"Steadily mounting evidence...?" Interesting observation there. Ok, despite all the blogs written by people who are sometimes more illiterate than they should be and still have a place in the public eye, let's ask ourselves one question: Why would Russia want a US leader who had sworn to bring their influence in the world under control instead of someone like Clinton who could be bought or blackmailed into doing what they wanted?
If you really think that Sec. Clinton would be more vulnerable to blackmail than the guy who owes billions around the world, there is no helping you. You are sounding ridiculous.
Say what?We know beyond the shadow of a doubt that the Russians wanted Trump to win and worked toward that end. It has been pointed out that the Russians simply wanted Hillary to lose. It's not completely sure sure whether they wanted Trump to win from the get-go, or whether Trump was merely the beneficiary of that anti-Clinton effort by being in the right place at the right time. (It looks like the Russians may also have made an effort to support Bernie as well, using the same kinds of efforts. It's not clear where they would have swung their weight if Bernie had won, but it's clear they wanted to defeat Hillary one way or another.)What we don't know is to what extent the Trump campaign (or even Trump himself) may have co-operated in that endeavor. Certainly Trump Jr agreed to take one that meeting for the specific purpose of getting dirt on Hillary, but beyond that ... ?? Well, that's what Mueller is supposed to find out.
More than that is already known, including that several high ranking Trump campaign officials, had contacts with high ranking Russian government officials during the campaign including Paul Manafort and General Michael Flynn (there are at least two others).In addition, several of Trump's 'unofficial' campaign team seemed to have a head's up on upcoming wikileaks including Roger Stone and Rudy Giuliani. As to whether Trump himself was personally knowledgeable of any of this. I would argue first that it doesn't matter, that Trump was responsible for his own campaign, however, for those who insist it does, I would argue that it's very unlikely that the Russians would have done what they did with out some guarantees of a quid-pro-quo and that likely would have meant that they would have wanted guarantees from Trump himself. However1.As has been argued here, this seems unlikely to me, but it's possible the Russians may simply have not wanted Hillary Clinton to win and weren't interested in any quid-pro-quo.2.More likely to me is that both Russia and (some in) Trump's campaign team would be aware of the decentralized nature of U.S Presidential Administrations and the Russians would have been told something like "don't worry about Trump, we can guarantee that we'll put a person who is sympathetic to Russia in as Secretary of State."As an example of this decentralized nature. As Bob Woodward details in his book The Agenda, one person in the new Clinton Administration was speaking to Prime Minister Jean Chretien about NAFTA, and that person asked Prime Minister Chretien "How can you promise us these things, what if your Trade Minister doesn't agree." And Chretien replied "If he (Roy MacLaren was the minister) doesn't agree, I'll have a new Trade Minister who does agree the next day" and the Clinton Administration official replied "You should be aware that the President does not have these sorts of unilateral powers."
Posting nonsense again?