Replying to Insincere Questions: Do you believe Democrats will ever accept that Hillary Clinton lost fair and square to President Donald J. Trump and actually give our President an honest chance to show how governing works when we all work together as a cohesive unit?

This question showed up on my Quora feed yesterday:

Do you believe Democrats will ever accept that Hillary Clinton lost fair and square to President Donald J. Trump and actually give our President an honest chance to show how governing works when we all work together as a cohesive unit?

I, of course, replied:

I can’t speak for all Democratic Party voters. Nor can I claim to speak for most Democratic Party voters.

Hell, I can’t even speak for all the 56-year-old male Democratic Party members that live in my metro area, much less my neighborhood. I can only answer on my behalf.

First of all, let me congratulate you on writing a prime example of a loaded question. It sounds polite enough, but (a) it’s based on the question writer’s belief that the 2016 Presidential election was fair and honest, and (b) it’s fawning almost to the point that I can hear my eyeballs click as they roll in their sockets.

Second, this Democratic voter from the great state of Florida accepts that Mrs. Clinton lost the 2016 election. She lost it by a razor-sharp margin and not a landslide, and she really didn’t lose it fairly or squarely.

I know that the conventional wisdom in Trump Supporter Land is that the President of the United States (or, before November 8, 2016, Candidate) Donald J. Trump did not collude or conspire with Russian government officials or their stand-ins to steal the election from Mrs. Clinton.

Trump loyalists will even go so far as to say that:

1. There was no Russian interference in the election
2. If there was Russian interference in the election, it’s no big deal
3. If there was Russian interference in the election, it did not affect their vote
4. It’s all Obama’s fault

Well, I’m reading the redacted Mueller Report, one little bit at a time; it’s over 400 pages long, and there are pages and pages full of arcane data (such as fake Facebook accounts created and operated by Russia’s Internet Research Agency - IRA - which is a division of Russia’s military intelligence agency, the GRU). Some of the text is easy to read and gripping; most of it is written in the dry, unemotional tone of your average Federal government report. (As Yoda might say, “Page-turner, this is not.”)

The target of Robert S. Mueller’s investigation was never President Trump. It was the Russian government and its agents’ efforts to manipulate public opinion in order to tilt the election in favor of the candidate they preferred. In this case: Mr. Trump.

Now, I’m not going to copy-paste long excerpts from the searchable PDF files that contain the redacted Mueller Report; if you are honestly interested in reading it, you can use your fingers to do a Google search for the two-part report. It is, after all, a public document paid for by our tax dollars; the least you can do is read it for yourself.

You can spout all you want that the Report clears Trump. After all, many of you echo the President’s mantra of No collusion, no obstruction on Quora, Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, and even via smoke signals. And while Mr. Mueller never accuses the President or his campaign of “collusion.” he also warns the Department of Justice that although his team could not find any obstruction of justice, the report does not, ipso facto, exonerate him.

All things being equal, a careful reading of the Report indicates that members of the Trump campaign had close connections with both the Russians and WikiLeaks (the latter of which released stuff that would embarrass one side, but did not release other stuff that would have embarrassed the other). And it is also hard to ignore the fact that Paul Manafort and other Trump campaign members have pleaded guilty to charges related to Mr. Mueller’s investigation.

As for the second part of this “question”: You have got to be kidding.

The onus of fostering a collaborative spirit lies squarely on the Republican Party’s side, which controlled both houses of Congress, the Supreme Court, and the Executive Branch on January 20, 2017. It’s hypocritical, to say the least, to expect the Democratic Party to sit down with the GOP and sing “Kumbaya” after:

1. Being labeled “Communists,” “America hating libtards,” “DemonRats,” and other rude, crude, and socially-unacceptable nicknames
2. Seeing a rude, boastful, and buffoonish man like Trump in the Oval Office and undermining the post-World War II network of alliances and accords in a way that hurts America and helps Russian aims

So, no, I don’t see how Trump supporters expect us to be nice and cooperative with President Trump, a man who clearly is not interested in bipartisanship or compromise.

Afterword:

Quora has edit-blocked the person who wrote this sorry excuse for a question. It has also added the following note to the question:

This question should be phrased with neutral and sincere language

This question's wording makes it seem like a joke, or intended rhetorically to make a statement, rather than looking for helpful answers. It should be rewritten to be a neutral, non-leading question.