This whole enterprise is based on the premise that the Trump election and presidency is “illegitimate,” and the current method for establishing that illegitimacy is that the Russians hacked or interfered or influenced the election. Of course they did no such thing – even if they preferred Mr. Trump to Mrs. Clinton. And, as we have said before, the biggest proof of this is the “dog that did not bark”: if the Obama administration and/or the Clinton campaign had “proof” that the Russians were interfering on behalf of Mr. Trump – why did they not use it? They were using every other arrow in the quiver, real or imagined, honest or fake, accurate or distorted, old or new. It staggers credulity to think that there would be any tools they would not use. But – there is the claim that the Administration knew of the “interference” but was certain Mrs. Clinton would win, so kept silent so as not to poison the well for the incoming Clinton administration. The fact that they were perfectly willing to poison the well for the incoming Trump administration speaks volumes about their motivation.
Hackers who may have been Russians did release material discovered on websites of the Democratic National Committee and of John Podesta. These were embarrassing and their release may have thrown the Clinton campaign off course, but there is no evidence that the Trump campaign had anything to do with those hacks or their dissemination.
By all means, let's have an honest investigation of the accusations - but let's include it all, from alleged Trump campaign collusion to the alleged Obama Administration eavesdrops to the Clinton Foundation's ties to Russia. There may well be a lot there that people may wish was never disclosed.