By "it", of course, I mean the investigation into whether or not there had been any connection between the Trump campaign and those Russians who were trying to interfere in some manner with the 2016 presidential election in the USA.
To be fair, "it" should be "them", because there are at least three such investigations going on. The FBI is investigating Russian interference, and is therefore following the insinuation that there was some communication between the campaign and the interfering types. There is also an investigation being done by the Senate and corresponding House committees that investigate that stuff. That makes three.
So I was watching the news, and there was a montage of different people in the media and on the left (but I repeat myself), all of whom must have gotten or been given the same talking points. I say that, because every single one of them, in referring to the investigation of the Trump campaign and the Russian election interference used the exact same phrase, to wit, the need to "get to the bottom of it."
Now, it behooves us to note that the investigations are actually of the Russian interference itself, and any possible links to the Trump campaign are tangential. In other words, they only exist because someone has insisted that possible links be investigated, even before they are known to have been indicated, i.e., by any actual evidence.
So when the left and the press (but I ...) keep insisting we "get to the bottom of it all", it equally behooves us to ask a logical question, to wit, "How do we know when we're actually at the bottom?"
You have three investigations into Russian election tampering, and those are likely to go on for a while as the different threads are unwound, although all three are perfectly capable of stopping the investigations now and declaring that, yes, the Russians interfered. Duh. We know that already, and we could have guessed that anyway, given that they have interfered in our elections for decades.
So let me pose this: There is a high likelihood that the Trump campaign did not collaborate with the Russians interfering with the 2016 election. I say that because, to date, none of the investigations has come up with a shred of evidence suggesting that there was any such collaboration. So if indeed that's a dry hole, what will it take for a leftist or a press member (but ...) to say we have actually hit bottom and can stop digging?
Can someone pleeeeeeeease ask one of the aforementioned leftists that question? Because the same people who insisted there was no "there" there regarding voter fraud, or Benghazi lies, or issues with Hillary's emails, and that we should stop investigating all that, have not yet indicated what would suggest that the investigations into collaboration could also be ended.
That's why I have such a problem with those screaming for an independent counsel to take this issue, or non-issue, on. Because while we know that there was indeed a break-in at Watergate, and there were all the things that Bill Clinton got impeached for, in this case there has been no evidence at all of any collaboration with the Trump campaign.
Independent counsels have tended to go on for a very long time, and chew up a lot of taxpayer funding. So while I think there is some value in an independent investigation, and dropping the other three as far as the campaign is concerned, we don't yet know if anything actually happened to investigate in the first place, let alone empanel a special prosecutor.
So if I were the FBI and the congressional committees, or whoever it is that appoints an independent counsel, I'd say this: "Sure, here goes. You're the special prosecutor. You have 30 days to find any evidence of collaboration as relates to the election (i.e., not just communication with individual Russians, of which there was logically some). If you do not find any compelling evidence relating to collaboration on the election, the investigation will cease after thirty days, you can go back to your day job, and we will declare that we have 'gotten to the bottom of it' and there is nothing there."
In fact, the FBI director, incoming, should do just that, and so should the congressional committee chairmen.
Holding breath ....
Copyright 2017 by Robert Sutton
Like what you read here? There's a new post from Bob
at www.uberthoughtsUSA.com at 10am Eastern time, every weekday, giving
new meaning to "prolific essayist." Appearance, advertising, sponsorship and interview inquiries cheerfully welcomed at
firstname.lastname@example.org or on Twitter at @rmosutton.