ShareThis Page
Letters to the Editor

Russian collusion is fiction

| Tuesday, Nov. 14, 2017, 9:00 p.m.

Examining the political media, it is nearly impossible to determine whether or not there was any Russian collusion in the 2016 presidential election.

The clearest analysis comes from Mollie Hemingway, author of “Trump vs. the Media” and senior editor at The Federalist. She concludes that “the Russian story is a complete fiction concocted by sore losers unable to deal with the reality of their electoral loss.”

Since 2016, there has been a sustained, coordinated attack on Donald Trump's legitimacy as president following his free and fair election, claiming he had nefarious ties to Russia.

Trump's enemies put harmless contacts with Russians under a microscope and selectively touted details from an overly political FBI. This has been exaggerated by compliant, biased, political media that refuse to be impartial, much less accurate. This created a massive violation of our country's political norms that has nothing to do with Trump's conduct.

Verification disputing Russian collusion by Trump can easily be seen by his bombing of Russia-backed Syria, his selling of U.S. missile defenses to Poland and Romania, and his opposition to the Russia-negotiated Iran nuclear deal.

Ron Raymond

Buffalo Township

TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.

click me