So a historian helped someone, who has corrupted his high office by taking foreign bribes, to get elected. That could happen. You can’t be much of historian if you’re unable to see what that means to support the same person after it’s proven. At least not one that ever understood freedom, liberty, or a Constitution.
Historically speaking, did he mention the 19 boxes of classified material, or the pseudonyms, or the FBI affidavits, the cash transfers and offshore accounts?
He is a traitor blaming on a domestic Terrorist chanel.
Blabing.