If it seems I’m devoting a lot of time and effort to the connections between the Trump team and Russia to the exclusion of other important questions like health insurance, that’s because I’m convinced that the Russia connection is a direct threat to the existence of our independent republic–nothing less than its very existence.
I am not alone in this belief. Congressional Democrats demand non-partisan investigation, while Republicans prefer leaving it Republican-led committees. Rep. Eric Swalwell, a second-term Democrat from California, has put up a website explaining in detail why he believes independent investigation is needed. Among journalists Rachel Maddow of MSNBC last night devoted her show to what she called The Russia Connection explaining why she thinks this is the crucial question. And in today’s New York Times Nicholas Kristof made a similar argument. All of them connecting the dots.
You may read Kristof’s column below. Unfortunately the entire Maddow show is not available on YouTube, but you can see extended excerpts of it here.
That includes the most towering suspicion of all: that Trump’s team colluded in some way with Russia to interfere with the U.S. election. This is the central issue that we must remain focused on.
There are a lot of dots here, and the challenge is how to connect them. Be careful: Democrats should avoid descending into the kind of conspiratorial mind-set that led some Republicans to assume Hillary Clinton was a criminal about to be indicted or to conjure sex slaves belonging to her in a Washington pizza restaurant. Coincidences happen, and I think there has been too much focus on Attorney General Jeff Sessions, not enough on Paul Manafort, the former Trump campaign manager. Here are 10 crucial dots:
1. President Trump and his aides have repeatedly and falsely denied ties to Russia. USA Today counted at least 20 denials. In fact, we now know that there were contacts by at least a half-dozen people in the Trump circle with senior Russian officials.
2. There’s no obvious reason for all these contacts. When Vice President Mike Pence was asked on Jan. 15 if there had been contacts between the Trump campaign and Kremlin officials, he answered: “Of course not. Why would there be?” We don’t know either, Mr. Vice President.
3. There were unexplained communications between a Trump Organization computer server and Russia’s Alfa Bank, which has ties to President Vladimir Putin. These included 2,700 “look-up” messages to initiate communications, and some investigators found all this deeply suspicious. Others thought there might be an innocent explanation, such as spam. We still don’t know.
4. “Repeated” and “constant” contacts between Trump officials and Russian intelligence, as reported by The New York Times and CNN, are underscoredby intercepts of communications involving Russian officials, and by the British and Dutch governments monitoring meetings in Europe between Russians and members of the Trump team.
5. A well-regarded Russia expert formerly with MI6, Christopher Steele, produced a now-famous dossier alleging that Russia made compromising videos of Trump in 2013, and that members of the Trump team colluded with the Kremlin to interfere with the U.S. election.
The dossier quoted a Russian as saying that a deal had been arranged “with the full knowledge and support of Trump” and that in exchange for Russian help, “the Trump team agreed to sideline Russian intervention in Ukraine as a campaign issue.” James Clapper, the American former national intelligence director, says he saw no evidence of such collusion but favors an investigation to get to the bottom of it.
6. Trump has expressed a bewilderingly benign view of Russia and appointed officials also friendly to Moscow. He did not make an issue of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine during the campaign.
7. A Trump associate, Roger Stone, appeared to have had advance knowledge of Russia’s disclosures through WikiLeaks of Hillary Clinton campaign emails. As early as August, two months before her campaign chairman John Podesta’s emails were released, Stone tweeted: “Trust me, it will soon [be] Podesta’s time in the barrel.” In October, six days before a dump of Clinton campaign emails, Stone tweeted: “HillaryClinton is done. #Wikileaks.”
8. Sessions seems a red herring, in that he wasn’t a secret conduit to the Kremlin. The more interesting dot is Manafort, whom investigators have focused on because of his longstanding ties to Russia.
9. “We see a lot of money pouring in from Russia,” Donald Trump Jr. was quoted as saying in 2008. Russia may have gained leverage over Trump through loans to his organization or other business dealings. The way to ease these suspicions would be to examine Trump’s tax returns: Any government investigation that doesn’t obtain Trump’s tax returns simply isn’t a thorough investigation.
10. Even many Republicans acknowledge, as President George W. Bush put it, “We all need answers.” The House and Senate Intelligence Committees mostly operate behind closed doors, while we yearn for transparency. What is desperately needed is an independent inquiry modeled on the 9/11 Commission.
When friends press me about what I think happened, I tell them that my best guess is that there wasn’t a clear-cut quid pro quo between Trump and Putin to cooperate in stealing the election, but rather something more ambiguous and less transactional — partly because Putin intended to wound Clinton and didn’t imagine that Trump could actually win. Yet I wouldn’t be surprised if the Trump team engaged in secret contacts and surreptitious messages, and had advance knowledge of Russia’s efforts to attack the American political process. And that would be a momentous scandal.
One reason I’m increasingly suspicious is Trump’s furious denunciations of the press and of Barack Obama, to the point that he sometimes seems unhinged. Journalists have learned that when a leader goes berserk and unleashes tirades and threats at investigators, that’s when you’re getting close.
3 thoughts on “The dots need to be connected”
I’m glad someone’s writing about this. I respect Rachel Maddow’s work, but Mr. Kristof has a larger audience. Ms. Maddow was more detailed in her report last week, though, by specifically following some of the money from Russia to the Trump people.
Two things I like about her: 1. The conversational way in which she provides exposition makes it easy to absorb. 2. Her method of fastening on a single piece of a story, or a little-covered story, and investigating it thoroughly makes her show stand out from the crowd of hour-long news/talk shows. She doesn’t try to cover all the day’s stories but normally has something important that the others didn’t cover.
By the way, I have some quibbles with Kristof’s column. 1. I disagree that there has been “too much focus on Jeff Sessions.” He may indeed be a red herring in the Moscow-Trump deal if there is one, but we should focus on any attorney general whenever he lies more than once about the same fact! 2. Steele’s dossier is a doubly important document now that he has surfaced and can be questioned. Senate Intelligence Committee chairman says he doesn’t think it necessary to question him! 3. Kristof’s “best guess” is that there was no “quid pro quo” between Team Trump and Team Putin. Can’t imagine why he guesses that. I think the body of circumstantial evidence suggests there probably was (or continues to be) a quid pro quo.