The Helsinki summit is over, and the major story – surprise, surprise – is more tiresome drivel about Russian election meddling.  The most amazing thing about this narrative is that the who can be talked about endlessly with little to no mention of the what and the how.  The what at the center of it all is that the Democratic National Committee, including Hillary Clinton and DNC chair Debbie Wasserman Schultz, rigged their party's primary in favor of Hillary Clinton and against Bernie Sanders.  This is not speculation or the result of a political witch hunt – as is true of the Mueller investigation – but a fact laid bare in the very emails contained on the server of the DNC, which, interestingly enough, was never turned over to the FBI for forensic analysis.

Clinton, Wasserman Schultz, and other DNC officials actively conspired against Sanders, targeting his Jewish faith and slandering Jeff Weaver, his campaign manager.  The leaked emails also showed that Clinton's campaign colluded with CNN political commentator Donna Brazile, who amazingly went on to become interim DNC chair when Wasserman Schultz was forced to step down.  So here you have irrefutable documented collusion and election-rigging of the highest degree, not between Putin and Trump, but among Hillary Clinton, CNN, and the DNC.

Somehow, all this has gone neatly down the Memory Hole.  In its place, in spectacular Orwellian fashion, comes the narrative that "Russia Hacked the Election."  To this day, the extent of Russian meddling is still debatable, yet the news has been "rectified," and history has been rewritten.  Trump cheated.  He's illegitimate.  He colluded with Russia to steal the election.

This brings us to the how, the second question that, like the what, never gets asked.  How did Russia steal the election, exactly?  This is where the uninformed American public who gets its news only at airports is invited to use its imagination and fill in the blanks.  Perhaps Putin and his agents tampered with voting machines?  Maybe they used propaganda to brainwash American voters?  This sort of thinking is preposterous, yet the suggestion is still there, conveniently put forth by a frustrated liberal media.

The next time the "Russia Election Meddling" narrative comes up, I'd like to see President Trump resurrect the what and the how along with it.  Take Trump's recent interview with CBS Evening News anchor Jeff Glor, for example.  Here is an excerpt of the exchange:

GLOR: "You say you agree with U.S. intelligence that Russia meddled in the election in 2016."

TRUMP: "Yeah and I've said that before, Jeff.  I have said that numerous times before, and I would say that is true, yeah."

GLOR: "But you haven't condemned Putin, specifically.  Do you hold him personally responsible?"

TRUMP: "Well, I would, because he's in charge of the country.  Just like I consider myself to be responsible for things that happen in this country.  So certainly as the leader of a country you would have to hold him responsible, yes."

Imagine if, the next time the mainstream media pulled out the "Russia Election Meddling" narrative, instead of being hyper-focused on the who, the conversation were immediately directed toward the what and the how.

Take this response for example: Do I believe Russia meddled in our election?  I'm not sure I understand the question.  How did they meddle, exactly?  By exposing the rigged DNC primary?  Is that what you mean?  That really turned the Democratic National Convention on its ear, didn't it?  Remember how badly Bernie Sanders's supporters were treated?  Remember how the Clinton people basically bullied them into silence?  Remember when Wasserman Shultz was booed off the stage at the Florida delegation breakfast for being a cheat?  Or when Donna Brazile was booed at the opening of the Democratic National Convention?  That's probably why she wrote that book, admitting that the Clinton campaign took over the DNC.  Wasn't Donna Brazile fired from CNN for colluding with Clinton?  I think she was. 

You get the gist.  If Trump and enough of his supporters in the media would simply respond to the "Russia Election Meddling" narrative by bringing up the what and how every time the subject is broached, I suspect it would take at least some of the edge off it.  At the bare minimum, it would make liberals think twice before bringing the subject up over and over again.