Q: What is this Russia thing about?
Right before the election, Dems were concerned that Trump was going to make a scene and use "Russian hacking" to try to delegitimize the inevitable Hillary win, so they demanded that Trump and Hillary sign an agreement to NOT question the outcome/legitimacy of the election. After Hillary lost, and Obama admitted the election wasn’t manipulated, they broke their promise. Then they proceeded to invent a series of excuses why Hillary lost: (a) racism (b) sexism (c) Comey (d) they broke a promise to accept the election results and demanded recounts: which went more for Trump (e) popular versus electoral votes (f) tried to intimidate the Electoral College (to break their oaths and switch votes or delay their vote). Only it didn’t work, and more Hillary electors refused to vote for her than Trump ones. (g) dozens of faked assaults/vandalism (h) then the story that the Russians hackers had hacked the election and that’s why the electoral college should vote for someone other than Trump (i) when the evidence contradicted that it became Trump Colluded with the Russians and he should be impeached (and we needed a special prosecutor) -- and they picked an Obama crony to keep that alive as long as possible (j) or that Trump was compromised (by re-using the fake Dossier they Hillary/DNC paid to have created), and so on. All while inventing reasons why anything they did was justified because: Trump was Hitler, he was mentally unfit (they demanded psych evals), he was going to create concentration camps, or storm troopers and mass round-ups with deportations, he'd persecute Gays, eliminate birth control and abortion, start a Nuclear War, Trump voters were all deplorable Nazi's (punch a Nazi in the face), and a dozen other high-drama but low-evidence things, none of which has come close to being true.
So the Russian Collusion/Hacked our Election and other lies, all spawned from their plan to have a dishonest Gish-Gallop over Hillary losing, to prove Democrats are the biggest cry-bullies the nation has ever seen.
It's revealed in the book Shattered: Inside Hillary Clinton’s Doomed Campaign" that within 24 hours, the Clinton machine knew they had the paid for the fake dossier to frame Trump with, and they knew they had allies in the government and media that would gladly undermine the election for a good cause (tearing the nation apart because they didn't win). So they spun up a two pronged narrative to explain away her loss as: (a) the media/Comey blew it by focusing on her email scandal (b) a giant Russian Conspiracy to help Trump. There's another one Hillary won't shut-up about (everyone that didn't vote for her was a misogynist or demure puppets of their husbands), but even the DNC/Hillary Campaign would rather she drop that canard. The Hillary Campaign's communication plan on this was carried out to the letter, with the help of CNN, NYT, MSNBC and their other allies in the media. 
The discredited partisan sources (media and Hillary/Obama supporters) were embarrassed by the outcome of the election their bad reporting/predictions had bathed them in egg and they were desperately trying to find a scapegoat for how they could be so wrong.
- the DNC/Hillary Media machine first tried to sell that it was all old racist white males and deplorables that gave Trump the election, but some people can read exit polls and it showed that it was the young (not the old) and blacks, latinos and Asians that voted for Trump more than Republicans in prior elections. Read: Exit Polls. Rather than report those facts, they changed the topic.
- They leapt on the DNCHillary invention about how they weren't wrong, just cheated -- and with no evidence of the Russians, they went wild with the story because that was easier to accept than their own incompetence. And wild conspiracy theories of sophisticated international espionage gained traction. Russians hacked the election - except there's no evidence Russians hacked the election machines, or that they could have swung the election if they had. There's thin gruel that a few election machines were probed (and it might have been from Russia), but none were compromised, let alone enough to change the election.
- When that narrative fell apart, then it became about Hacking Hillary or Podesta's email -- there's scant evidence Russians hacked those emails, and less that they were the source for Wikileaks. In fact, Julian Assange (Wikileaks), and the forensic trail both imply it wasn't a hack, but an insider leaked using a USB-drive to share the emails.
- So then it became about Russians buying ads on Facebook and that swung the election - only their spend was way too small to have any impact ($100K of $20B spent on the election? Really?). Then focus was to America look bad in general (Pro BLM, or Pro Bernie, or Anti Leaders, nothing pro-Trump), and the timing was mostly before the primary or after the election was over.
- The premise that Russia wanted Trump to win and Hillary to lose has never been explained, let alone proven... and is absurd. Russia sensationalizes stuff that makes America (or the leader or election) look bad. Hillary got slightly more heat as the presumptive winner, but that's not proof they wanted him to win (or her to lose). Democrats/Media did far more to help undermine the election results (or the Presidents credibility), than the Russians ever did.
- Then it was about Russian Collusion (this article), but for that to be true, the Russians had to want Trump to win (which is unlikely and unproven), they would have had to do something about it (little evidence of that), Trump had to know that and work with them (complete lack of evidence), and that's still not a crime -- unless he obstructed justice or lied about it (zero evidence to date).
- Then it was about Firing James Comey, like Democrats had demanded for 6+ months. This was their smoking gun of Obstructing Justice... only for that to be true, Trump had to have colluded with Russia, Russia wanted him to win, he trusted them, they had to have coordinated without any evidence ever showing up, they had to actually accomplish something material (no one has showed), Comey had to know about it or be closing in (even he's admitted no evidence has ever been found), AND firing Comey would have to be because Comey is uniquely competent that the replacement at the FBI (and special investigator) would have to be thwarted (or obstructed) in getting to the bottom of things. But none of that is the case.
So none of the Democrats excuses or rationale's make any sense to those who pay any attention to the big picture. Putin mocked the Democrat narrative perfectly:
❝ The Democrats didn't just lose the presidential election, but the House and the Senate for the last 6 years. Did I do that as well? ❞
- Bully the electoral college: http://www.truthrevolt.org/videos/bill-whittles-firewall-hillarys-final-disgrace
- Clinton's fingerprints: http://www.worldtribune.com/shattered-clinton-expose-reveals-russian-narrative-was-spun-within-hours-of-trump-win/
- Olbermann: http://www.libertyheadlines.com/keith-olbermann-pleads-foreign-spy-agencies-take-trump/
- Russia's has a bigger arsenal: https://www.armscontrol.org/factsheets/Nuclearweaponswhohaswhat
- Obama ordered Stand-Down order: https://www.foxbusiness.com/politics/obama-stand-down-on-russia-probe-looks-like-more