We all know the attack against Trump wasn't couched as allegations but known facts. We all know Hillary Clinton and her campaign said the Russian government hacked and that there was collusion. We also know Barack Obama was still in office while supporting Hillary Clinton for President and that under Obama's watch, the "intelligence community's" fiction-based analysis was used to attack Trump from within that very "intelligence community" so Trump would not win or if he were to win, be severely weakened and open to impeachment based upon totally unsubstantiated allegations. We know none of the allegations stood up under scrutiny.
All of that constitutes an attempt coup against the government of the US.
We also know the "intelligence community" under Obama is now claiming it didn't need evidence but only did analysis. However, criminal warrants require real probable cause, not mere no-evidence, no-facts analysis (mere feelings or desires).
Here's the deal, if the "intelligence community's" analysis is trusted and sufficient enough that the entire US government is still pointing the finger at the Russian government for hacking this, that, and the other (without any actual evidence of same), then why shouldn't the "intelligence community's" so-called analysis via the Steele dossier (bought and paid for by the Democrats from, ironically, Russians) be grounds enough for the "intelligence" court (FISA) to issue a criminal warrant? After all, the US is punishing the Russian government and people with harsh sanctions based upon the same level of "analysis." Sanctioning a nation without probable cause is actually illegal under international law to which the US has obligated itself.
For the Republicans to leave the false concept in place that the Russian government is a "malign actor" towards the US as shown by the alleged hacking and then to claim there weren't sufficient grounds to lean on the Steele dossier to conduct a criminal investigation with warrant in hand is simply stupid.
How can the law and government have it both ways?
Either the Republicans shoot down the idea we know the Russian government hacked the US or the Democrats will be left with the logical argument I just spelled out. A good lawyer could make mincemeat out of a side that doesn't believe the "intelligence community" only when it's convenient and does believe it or trust it when there's something perverse to be gained.
There was no collusion, and the Russian government did not do all the hacking the "intelligence community" has claimed the Russian government has done. That "intelligence community" has shown zero proof the Russian government hacked anything let alone all things claimed by that "intelligence community."
If the Republicans would only rub some working brain cells together, they might come to realize just how great it would be for the entire world were the US and Russia to get along famously. Do they really think there's more money to be made with the US and Russia at odds than cooperating? How much dumber could it get than that? Do they really think whatever money is being made by whomever is worth it to lie and risk war? Some people really are that dumb, obviously.