Very recent media reports concerning Russia and members of President Trump's team are being described as: "The slow drip, drip of Russia stories."
Trump's chief of staff, Reince Priebus, announced how upset he is at the mention of the stories that have not been terminated at all.
Preibus, in his role, has been described as having contacted the deputy director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI).The focus of the Preibus' FBI contact as announced: "to request the agency dispute on news stories that the Trump campaign had contact with Russian officials."
Such a communication by Preibus was categorized as highly unusual by the White House press coverage based on what ought to be aired through the news media, both print and broadcast.
Strong voices from the media: The Preibus action is called meddling.
"The meddling puts the president's chief of staff in the middle of an ongoing investigation that involves his boss.
"FBI Director James Comey refused Priebus' request owing to alleged contacts between Trump's campaign and Russia are still under review."
Trump's quest for the presidency during his candidacy was rife with his personal comments: Washington's government institutions were "rigged" against him.
The then presidential candidate laudedC omey's 'public intervention in the election when the FBI director informed Congress he was"reopening" the investigation into the much- publicized Clinton e-mails as she likewise sought the presidency.
It was widely publicized that Comey stated how he did not find anything new and quickly closed the subject. The Comey report did not fall on deaf ears and was used as a weapon against the Democratic presidential candidate by the Trump backers.
Trump proceeded to attack the intelligence community -- it was termed a continuation of a lengthy "spat" with American officials tasked with ferreting out truths critical to national security.
Therefore, how would some members of theAmerican populace translate the Priebus' move? Isn't it clear even to non-partisans that the Priebus' request directed to the aforesaid intelligence agency could vastly weakenTrump's position?
TheTrump reaction was (as always) via 'Tweet' in regard to the response of Comey directed to the Priebus' request. Trump was described as having blasted the FBI and NSA on Twitter; central to that tweet surfaced: that the FBI is totally unable to stop the national security leakers.
After all the caustic exchange of opinions that has taken place, which originally came from Trump's main surrogate, Comey's having turned down the Priebus request is deemed justifiable by those who have been keeping a close watch on the intelligence panorama.
Paul Manafort, Trump's former campaign manager whose very recent re-appearance on the political scene, is the latest report on alleged Russian ties.
Reportedly, texts were sent to the cell phone of Manafort's daughter relating to the involvement of Manafort himself: that he had close financial ties with the former president of Ukraine,a Russia ally.
Similarly, what was bruited around re Manafort's ties, was how he helped set up a meeting between DonaldTrump and an associate of the Ukrainian president in 2012, on Trump's alleged relations with Russia.
Trump, in the meantime, delivered a keynote address to the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC). He railed about his ongoing war with journalists. He made emphatic his views on news reports as “fake,” calling unnamed sources as the “real enemy of the people.”
But the media coverage did bring out the mood at the CPAC convention.
Some in attendance at the same CPAC event were described as waving small Russian flags with the word "Trump" on them as he started his speech.
How else could some observers at the very same audience react to whatever knowledge has been aired without hesitation, in regard to how Trump has conducted himself amid so-called "Russian backing?"