CLEAR beyond anything, Nixon was guilty. By this point in his Presidency - he'd resigned and already been pardoned by his
successor.
At THIS point - we STILL HAVE NO CRIME to investigate. So far, they've managed to find people working for Trump who
committed crimes years before they knew him.
If the Russian's wanted her dead, she'd be dead! 
