I think you have the cart before the horse.
There is plenty of evidence that Russia tried to interfere in the election to damage Clinton.
The GOP in the Senate, and especially in the House are utterly uninterested in this. That *is* evidence that they are unfit to govern,
There is increasing evidence that the Trump team was active in trying to collude with Russia, but I'll let that lie for now.
Your post seems to miss the point of what you quoted. Still, perhaps it can be said to try to convert this response into something more relevant that - the Russian interference is bad, but the GOP's response is of dramatically greater concern, given that the GOP officially should be working for the USA's benefit, but aren't, in a particularly dangerous way.
Either way, Russia's interference is a definite problem, regardless, and one that has deserved a response of notable and coordinated action. That that action seems to have only happened in very limited and seemingly uncoordinated ways is an obvious indicator of the significant problems of the current state of our government. On a different, but related matter to what Emily's Cat said, such actions being done by Russia are nearly completely unsurprising, given the relationship between the US and Russia. It's newsworthy, but it's also not going to hold an audience's attention for long. Had it been, say, Canada or the UK, though, it would likely be much bigger news, given that that actually would be much more surprising, given the relationships between the countries. It would still be a matter that's for the government to deal with, though, in the minds of most, and thus would likely quickly fade into the background.
Trump and the GOP's actions, on the other hand, tend to affect us far more directly, in fair part because we bear responsibility for them and how to respond to their actions to some extent. That leads to more attention tending to go that way from the start, and more attention continuing to go that way as ongoing related developments happen in fairly plain sight, rather than towards the intentionally hidden actions of other countries.
Or you failed to explain it properly.
I disagree. Emily's Cat was fairly clear with what she said. A lack of understanding of what she said is far more an issue on the part of the readers than it was on how she expressed it. Disagreement with what was said may well not be, though. Some of her implied observations are quite correct, regardless. That Russia's actions are in the spotlight
more because of Trump and that the attention of most people is more directly focused on Trump than Russia are both fairly certainly true, after all. That she overemphasizes the importance of those things, however, is unsurprisingly in line with the biases that she's demonstrated.
