[image error]Start with the assessment by the intelligence community that yes, Russia engaged in concerted efforts to interfere with the presidential election, involving cyber attacks and disinformation spread on social media, and furthermore that it was one-sided, aimed at undermining the Clinton campaign and promoting Trump.  Undeniably, there were lines of communication between the Trump campaign and Russian officials.  What the White House still denies, though, is that there was any coordination or cooperation.

Let’s make the assumption that the Trump campaign indeed colluded with the Russians, and consider how the circumstances mesh with that hypothesis.  As a premise, if you’re going to work with a hostile foreign power to influence an American election, you need to keep the informed participants to a minimum, because if dozens of low-level staffers get involved it will be hard to keep the secret.  Assume, then, a core of close advisors, inner circle only.  With that premise, look at three pairs of individuals.

First, we have Paul Manafort and Carter Page.  Both had blatant ties to Russia.  Manafort, Trump’s campaign manager for a period of time, was a paid lobbyist for a pro-Russia political party in the Ukraine.  Page, brought in to the Trump campaign as a foreign policy advisor by Jeff Sessions, visited Moscow many times and worked with Russia’s state-owned oil business.  In the famous dossier compiled by a former British intelligence officer, Page was identified as a major liaison between the campaign and Russia.  He traveled to Russia in July 2016.

After the Republican National Convention, when media coverage about Manafort and Page and their ties to Russia began to ramp up, both were disassociated from the campaign.  This was at a time before Russian interference with the election was widely known, though the question was in the air.  If they were involved in coordinating with Russia, removing them from the campaign would be a logical measure to deflect focus from the relationship.  At that point, they were expendable to the campaign but potential liabilities as news stories.

The second pair is Michael Flynn and Jeff Sessions.  Both were actively involved in the Trump campaign, and both were appointed to senior positions in the executive branch.  Between Flynn as National Security Advisor and Sessions as Attorney General, they had both the intelligence and law enforcement apparatus of the United States government under their oversight.

What they both have in common, moreover, is the pattern that when confronted regarding communications with Russian officials they both reacted with false denials, followed by a strategic retreat when contrary evidence came to light.  Flynn resigned and Sessions recused, without much of a fight.  Both suggested their contacts with Russians were innocent and not memorable, and Trump himself vouched for both, but they backed off in the face of publicity when caught in lies, without loud proclamations of indignation.

Flynn and Sessions are in a different category from Manafort and Page, because they assumed positions of responsibility in the Trump administration.  In that respect, the story is no longer zealous campaign operatives working angles for their candidate, but high-ranking government officials in a position to formulate and implement official United States policy found to be in a compromising position.  In other words, it looks less like complicity in Segretti-style dirty tricks on the campaign trail, and more like a quid pro quo.  So the billion dollar question remains, how much did Donald Trump himself know and how involved was he personally?  That brings us to our last pair, Jared Kushner and Donald Trump, Jr.

Kushner, notable as Mr. Ivanka, has a position as policy advisor in the White House.  It recently came out that he, along with Mike Flynn, attended a secret meeting in December with the Russian ambassador.  Perhaps it was all completely innocent, albeit secret, and though this was the same Russian official with whom Flynn infamously discussed the U.S. sanctions against Russia on the day they were imposed.  Trump Jr., in the midst of crunch time for the campaign last October, took time off to fly to Paris for a speaking engagement sponsored by an obscure organization notable primarily for pro-Russia sympathies.  Maybe he was offered a lucrative speaking fee and just really needed the money, and it may only be a coincidence that the event was sponsored by pro-Russian advocates.

Kushner and Trump Jr., of course, are not just campaign officials or political appointees.  They are family, who regularly and routinely have private time with Donald himself.  You might ask, too, what kind of businessman is Donald Trump, who made a fortune with casinos and real estate ventures?  Is he known for honest dealing and forthright competition, the kind of guy who might say well, we came up short but we gave it our best effort?  Or is he more the type to win at all costs, even if it means cutting some corners or engaging in questionable practices?

Before Russian hacking and manipulation became a focus, Trump was overtly making rather odd statements praising Putin and advocating better relations with Russia.  The official Republican platform on Ukraine was changed to soften opposition to Russian aggression in the Crimea.  Trump questioned American commitment to NATO, suggested joint efforts with Russia against ISIS, targeted China as the Asian threat, and proposed isolationist policies, all consistent with Russian interests.  He praised Putin’s restraint as “very smart” one day after Flynn discussed the new U.S. sanctions with the Russian ambassador.

As Russian influence in the election and the connection to the Trump campaign has continued to dominate the news, the reaction from the White House has ranged from histrionic to demented.  Trump insisted he won the popular vote, insulted the intelligence community, denounced accusations as the work of sore-loser Democrats, and declared the media to be purveyors of “fake news” and enemies of the state.  According to Trump, the real scandal is leaks of sensitive information, and Obama is the real villain who supposedly tapped the phones at Trump Tower.

All of this may just be the man’s reaction when his dignity is wounded by unfounded innuendo.  Or it could be a bully’s response to justified criticism.  The point is, it’s a lot more plausible that Donald Trump was fully informed and an active participant in collusion with Russia to influence the campaign, than to suppose his vocal pro-Russia policies have nothing to do with Russia’s concerted support of his campaign and the many contacts with Trump insiders.