I am not suggesting in any way that Trump did collude with Russia. I don't believe he did because ZERO evidence has been brought forward. I am merely engaging in a thought exercise here.
Let's suppose for a moment that the left's bizzaro fantasy of Trump and Russia collusion to steal the 2016 presidential election from the rightful victor Hillary Clinton is actually correct. Start by granting that Russia is once again the worst thing to ever happen to America. Grant the far-fetched fact that Putin et. al. colluded with the Trump team and leveraged WikiLeaks to paint Hillary Clinton in a bad light. Skip the point that Hillary Clinton was actually keeping and sharing state secrets on a private email server in clear violation of national security policy, and instead assume that people didn't care about that. Ignore the fact that a majority of voters had negative opinions of both candidates. Ignore the fact that voters are partisan and that then-candidate Trump had an unorthodox campaign strategy, which allowed him to win in states that Hillary Clinton herself took for granted. Assume further that the candidate who wanted to tax the middle class (and if it was just a slip of the tongue, it was never corrected) and put coal workers out of work and who kept a rope between herself and the press and who collapsed into a van on the campaign trail and whose Clinton Global Initiative wasn't under scrutiny for accounting malfeasance. Overlook the fact that the Democratic National Committee cheated for her and so did the media. Gloss over all of that, and you are left with a Trump win because Russia helped him.
The media is portraying Donald Trump as a Putin patsy who will do the bidding of the Russian autocrat. But what if the guy who wants to Make America Great Again was using Putin as a patsy? What if he leveraged help from Russia to defeat an opponent who had help from everybody else, including a sitting president and a Department of Justice turning two blind eyes to everything Clinton, and now that he's president he's cast aside anything to do with any deal with Russia. What if Trump cleverly used Russia as the useful idiots?
Is it possible that the smart businessman, used smart business to get what he needed and then cast aside his promise to Russia? This is the same guy liberals went after for doing just that in his Trump University civil suit.
The same people who say Trump is capable of such Machiavellian business practices, believe he could not think to do it with Russia. Wrong. If he did use Russia, it's hard to see why Russia would have been so stupid as to work with candidate Trump. He wants to increase and reinvigorate American military strength on a massive scale. It's hard to see any upside for Russia in that. He wants American allies to increase their own share of the NATO bill. He's never actually said quit NATO, he's said it needs to work for America. Either other defense partners pay their share or maybe pay America to carry their share of the load. A stronger NATO does not serve Russian interests. A defeated ISIS might help Russia in Syria but in the broader picture, removing that thorn from America's side certainly helps America more than it does Russia. A stronger bond between Israel and America is a win for both of those two countries, not so much for Russia, who cannot leverage Middle Eastern antipathy towards Israel into alliances but only an opportunity to sink funding into groups who have a common geo-political enemy. A stronger American economy? A tougher stance against Chinese currency manipulation and job offshoring of American jobs at the expense of long term American economic sustainability leading to a slow national economic suicide of America do not seem to be in the best interest of a nation Democrats are portraying as the worst national security threat since the 1980's.
Do you see my point? What in Trump's promises and actions to date for that matter, look pro-Russia?
The argument on the left about president Trump and his team are fabricated out of nothing other than a panicked desire to derail his presidency, because at the end of the day, the argument makes no sense. It falls down on it's premise. Russia has no real benefit from a Trump presidency but it certainly would have benefitted from a Clinton presidency. That's because the Clintons will do anything for their own economic benefit, even if means selling out America. The argument depends on its own existence to justify itself, like some weird paradox. That's why it falls apart so easily.
All that aside, yes, there would be an issue about collusion with outsiders. But turn the spotlight on Hillary Clinton and her nefarious donations from countries like Saudi Arabia if you want to go down that path. If all the details come to light Democrats would fare far worse under the scrutiny than would president Trump.