So I'm not clear on the jump between believing that Obama and Hillary (or their underlings) conspired to spy on the Trump camp and interfere with the election and believing all the different theories out there floated by some internet group. I'm pretty sure I believed at least one or two things about this country that were also believed by either the far right or the far left. So I guess I'm linked to anyone with whom I share some belief? How does that work exactly? I believe just like the Westboro Baptist church that people who reject Jesus won't be saved, so does that mean that I need to be labeled a supporter of a hate group? I also think that people are littering the oceans with their trash and it needs to stop, so I guess I'm also in league with the eco-terrorist movement.
This whole thing where you get to condemn someone and belittle their idea by finding the most extreme group out there that shares the belief, point out other stuff they believe that's crazy, and make the case that it means the person you're attacking is just as crazy as that group. It's dishonest, but I guess that's how we have discussions now.
This seems to be where the disconnect happens. You claim (and I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt) to be honestly assuming that the Mueller probe was completely apolitical with the sole intent on uncovering Russian interference in the election. They - and let's be honest, most who have been watching this - are now saying that the vast majority of the point of this investigation was to try and tie this to the Trump campaign. (Which is why no one seems curious at all about the connections of Fusion GPS, the Clinton campaign, and the Russians involved in these meetings.) It's not conspiracy theory crap to think that clearly there was political motivations from inside and outside the beltway to pin something on Trump - especially given that all the interference happened on Obama's watch, while he was dismissing it as a non-issue and telling Medvedev on a hot mike about all the flexibility he would have in a second term. So if some random tinfoil hat wearing guy thinks this is suspicious, that means that anyone who thinks it's suspicious must be crazy like him?
What out of the investigation has allowed us to address any of this? Since apparently there has been no connection made to the Trump campaign and either of these things - in fact have they even shown there was any sort of coordination by anyone? (Let alone "collusion.")
I don't think anyone wants the Russians to hack voter roles or anything else. But is it ridiculous to point out that none of you cared one bit about this until Hillary lost? And that it doesn't seem like there was any serious effort to look anywhere outside of Trump's campaign for connections? Or are we just not hearing about those investigations? I know Mueller fingered a bunch of Russian organizations that don't care and will never stand trial. So are we celebrating that as some sort of win?