This guy looks like the key for the possible collusion with Russia to influence the election instead of Manafort.
First of all, please remember that I have never - not even for a day - supported Trump.
He beat my preferred candidate(s) in the primary, but his behavior during the primary cost him my vote.
His behavior has not improved, and continues to - IMO - damage his ability to implement policy.
His "reactive" "attack all comers" strategy means he does not control the agenda.
You can make him spend his time on whatever YOU want to talk about - just send out a tweet.
But with that said, I still do not understand what is meant by "influence the election."
As I have said before, absent hacking a voting machine, and changing votes from "Clinton" to other candidates, it seems like something about which I do not and should not care - "who is best at propaganda?"
For example, in union elections conducted by the NLRB, the NLRB refuses to set aside election results based on "lies" told to the voters. The official position - "the voters will be exposed to propaganda by both sides - they must and will determine for themselves what is worthy of belief and support." The only exception is material that is designed to appear as if comes from the NLRB and designed to suggest a position by the government on the issues.
If Russians flooded the internet and/or other media (or helped others to do so, or sold them the info to do so) with stories, lies, truths, whatever, about Hillary to say "she is a horrible person/candidate," then SO WHAT? Is this not the same thing every voter sees every day on media? Am I REALLY supposed to assume that enough people were stupid enough to get "tricked" into NOT voting for a candidate that it changed the election result? "Mass delusional voting" due to propaganda by the Russkies? Is THAT what is at the end of this "Russian influence" road?
Bah.
Humbug.