At the risk of oversimplifying, there are two broad “Russian collusion” theories. One lacks credibility. The other just got a slight boost when Jerome Corsi provided to The Washington Post what appears to be a draft statement of offense from the special counsel’s office.
Let’s call them the James Bond theory and the Austin Powers theory. The James Bond theory is fading. The Austin Powers theory may well be true.
The heart of the James Bond theory is the unsupported Steele dossier. This is the tale of collusion that has long captivated elements of the left-wing media — involving alleged “kompromat,” clandestine meetings, financial leverage and all the stuff of a classic spy story.
I’m sorry. I don’t buy it. Not yet. Not without actual, substantial evidence. Indeed, the evidence is so thin that it’s in the Trump team’s interests to keep it in the news. The media’s eagerness to fall for anonymous sources and lurid stories hurts their credibility. And it helps Trump.
But there’s another version of the collusion tale.
This is the Austin Powers theory, and it’s supported by actual evidence. This is the picture that emerges from the emails and documents publicly revealed so far. Under the Austin Powers theory, the Trump campaign had in its orbit and near-orbit a collection of comically inept grifters who were looking to gain any advantage they could — without regard for morality, law or common sense.
James Bond doesn’t respond like Donald Trump Jr. did, with “if it’s what you say I love it” in an unsecured email communication to a man who offers “official documents” from Russia as part of “Russia and its government’s support for Mr. Trump.” That’s Austin Powers–level tradecraft.
He’s been a prolific contributor to Alex Jones’ Infowars site. And now it appears that he’s in Robert Mueller’s crosshairs — mainly because of his communications with Stone and his alleged efforts to reach out to WikiLeaks.
The special counsel’s office alleges that Corsi denied these communications and deleted his email correspondence. The statement of offense makes it clear that Corsi knew his efforts to reach WikiLeaks “could be subject to investigation,” yet he did it anyway.
Whether the person is George Papadopoulos finding out that the Russians had “dirt” on Clinton in the form of “thousands of emails,” or Donald Jr. eagerly taking a meeting with an alleged Russian representative (in Trump Tower, no less), or Corsi and Stone working together to try to get information from WikiLeaks, the picture is remarkably similar — of amateurish, inexperienced and/or incompetent individuals in or close to the campaign thirsting for negative information about Clinton and not caring where they got it.
Indeed, if you’re a Russian interested in disrupting American elections and igniting anger in American voters, it seems there is no shortage of gullible partisans. Do you want to paint a picture of a compromised American president and his closest advisers engaged in Machiavellian plotting with our nation’s geopolitical foes? Then some on the left (including perhaps even some in the FBI) are all-in.
Do you want to dangle “dirt” in front of eager, grasping grifters — even to the point where they’re willing to meet with known Russian operatives and assets? Then those grifters are all-in. Do you then want their apologists and allies to justify this recklessness as mere “opposition research”? Well, you’ll find no shortage of those partisans either.
What’s the common denominator? Americans who are eager to believe the absolute worst about their political opponents — to the point that they’ll sometimes even reach out to real enemies to help make their case. When it’s a “Flight 93” election, all bets are off. Even our foes become friends to defeat the Americans we despise.