Quote Originally Posted by LA Ute View Post
Assume the Steele dossier really is, as all the evidence shows, just opposition research paid for by the Clinton campaign, and is full of false information. Assume that a FEW fools in the FBI thought there was no real chance Trump would win, so they violated FBI rules to tip the scales in Clinton’s favor to make sure. Assume the left-leaning and Trump-hating news media took that narrative and ran with it relentlessly for many months. Finally, assume that Mueller comes up with nothing implicating Trump or his team in any collusion in Russian meddling in the election. (That’s what Mueller is investigating. The indictments and guilty pleas so far have nothing to do with that.)

That’s what I mean by cynical. Painting a guy who won the election, whom you hate, as a Russian tool, when you know the evidence is flimsy. And you’re doing this to invalidate a legitimate presidential election. It’s right out of an Alan Drury novel from the 1950s. Maybe that’s not what happened, we’ll see. If it is, I can’t think of anything more cynical.
How many of these assumptions do you actually believe are true?