I just read a commentary by politico.com’s Austin Wright and Ali Watkins, titled “Russia probes kick into high gear”. The first thing it tells me is that “the congressional Russia investigations are entering a new and more serious phase as lawmakers return from the August recess amid fresh revelations about contacts between the Trump campaign and Russia.”
Fresh revelations? OK, that would mean there is finally something worth reading about on the Trump/Russia collusion front.
But there is a problem. Having read through Wright and Watkins’ entire article, there are no fresh revelations mentioned. Not one. Zero.
Call me a pessimist, but when I read a teaser that promises new information on an evidenceless investigation, and there aren’t any, I tend to conclude the investigation is still evidenceless.
But here’s a part of the Wright/Watkins piece I do agree with:
The return of the congressional Russia probes also means the return of a phenomenon that has reportedly enraged Trump and caused him to lash out at GOP leaders: constant headlines about the latest incremental developments in these sprawling and unwieldy investigations.
There will be the daily, sometimes hourly, leaks about new witnesses, new lines of inquiry. There will be ominous cable news footage of lawmakers and witnesses disappearing into classified briefing rooms. And there will be grandstanding and bickering among members of Congress in both parties, many of them trying to capitalize on the Russia investigations to further their own political ambitions.
There will also be competition between three committees investigating many of the same issues and seeking testimony from the same witnesses — and doing very little to coordinate their efforts.
Yes, all that will most assuredly happen. Except, if there is no new evidence – you know, “fresh revelations” – to investigate, what is going to come of it?
Suppose one or another of the entities looking for something – anything – to pin on someone conclude that Paul Manafort, or Michael Cohen, or Donald Trump Jr. had a lot of contact with Russians. How does that prove that Trump and Russia colluded to steal the 2016 election?
Almost everyone around Hillary Clinton, including Clinton herself, her campaign chief John Podesta and his brother Tony, not to mention Hubby Bubba, has had significant contact with Russia. Does that mean Russia colluded with the Clinton campaign – unsuccessfully – to steal the election from Trump?
The bottom line here is that, if there is no new evidence, this is going to smell like the same mindless witchhunt we have endured for the past year. As it should.
Don’t these people have something better to do?
