Typical NY Times hit piece, penned this time by Kristof. Total speculation and spin. All three points he bases the column on are either untrue and/or speculation. Kristof even makes up new terms, " hard collusion" and "soft collusion" without definition let alone legal meaning. The closest thing to truth in it is "I don't know whether this is criminal." Well, columns like this one should be criminal, as they are an assault on a reader's intelligence. At least he admits his ignorance, but it didn't stop him from all his other speculation or the inuendo in this sentence itself that criminal action was involved. But it certainly leaves Kristof plausible deniability when no legal action comes of this nothingburger. What shameful, pathetic journalism.

Note: For whomever rated this below the civility threshhold when I posted it verbatim previously, are you proud of your censorship?