Trump's denials kind of have the potential to be 'The Boy Who Cried Wolf' here. xP

Let's say that Trump's innocent, which considering the circumstances is AT BEST 50/50. At this point, the least reliable source of confirmation that Trump is innocent would be Trump himself, because if the campaign proved anything, it's that Trump is a liar to an almost pathological degree. Him denying Russia's involvement IN NO WAY correlates to how much Russia was involved; they could have been completely hands-off, or Trump could have had daily Skype meetings with Putin over brunch, and he would still be denying it just as firmly. The fact that he has had no problem lying even when the lie is so blatant it was uncovered two minutes after it was uttered makes it almost impossible to believe he'd suddenly 'shoot straight' with us on genuinely complicated matters.

So the bipartisan push for an investigation seems like a good idea; there's enough circumstantial evidence where one should AT LEAST give the matter a closer look. If there's troubling connections to be found, they will be unearthed, and maybe Trump will even be cleared if no direct evidence is found.

Of course, the kicker is that if they DO unearth said troubling connections, it won't matter to the vast majority of his supporters. =P Regardless of how smoking the gun is, all Trump has to do is say 'Nuh uh!' and his backers will flood social media with "TRUMP SAID NUH-UH, IT'S ALL A WITCH HUNT!" Have to give the guy credit, he knows he's operating in a climate where literally any negative act he undertakes- any promise he fails to keep, lie he tells, etc- will not simply be supported, but outright denied by many of those supporting him; i.e. 'Trump didn't say/do this bad thing, the media is making it up to slander him!' 'There's VIDEO EVIDENCE of him saying/doing it!' 'SLANDER!'

Of course, to be fair the flip side is that Trump is actually telling the truth this time, and the investigation does actually fabricate evidence to keep him out of office. The thing is... he's lost any credibility, any right to be taken at his word. He flouted his dishonesty so openly and so blatantly over the past year, his word is almost worthless now. Even the Carrier deal wasn't given to us 'straight,' with the addendums and fine print being unearthed by the eeeeevil biased media while Trump was running his victory lap.

Basically, support the guy if you want, but the love of God, don't trust a single word that comes out of his mouth. O_O If he says the sky is blue, go check!

So he's currently innocenct and guilty of nothing and no troubling connections have been found.

But somehow, he needs to be cleared.

Witch hunt much.

Switching gears? Nothing of the sort.

You introduced a question that has no relevance and (AGAIN) I called you out on it.

How about you give me a straight answer and instead of non substantive weasil words, outline exactly what Trump has done that is so wrong. Going against convention or past protocol is excaltly what people like about Trump.

When asked if he will accept the results of the election he said he will see at the time and would not commit. There is nothing wrong with that. There's nothing wrong with questioning the results of the election if there are irregularities in voting. There weren't so no need to contest.

The very fact you need to puppet this MSM line is telling as it has nothing to do with the thread and seems like extreme reaching.

you did not call out on anything.. and for the rest of your rambling in that post... are you freaking blind, the point was that he did not give an answer. if there is anything to call out on, it's you having a problem with semantics.

Not rigged. Rigged entails altering the voter count. Russia only helped him in the polls by making the monster look bad. Given no one should be penalized for the actions of a country led by a leader with an approval rating only the forerunners of yours had, you cannot boot Trump solely because Russia wanted him to win. 

There is more to business than just existing deals, Exxon also was being held back from pursuing future deals in Russia due to sanctions.

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/12/world/europe/rex-tillersons-company-exxon-has-billions-at-stake-over-russia-sanctions.html?_r=0

"Exxon Mobil has various projects afoot in Russia that are allowed under American sanctions. But others have been ground to a halt by the sanctions, including a deal with the Russian state oil company to explore and pump in Siberia that could be worth tens of billions of dollars.

Russian officials have optimistically called the agreement a $500 billion deal."

So please tell me that the Exxon Mobile CEO being named to Secretary of State, who has in the past lobbied for dropping sanctions against Russia, is all just a magical coincidence. 

Remember back in the repulican primaries.

Trump refused to say he would support the nominee. He got huge boos. Everyone else pledged to suppport the future nominee. (Now I agree with Trump. Why should one pledge to support someone, when you don't know who that person will be or their views/ect)

But fast forward to Trump winning the nomination. Plenty of those very same republicans who boo'd him, and even those who pledged to support did the very thing they critiqued him about. They didn't support the nominee. Or in this case Trump.

Fast foward to election time. Trump doesn't promise to accept the results. He gets huge outcry and booing. Fast forward and those same hypocrites are now not accepting the results.

So tell me this. Who is worse. Someone who won't blindly accept an unknown outcome, or people who decry something they later end up doing?

At the end, the electors will decide on that. whatever the CIA find, I'm sure the senate, and electors are itching to know more.

The thread title, which you created was about how Russia allegedly helped Trump to get elected. That notion has been discredited having no source or validity. You then bring up the issue of Donald Trump refusing to throw away his right to contest an election if it so happens that it appears that irregularities appear. He was honest about his stance and you interpret this as "Donald Trump refuses to accept results of election if he loses".

That interpretation is based on your own bias because his words were clear and non-commital.

Semantics is just another word for refusing to explain yourself.

You put it better than I ever could.