The childish hypocrisy of the left in response to Trump-Putin meeting

James Robbins:

The Helsinki summit meeting between President Donald Trump and Russian President Vladimir Putin was rich in opportunity for those who still cling to the belief that Trump owed his election to Russian meddling. #TreasonSummit was trending on Twitter, giving rise to all manner of wild accusations. Frothing former CIA director John Brennan called out the president for meeting one-on-one with Putin, asking “What might he be hiding" from national security adviser John Bolton, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, White House chief of Staff John Kelly and the American public?

Of course, Mr. Trump used the same personal touch at the summit with Kim Jong Un, and we know that the president places great value in establishing these types of direct ties. But the conspiracy theorists would have us think Trump and Putin were locked in a room hatching schemes, which shows how childish and unserious the president’s critics have become.

The summit began shortly after the Justice Department released a curiously-timed indictment of 12 Russian agents for alleged hacking activities aimed at Democrats in 2016. We also learned about the ownership stake of a Russian oligarch in Maryland’s election system, a state Hillary Clinton won by 26 percentage points. Shocking. But oddly enough there were no indictments of Russians who were also trying to hack the Republican National Committee in 2016, which the Justice Department probably saw as too confusing for the witch-hunt narrative.

The mere fact of a U.S. president seeking better relations with Russia should not be controversial. President Barack Obama certainly did his best, blaming the George W. Bush administration for souring relations between the two powers. We had Hillary Clinton’s famous 2009 “Russian reset,” complete with a mistranslated red button stolen from a hotel jacuzzi.

Obama mocked Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney in a 2012 debate for his remark that Russia was America’s “biggest geopolitical threat,” saying “the 1980s are now calling to ask for their foreign policy back.” And who can forget Mr. Obama’s 2012 hot-mic moment assuring outgoing Russian President Dmitry Medvedev that he would have “more flexibility” in dealing with Moscow after the election?

And was Obama ever flexible. He responded to Russia’s illegal annexation of Crimea by imposing limited sanctions on a few officials and pleading with Moscow to reverse course (which it didn’t). He dismissed Russia’s 2015 military intervention in Syria as a sign of weakness, and adopted a wait and see posture that was essentially wait and do nothing.

He was more than happy to have Moscow’s assistance negotiating the flawed nuclear agreement with Russia’s client state Iran. And in September 2016, after he was informed of alleged Russia attempts to influence the U.S. election, he personally told Vladimir Putin to “cut it out,” threatening — but later lamely discarding — “serious consequences.”
...

Why did Obama or anyone for that matter trust former communist John Brennan to run the CIA?  He is so filled with hate that he seems irresponsible in his criticism.  Sharyl Attkisson asks a relevant question:

What would an intel official who speaks like this be willing to do using his official office and intel tools... to protect the nation from what he views as this sort of threat? (Reminder: Brennan was CIA Director during election and after Trump was elected, during transition.)

She has had a personal experience with how someone in the Obama administration made intrusive ventures into her computers while Brennan was in office. 

In all the overreaction to the summit press conference was somewhat unreal.  Reporters asked ridiculous questions and got denials from Putin of their pet conspiracy theories.

Do you think Mueller will take Putin's offer to meet with Russian officials to question those accused of hacking the DNC and Clinton campaign?  I doubt it.

Roger Kimball also has a mature response to the events in Helsinki.