últimas notícias

I’ll admit it: I’m a Russiagate agnostic.

I’m perfectly open to the possibility that President Trump (or his campaign) colluded with Russians to influence the outcome of the 2016 election, but I just want to see evidence that proves it.

Being agnostic about Russiagate is challenging for a political commentator. Russia has dominated the news for the past two years, and people on each side have passionate and confidently held views. It seems either they’re convinced that Trump colluded and attempted to cover it up, or they’re convinced that it’s all a nothingburger cooked up to delegitimize the Trump presidency.

On such a polarizing issue that’s played a central role in our political debate, it’s been difficult to take a wait and see approach before forming a strong opinion. But it’s also hard to feel confident about any narrative without knowing more.

In the absence of any report from special counsel Robert Mueller, much of the commentary involves speculation about what he does or doesn’t know. Those convinced Trump is being railroaded assume Mueller just keeps dragging out the investigation because he’s found nothing, while those convinced of his guilt assume Mueller is slowly and carefully building a case that will corner Trump.

I’ve been reluctant to get too far ahead of my skis in either proclaiming Trump’s innocence or declaring his guilt.

What’s made me particularly wary is that there has been a steady stream of stories that have been promoted as being “bombshells,” that either end up being corrected, and/or turn out upon further analysis and with the benefit of context, to be less dispositive than initially advertised.

A perfect example is the recent revelation in the New York Times that former Trump campaign manager Paul Manafort “shared political polling data with a business associate tied to Russian intelligence.”

When the news first broke, cries of “Wow!”; “OMG”; and “BOOM!” erupted on Twitter. CNN’s Chris Cillizza, a useful barometer of conventional wisdom, recounted the Times story and concluded, “ That. Is. Huge.”

But was it? Not so fast, said none other than Benjamin Wittes, a close friend of former FBI Director James Comey who called for Trump’s impeachment way back in 2017. Writing on his Lawfare blog, Wittes cautioned that the sharing of polling data could have just as easily been explained as being part of Manafort’s shady business dealings that involved peddling his ties to Trump rather than clear evidence of collusion.

“This is not to splash cold water on the story, which is certainly tantalizing,” Wittes wrote. “It is to say that Manafort’s lawyers’ general characterization of Mueller’s allegations about Manafort’s conduct in the context of a dispute over whether Manafort violated his plea agreement or not offers a highly imperfect window into Mueller’s understanding of that evidence and how it fits into the larger picture of interactions between the Trump campaign and the Russian state.”

After Wittes wrote that, the Times issued an embarrassing correction, which further undermined the idea that the story demonstrated collusion. The story initially said that Manafort had wanted his Russian contact, Konstantin V. Kilimnik, to pass along the polling data to Oleg V. Deripaska, described as “a Russian oligarch close to the Kremlin.” However, the correction said that Manafort had actually asked for the data to be shared with two Ukrainian oligarchs.

To be sure, the oligarchs are known to be Russia-friendly, so the correction does not necessarily disprove the idea that this had something to do with collusion. But it strengthens the case that it more likely has to do with Mueller’s investigations into Manafort’s business dealings.

At the same time, it’s quite possible, as some have suggested, that Mueller is holding his cards close to his vest, and actually has much more than he’s letting on. But there’s no way of knowing until it’s time for him to reveal his hand. In the meantime we’re just getting glimpses of random cards in the deck and speculating on the rest.

The speculation has been repeatedly wrong — even when it comes to something as basic as whether the investigation is nearing its conclusion.

I support letting the Mueller investigation run its course. And when it does, I’ll be able to form an opinion. Until then, put me in the agnostic camp.