Trump treats Putin the way most people treat their bosses. Russia has been having trouble with Montenegro, so Trump comes out and states that tiny Montenegro is trying to start WWIII. He does what he is told.

The point is that Mueller's indictments are pretty detailed and they wanted some of the facts around the Russians' hacking to influence our politics and election to be made public.

A) Indictments state accusations and allegations, not necessarily facts.

B) The release of the indictments the eve of our President holding a summit with the leader of the other country leads me to question the motivation behind its release.

After today’s press conference, I think the issue of whether Trump colluded with Putin is moot. I can’t figure what he’d have done or said different if he were a colluder. Sure the economy is going smoothly. But at the price of a Russian collaborator? God help this country.

I think Trump has a problem when he speaks off the cuff in drawing a distinction between Russian meddling (which he has acknowledged in the past took place) and his campaign colluding with Russia as part of that meddling (which he has always denied).

The press conference is overblown IMHO. I don't think this is any more treasonous that Obama telling Medvedev in 2012 to "tell Vladimir that after the election I will have more flexibility" to negotiate nuclear missiles. I don't have a problem with Trump expressing distrust of the political individuals at the top of our national intelligence when it was led by guys like James Clapper (DNI) and John Brennan (CIA Dir), both of whom lied under oath to Congress to further political aims and protect Obama. To me, saying he doesn't trust them is about as treasonous as a Democrat saying they don't trust Trump. What's controversial about expressing distrust of proven liars?

The point is that Mueller's indictments are pretty detailed and they wanted some of the facts around the Russians' hacking to influence our politics and election to be made public.

I am not up to speed on the 12 Russian intelligence officers charged with crimes under federal criminal law...I assume they did more than just post on FaceBook?

Again, even Trump has admitted that Russia meddled, and he admitted that long before this past week. I'm also pretty sure that violating other countries' laws is part and parcel of an intelligence officers' job, even those working for the US.

The idea that we should push for their extradition to face charges for election meddling is laughable. The last thing the US wants to do is create a precedent that intelligence staffers are subject to extradition to face charges for interfering/meddling in foreign elections.

Once we start arguing for the extradition of Russian operatives, are we going to volunteer to allow extradition of US intelligence officers who have meddled in:
- Iran
- Nicaragua
- Venezuela
- Egypt
- Libya
- Ukraine
- Guatemala
- Haiti
- Congo
- Vietnam
- Afghanistan
- Indonesia
- Pakistan (I believe Pakistan has even gone so far as to request extradition of our operatives)
- Italy (okay, admittedly that one was in the 1940s during wartime, but still....)
- Chile
- Honduras (under Secretary of State Clinton)

In Latin America there's even a joke:
Q: Why has there never been a coup in Washington D.C.?
A: Because there is no US Embassy there.

So, are we really that upset that Russia meddled when that's pretty much been what we do all over the world? What's ironic is that if we're against foreign powers meddling in elections, why are people upset that Trump is trying to gut the National Endowment for Democracy--the organization through which our government does a large part of its meddling.

I get being concerned or outraged at the idea of collusion--a US candidate working with foreign powers to undermine his opponents. Regular old meddling and interference by governments in other governments' elections is just par for the course.

I am not up to speed on the 12 Russian intelligence officers charged with crimes under federal criminal law...I assume they did more than just post on FaceBook?

Again, even Trump has admitted that Russia meddled, and he admitted that long before this past week. I'm also pretty sure that violating other countries' laws is part and parcel of an intelligence officers' job, even those working for the US.

The idea that we should push for their extradition to face charges for election meddling is laughable. The last thing the US wants to do is create a precedent that intelligence staffers are subject to extradition to face charges for interfering/meddling in foreign elections.

Once we start arguing for the extradition of Russian operatives, are we going to volunteer to allow extradition of US intelligence officers who have meddled in:
- Iran
- Nicaragua
- Venezuela
- Egypt
- Libya
- Ukraine
- Guatemala
- Haiti
- Congo
- Vietnam
- Afghanistan
- Indonesia
- Pakistan (I believe Pakistan has even gone so far as to request extradition of our operatives)
- Italy (okay, admittedly that one was in the 1940s during wartime, but still....)
- Chile
- Honduras (under Secretary of State Clinton)

In Latin America there's even a joke:
Q: Why has there never been a coup in Washington D.C.?
A: Because there is no US Embassy there.

So, are we really that upset that Russia meddled when that's pretty much been what we do all over the world? What's ironic is that if we're against foreign powers meddling in elections, why are people upset that Trump is trying to gut the National Endowment for Democracy--the organization through which our government does a large part of its meddling.

I get being concerned or outraged at the idea of collusion--a US candidate working with foreign powers to undermine his opponents. Regular old meddling and interference by governments in other governments' elections is just par for the course.

I am not up to speed on the 12 Russian intelligence officers charged with crimes under federal criminal law...I assume they did more than just post on FaceBook?