Two New York Times writers have offered evidence that the actions of the Russians and former director James Comey may not have been so crucial to the defeat of Hillary Clinton after all, calling into question the raison d’etre of the Mueller investigation.    

First, Charlie Savage on June 28, commenting on the retirement of Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy, noted that Donald Trump promised to name conservatives to the high court. Savage then acknowledged, "Court-focused voters helped deliver Mr. Trump's narrow victory over Hillary Clinton...."  (Actually, the win was not "narrow." Trump got 304 electoral votes to Clinton's 227.)  

Another editorial on the surprise defeat of Rep. Joseph Crowley by 28-year-old Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, a Sanders-ista, in the primary for a House seat from a district extending from the Bronx to Queens attributed the ten-term congressman's loss to

"a sense of hubris and complacency... the kind that contributed to Hillary Clinton's loss to Donald Trump... In Mrs. Clinton's case, it may have stopped her from campaigning harder in states like Wisconsin and Michigan, places where Mr. Trump eked out narrow victories. In Mr. Crowley's case, it may have led him to become smug."

Political reality may be forcing the Times to downplay the Russian election-meddling theme for more mundane explanations: that Clinton lost because voters in 30 states feared the impact of a Clinton win on the Supreme Court, and also because she didn't try harder, winning only 20 states plus the District of Columbia.