Replies

He concluded it was systematic and favored Donald Trump.

The two biggest issues, and he's wrong on both. Less than 0.01% of the amount Hillary spent might be 'systematic' in that it was deliberate and targeted, but it had no significant effect so it's trivial.

More than that, I have never seen anyone with any logical reason that the Russians would favor Trump. Not then. Not now. If they interfered in any way they thought would matter, it would certainly have been in Hillary's favor.

If there was 'collusion' (and there wasn't, at least, not with the Trump campaign), whether it could be proven or not, where is the evidence or Russian bias toward Trump? That should be so obvious that the only question would be whether Trump knew about it. But there is no evidence it even happened - let alone that Trump was involved.

Yet it is taken as gospel by the Dims, because the alternative is that they lost fair and square, and that would require them to admit their ideas are not popular.

They're not popular - at least with the majority of American citizens - but to admit it would be the end of their party.