The combined intelligence community are agreed that Russia was responsible for the hacking of the 2016 campaign. They also agree that Russia has been doing this in other countries in the recent past, interfered with the French election process and will continue to do so elsewhere in the future.
T***p, and the vast majority of his administration, his political supporters and confidents, will not accept this finding, even suggesting that the Chinese, North Koreans, some Middle East nation or someone else was responsible*.
It has been reported that neither T***p, nor anyone in the T***p administration who has had contact with the Russians, has asked them whether Russia was behind the hacking of the 2016 campaign, or in any way confronted the Russians over the hacking.**
It seems to this writer that a "reasonable person"*** would, at least, ask the Russians about their involvement (if not confronting them with the evidence) before defending or trusting them.
Thus far, the only reason that this writer can deduce from T***p's failure is that T***p already knows the answer. But that is assuming that T***p is a "reasonable person".
T***p couldn't really believe that it doesn't matter one way or the other? Could he?
If it does matter to him, then, again, isn't the only conclusion is that T***p already knows it was the Russians?
* disregarding the 400-lb individual in his bedroom.
**Also, reportedly, there was no questioning of China's president whether it was them.
***The U.S. justice system generally follows a "reasonable man" standard when looking to the actions, or inactions, of someone concerned or involved in an incident, civil or criminal. While the standard for "criminal guilt" is "beyond a reasonable doubt", when someone acts in a way that is contrary to what a "reasonable or ordinary person would do", then that is considered circumstantial, possibly also substantial, evidence.