London Is Attacked Today, But CNN Is Obsessing On NON-EXISTING Evidence of Trump Collusion With Russia

Today, we've had a would-be Supreme Court Judge being grilled on Capitol Hill, as he should be, and yet another supposedly lone wolf terrorist attack with several fatalities and even more injuries perpetrated on Great Britain, our ally, and what is CNN doing? It's behaving like Fox by beating up on the ONE dumpy-looking Republican/Trump-supporter in every panel over the Russia scandal.

Yes, Russia's hacking of the DNC and any contact its government has had with Trump campaign and/or cabinet officials should be investigated IF they are people proven to have had significant influence on the campaign and/or Trump's overall agenda and form thereof (which is not Paul Manafort). That's just good, precautionary sense in my opinion. But contrary to the assertions of almost all of CNN's guests AND hosts, there is still no solid proof of Russia or Putin having played a serious, if any role in Trump's campaign or his actual election.

This started way back in the earliest of primary debates, when Trump made the idiotic mistake of complimenting Putin on his popularity and supposed success as a leader in Russia. Trump was already being treated like a joke, even by many Republicans, and one moderator, I think from CNN, actually opened a debate by asking point-blank if Trump, himself, thought he was a comic book villain! Naturally, it was construed as complimentary of Putin and his policies when it was meant to say that even potential enemies apparently have leaders more effectively representing their nation's interests than America's leaders have been representing America's. However, the way this thing about alleged collusion with Russia is being treated by networks and news outlets like CNN could prove every bit as harmful to the "integrity" of our democracy because - like Trump does, allegedly and ironically - it treats barely-incidental bits of information as fact while VINDICATING Trump by putting their bias on full display without there being one good thing to come of it. Suppose solid evidence were found and Trump was forced to leave office. Who takes his place? Traditionally, it's the VP or the Speaker of the House, and not only would both Pence and Ryan be motivated to continue pushing Trump's agenda, but because of his record as an evangelical and his stance on things like abortion, Pence is supposedly a bigger ideological threat to the left than Trump ever was! Even if Pence doesn't take Trump's place, what's to stop the same people that voted for Trump from electing someone just like him? By continuing to try to de-legitimize and/or oust Trump in this manner, they risk making him a political martyr and his "basket of deplorables" into victims of a political establishment that has just proven, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that it doesn't give a damn about their votes unless its anointed person winds up in office.

I recall nobody on CNN or even Fox, for that matter, calling for an investigation into how or why Obama could suddenly negotiate with the Castros as leaders of a nation that probably wanted to help nuke us in the sixties and has a human rights record so bad that many of its people are STILL risking death in the Atlantic just to get to America. And yet, all the sudden, the interests of big business and Wall Street MATTERED to Obama and his liberals so long as it meant being buddies again with a former Communist enemy. Granted, the embargo on Cuba never amounted to significant changes in the way Castro's regime governed. Still, am I really to believe that America, as a whole, is going to benefit SO MUCH from restored economic ties with a tiny nation whose people still drive cars from the 1950's? And don't tell me Cuba's economic stagnation has been just because of the American embargo. What has been stopping China or even some other nation like North Korea (or Russia, for that matter, though it's technically not Communist anymore) from coming in and doing for their fellow Marxists what America wouldn't?