To be fair though, the masses are rather silly, and the size of that mass is growing (spreading into demographics of higher intelligence). So much of the news is obviously "fake" (weasel words, implied but not outright stated "facts", etc) but as the propaganda campaigns continue, they seem to be gradually wearing people down. Although, the decreasing frequency of dissenting voices in social media could also be explained by people abandoning all hope of getting people to think critically and just checking out.
How do you check out? By going to a reputable news source, like NYT, WaPo or The Guardian?
What we know is the actions of the sitting President of the US didn't rise to the legally provable action of actively working with a hostile foreign intel agency.
Everything up to that point has been proven and made public. The Trump Tower meeting, Trump Tower Moscow negotiations, Manafort giving polling data to the FSB, Wikileaks/GRU, etc.
If ALL of that happened and no one reported on it, the news media would have truly failed.
The story has yet to be written.
I mean, there IS a ton of evidence that Russian propaganda interference was real, and that it had an impact on the election. That in itself is a huge deal in my opinion. If there was no coordinated collusion, Trump and friends get to shout "See! No collusion! It was all a witch-hunt!" The idea that no collusion= witch-hunt is completely absurd and preposterous to me.
For me there's no "right" and "left" as much, as an ok-with-Trump and "not-ok-with-Trump".
The right Republican establishment also didn't like Trump -- coming from outside the party, with no social grace (which I don't care for, I don't care about optics or what a politician is like as a person, only for their politics), and with some bizarro ideas of his own that break the traditional two-party consensus (e.g. on "more war", or on "limits to globalization" -- which, as a left-inclined person [1], I quite liked. I remember when some parts of the left were against globalization too -- e.g. in Seattle 1999 WTO protests. How time flies...).
>I mean, there IS a ton of evidence that Russian propaganda interference was real, and that it had an impact on the election.
I'd say a ton of noise more than evidence (and not for impact, just for propaganda). At worst they have some "social media" factories, which are par for the course today. In my country both major parties have their own, and publish BS against one another, pose as the other etc. The US surely has it's own (e.g. judging from things like this: https://www.huffpost.com/entry/feds-probe-fake-messages-to-f... ).
I also remember (from actually reading world news) that they have all kinds of sponsored ties, with government and opposition parties around the world, with NGOs, with think tanks, etc, which pretend to be "neutral" but are mostly fronts for national interest promotional work. Thousands of those, all over the world. Plus all the mainstream media eating off their official stories. I doubt Russia has 1/10th the budget or reach for those, which is probably why they have to content themselves with twitter posts and fake blogs.
[1] non US one, so not the modern vegan liberal that passes for one there.
What they miss is that this "mass hysteria" was carefully cultivated (for political benefit and ad money) from newspapers and magazines, including the Guardian and NYT.
So much for the silly "masses".