For 99.44% of intelligent life on earth Russia intentionally helped elect Trump in 2016. The rest are Ann Marie Cosgroves.
Trump's denial of this hacking fits no construct of either. It happened and Russia did it. One of Trump's favorites, and vice versa, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo gave an interview to a Cosgrove-type saying Russia did it. That convinced the Cosgrove-type! Convinced the White House staff of Cosgroves, who were going to put out a statement that Russia did it. Was pulled back at the last minute. By Trump.
Why would Trump throw dust in everybody's face saying it was "no big deal" and was "well under control" and absolve Russia and throw shade on China? Why would Trump do all of this now? It's not to get help with the election!
I guess one theory that can't be ruled out entirely is financial, the Moscow Trump Hotel project, etc.. Trump needs $400M to pay off his (personally guaranteed) loans...but he has raised close to $200M post-election already. So that knocks it out of the "real good" theory category for me.
Another theory that you can't rule out is safe haven, he's gonna get indicted, he plans on pulling a Snowden, a Kim Philby.
Is he a Philby? Maybe we've been looking at this the wrong way, from the angle of "What does Russia have on Trump?; from the angle of "What does Trump want from the Russians?" What if the answers to both is "nothing"? What if, that is, Trump just really likes Russia, just really likes Putin, likes Russia more than America, likes Putin more than anybody in the whole world, would sell out America, the one he doesn't love, for the one he really loves?
Maybe Trump helped the Russians hack? The hack began in March. Maybe he wanted the Russians to hack, asked them to as he did with HRC's emails? To what end? I can't get there from here. I can't think of a plausible motive for Trump to be in on it.
Those are all the theories I can think of that are even tortuously plausible. "To Russia With Love" is plausible, certainly the least tortuously plausible, and, I think, is objectively plausible. It accounts for everything, including the assessment by the former CIA director in 2016 that Trump was an "unwitting agent of the Russian Federation." 'Cept under this theory Trump is not an "agent" at all, he's done it all out of love for Russia.
To Russia With Love though lacks genesis and gestation. Yes, I know Trump had been to Russia a couple of times. Yes, he spoke glowingly, if, as I recollect, briefly, of his trips. How many times did Trump go to Russia? How many days was he there total? Was Trump in Russia even as long as I was in China? Okay fine, let's say it was love at first sight. Why didn't he move there then? If it was instant infatuation, you'd expect multiple trips, just can't stay away. Was it clear to you from Trump's tweets that this was love at first sight? Was that the way Trump talked about Russia? Not to my recollection. Not like that lying bitch who said Biden touched her spoke of Putin, of a "masculinity irresistible to American women." It was not apparent. It was not even apparent to American intel, and remains unclear to this day. See, you can't posit ardor with complete plausibility without a genesis. And how long until this infatuation flowered into "I only have eyes for you" Love? If it is love that love was fully formed when Trump announced in 2015. Did Trump run for president as an expression of his love for Russia? Puhleeze. Well, you seldom get everything in a theory. To Russia with Love has everything but genesis and gestation.
I'll tell you what Jack, if I'm the Bidens I am dreading what I might find on January 21.