This feels like gaslighting...
I know that we're "not supposed to whine," but this experience is really puzzling in a very disturbing way.
Look, if we really had no idea of what had gone on during the campaign, and the report came out indicating no coordination, that's one thing. Or, if we did know what went on during the campaign, but the report spelled out that our interpretations of the facts or the law were incorrect, that's another thing. Or, if we were told that those things did indeed happen during the campaign, but that there wasn't evidence beyond a reasonable doubt, that's one more thing.
But we know some things for certain. They have been spelled out in substantiated news stories for well over a year.
1) Before the Republican convention, members of the Trump campaign staff (including Trump's son) met with representatives of the Russian government, who offered to help them win the election.
2) Accepting any assistance, monetary or in terms of services provided, is illegal, and it is the duty of anyone so propositioned to report it.
3) No such report was made, and Don, Jr., in particular, provided a false account of the meeting.
4) Following the meeting, in which the Russians offered to provide damaging info from the Democratic campaign, Trump suddenly started talking about "Hillary's 30,000 emails" for the first time.
5) Shortly thereafter, he publicly called on Russia to get those e-mails.
6) Thereafter, at the urging of the Trump campaign, the Republican platform was modified to favor Russia in its dispute with the Ukraine.
7) Paul Manafort provided the Russians with confidential voter records.
8) Thereafter, Russia did exactly as Trump had asked them to do, and provided several "dumps" of damaging campaign information stolen from the Democratic Party.
There's no question that all of that happened. Much of it was done out in the open, on video, and all of it has been documented in major, respectable news media. There's never been any reliable reporting that cast doubt on any of those points.
So, knowing what we know now, how on earth can it be said that there was "no evidence of coordination?" What are any of those points except clear evidence of coordination?
It would be one thing if the report concluded that, while there was evidence of coordination, it didn't meet the legal test to convict beyond a reasonable doubt. But what this comes across as is more like "all those things you imagine you saw...you didn't really see them. They were in your imagination, nothing more."
And the word for that is "gaslighting."
= new reply since forum marked as read
Welcome aboard! 
Caribbean leaders at mar-0-lago??
