Collusion Skeptics Could Be Right And Still Be Wrong

The recent reports that Mueller is now specifically focusing on the possible conspiracy by the Trump campaign to promote and perhaps even help coordinate the release of the Democratic emails that they knew were illegally stolen has taken some wind out of the sails of the collusion skeptics. The case against collusion has been made many times by people associated with the Trump campaign and also as a journalistic exercise by Blake Hounshell.

Basically, the skeptics' theory rests on three major points. The first argument is that the Trump campaign was such a dysfunctional, disorganized affair that it is almost inconceivable that it could pull off something as coordinated and complex as colluding with the Russian. Jared Kushner best expressed this viewpoint when he reportedly stated,  "They thought we colluded, but we couldn’t even collude with our local offices". A corollary to this point is that the campaign also leaked like a sieve and it therefore seems almost impossible that something as important as colluding with the Russians could remain secret.

Secondly, there were clearly multiple attempts by the Russians to contact and work with the Trump campaign. The fact that the Russians felt the need to make what looks like constant approaches to various campaign officials indicates that the Russians weren't actually getting what they wanted and indicates no collusion was occurring. In addition, the contacts they did make were often with seemingly hapless and minor campaign officials like George Papadopoulos and Carter Page who were unlikely to be able to organize the collusion.

Lastly, so far at least, there have been no indictments from Mueller that even hint at any collusion by the Trump campaign. Flynn and Papadopoulos were simply indicted for lying to the FBI. Gates and Manafort were indicted on a variety of money laundering and fraud charges both before and during the campaign but not directly connected to it in any way. Gates' charges were dropped to simply lying to the FBI when he decided to cooperate. A number of Russians have been indicted for interfering in the US electoral process and more are expected to be charged with illegally hacking the Podesta and DNC email. So far only one American has been included in those charges and he was not associated with Trump's campaign. Jonathan Turley best expresses this skeptical viewpoint when he says, "After more than a year of intensive investigation by both the special counsel and multiple congressional committees, there is no direct evidence of Trump colluding with Russians. After roughly 100 criminal counts against 19 defendants and five plea deals with cooperating witnesses, there is no direct evidence".

Let's try to take these arguments apart one by one. Yes, there is no doubt that outwardly the Trump campaign was a dysfunctional and disorganized mess, largely because of the impulses of the man at the head of the ticket. On the other hand, the campaign also proved itself at being very adept at certain things that were deemed essential. Apparently Cambridge Analytica was able to precisely identify essential swing voters in swing states that counted. The campaign also managed to keep the meetings by Papadopoulos, Page, and Sessions secret for quite a while as well. In addition, it managed to keep the Trump Tower meeting between the Russians, Manafort, Kushner, and Don Jr. secret for many months, too. Paul Manafort also managed to keep his offer of briefings on the Trump campaign to a Russian oligarch in order "get whole" as well as a face-to-face meetings with that oligarch's representative and other Russians under wraps. Similarly, Don Jr. hid the fact that WikiLeaks had multiple direct contacts with him. Virtually no information about Trump's taxes or the structure and even profitability of his business has come out. His campaign managed to keep the Stormy Daniels payment secret for months and at least one other woman was silenced by a deal she made with the National Enquirer. So, when it comes to certain secrets that Trump wants protected, he has shown a pretty high capability of being able to do so.

And yet, that same chaotic nature of the Trump campaign could also explain why the Russians felt the need to make some many overtures to so many people in Trump's orbit, especially early on in the campaign. But the more interesting point is that the Russians apparently felt no need to approach any new Trump campaign officials beyond Papadopoulos and Page after the Trump Tower meeting and the appointment of Manafort as campaign chair. After that, virtually all the meetings between the Russians and Papadopoulos, Page, Manafort, and Sessions as well as the communications with Don Jr. seemed like relatively normal transactions, with the Trump campaign often initiating those meetings and engaging in back and forth between the two sides. So, while the selection of Papadopoulos and Page might indicate that the Russians were struggling to find a way into the Trump campaign early on, their attempts at any new recruitments virtually stopped once they began communicating directly with Manafort and Don Jr. while at the same time continuing to use Page and Papadopoulos as go-betweens.

Which takes us to the last line of defense against collusion - there has so far been no direct evidence of it presented. And the skeptics are entirely right in that regard. But these latest indictments of Russians by Mueller lay out the case for an original crime of illegal interference in US elections and illegal hacking of data. And that opens up the possibility that anyone who aided and abetted in that interference or the dissemination of data that was known to be illegally stolen could be charged with conspiracy, the legal equivalent of collusion.

Beyond that, however, is the mountain of evidence that already exists pointing to possible collusion or at least the probability that the Trump team is hiding something very damaging. That evidence includes the fact that George Papadopoulos knew early on that the Russians had hacked emails that they claimed were Clinton's although they really belonged to the DNC and Podesta. According to Adam Schiff, the Russians "the Russians previewed to Papadopoulos that they could help with disseminating these stolen emails." Don, Jr. was only to happy to have the meeting with the Russians when they promised dirt on Hillary and Trump campaign official Sam Nunberg told Ari Melber on MSNBC earlier this week that he had no doubt that Don Jr. immediately reported that meeting to his father. Coincidentally, within hours of that meeting being set up, Trump announced that he would be holding a press conference early in the next week detailing all of Hillary's crimes.

In addition, the GOP platform was changed in a way to specifically help the Russians at the expense of Ukraine, the only apparent change in the platform that was demanded by the Trump team. Trump himself spent much of the campaign hyping the WikiLeaks releases and praising Putin, even asking for the Russians to hack Hillary's missing emails. After the election, Flynn and Kushner were clearly signaling the Russians that they intended to lift sanctions. And there is still no real explanation for the multitude of contacts between the Russians and the Trump campaign, the number of which have apparently never been seen before between a campaign and a foreign power in modern election history.

In addition, there has been the constant denial by the entire Trump team that any contacts with the Russians even occurred. Some skeptics now say this is because Trump views the Russian story as denigrating his election victory. But Flynn, Manafort, Don, Jr., and others were lying about their contacts with the Russians long before the election even occurred. Even after the election, it would be simple to say that Trump had always expressed a desire for better relations with the Russians and all these meeting were about just that. It may not have looked particularly good, but it was at least a feasible story. Instead, every last one of them lied about their contacts until the proof came out. And not one of them reported the Russian approaches as required by law.

Is any of this absolute proof of collusion. No. And there probably won't be any absolutely irrefutable evidence of it either. Unlike Nixon, there will not be a tape of Trump laying out what he would give the Russians in return for their support during the campaign. But there is already a pretty alarming amount of evidence that indicates that collusion is a strong possibility. Moreover, virtually every indictment from Mueller, except for perhaps Manafort, has been full of surprises, especially in the detail provided. There will certainly be more surprises to come.

So, while everything the collusion skeptics say is true, the alternative explanation for everything they say as well as the preponderance of the evidence shows that something was going on between the Trump campaign and the Russians and the rational explanation for that "something" is some form of collusion. And we haven't even talked about obstruction of justice...