> So when the media that hated Trump (a position I am not criticizing) started talking about allegations of Russian interference with the elections, I waited for the evidence. But after a couple of months of anonymous officials making this claim and that claim but no hard evidence in the matter, I tuned it out.

> I’ve since stopped following mainstream news, so if they’ve come up with genuine evidence by now then I’m just out of the loop. It’s fair to say I’m uninformed here but I do recall that for some time at the beginning, no evidence was presented.

National security officials don't generally present the support behind their conclusions to the public, and even when it became a law enforcement case, the evidence is only sparingly provided before a trial. There are pretty good reasons news media does report on announced intelligence and law enforcement positions before those agencies provide detailed support; blaming the media for the underlying evidence not being immediately presented is, well, somewhat naive.

OTOH, since then, while still little evidence has been directly provided to the public (because criminal investigations are ongoing and investigators are reluctant to tip their hand), we do actually have both the confession of an attempted colluder and a pile of indictments (which are grand jury findings of evidence providing probable cause to believe particular persons committed particular crimes.)