>>>He said "Moscow had sought to lure Americans down "a treasonous path." whether or not they succeeded is beside the point in terms of whether or not they meddled with the election.
>
>He said he was "concerned" about that. Meaning unsure, but worried/suspicious. Worthy of a closer look. He followed up with the usual "I know these dirty Russkies and that's the sort of thing they do" which helps explain his thinking but also is not proof of anything. He also said he still had "unresolved questions" on the topic when he stood down. IOW it's simply not the slam dunk you've turned it into.

No. He said he was concerned whether or not they succeeded in regards to luring members of the Trump campaign - not whether were meddling.

>>>Fact is they meddled, and the fact you don't believe can be attributed to them having some success with that, and possibly lured your vote.
>
>Even Trump conceded after the election (and presumably armed with info not visible to us) that the Russians probably hacked the DNC. Since then the fingerprints identified as Russian by a third party firm paid by the DNC (not the FBI that was denied access to the server) have been debunked by another third party expert, and Wikileaks has released info showing that US Agencies not only used themselves but had released into the wild, techniques for laying fingerprint tracks pointing to others, including specifically Russia. Hopefully one or all three investigations can provide better clarity- unless the hacked server is since destroyed with hammers and bitbleach, of course.

If Trump said any such thing is was for a Victory lap because he told them to do it -- remember that? And lets not forget that Trump spent his campaign running around screaming that the Russians didn't do it. (Of course it's stupid for us to consider anything a pathological liar says) And hacking the DNC is only one part of meddling with the election. There is not some question as to if they did or did not meddle. Look the entire intel community says they did it. There are some things that remain classified or secret even long after an investigation is over, often times to prevent revealing sources like active CIA operatives identities or investigative tactics to enemies. Any doubts you have are simply unreasonable doubts. It's as crazy as saying you can't tell if goldfish are unable to walk 5000 kilometers across land until you've tried it with every single goldfish on the planet until you've killed them all. You can doubt it - but it's simply unreasonable to do so. Now maybe there are some Fox News anchors saying that there is no clear proof that all goldfish can't walk 5000 miles or Trump says he has a walking goldfish he's going to use to build the wall - but at the end of the day there aint no damn walking goldfish dude, and there WAS indeed Russia meddling with our elections.