with a column in today’s New York Times titled Connecting Trump's Dots to Russia.
He begins with this paragraph:
I enjoyed the show “House of Cards” but always felt that it went a bit too far, that its plot wasn’t plausible. After seven weeks of President Trump, I owe “House of Cards” an apology. Nothing seems impossible any more.
In his next paragraph, he makes clear his focus in saying this is Russian interference in the election. He does not follow what Maddow did last night in trying to get from there to the possible quid pro quo in what we are seeing in current American policy and administrative actions.
He is also not interesting in following every rabbit trail, as he notes
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 I might note that he seems to ignore that with a third contact between Sessions and the Russian Ambassador now known, in fact we may not yet know the full extent of Sessions and his contacts with Russians on behalf of Trump.
From here Kristof goes through a list of ten dots, numbered, whose connections he explores. He begins with
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.
and ends with
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.
Kristof provides us service in putting this in one column, even if it is not completely exhausted. There are items which some have tried to dismiss — Alfa Bank server, for example, by saying it could have been spam — to which Kristof consistently replies that we don’t know.
There are two more paragraphs after the tenth point quoted above. Here is the penultimate:
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.
Let’s parse both of those points. From Putin’s standpoint it would have been totally reckless to condition his actions on the assumption he could help elect Trump. That was unlikely, and as we know, happened very narrowly, and absent Comey coming out with the letter on emails on the computer of the husband of a key Clinton aide would NOT have occurred. That Putin did not like Clinton, even feared her, seems undeniable. To wound her, to weaken her, would be sufficient justification and anything beyond that welcome even if not expected.
That Kristof is pretty close to accepting the secret contacts, surreptitious messages, and advance knowledge is significant, in part because of the home paper of his column, as well as his own stature as a two time Pulitzer winner.
Then there is the final paragraph:
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.
While I am on record as warning of applying normal journalistic and political rules to Trump, in this case I agree with Kristof. Here I am reminded of one of the most interesting moments in the debates:
I thought at the time that Trump’s response was telling, and reconsidering it in light of what Kristof says in his last paragraph, I am even more in agreement that Trump’s reaction is one of someone being stung.
Attacking the press is NOT going to make this set of issues go away.
The question is whether our democratic system is robust enough that we will be able to get to the bottom of what has happened before it is irrevocably damaged.
Go read the Kristof.