Jonah Goldberg: Mueller report in, but collusion story may never end |
Featured Commentary

Jonah Goldberg: Mueller report in, but collusion story may never end

Special Counsel Robert Mueller walks past the White House after attending services at St. John’s Episcopal Church in Washington March 24.

The story is not over. It may never be over in our lifetimes. But an important chapter has come to an end, and it had a happy ending for the president.

Contrary to what we’re already beginning to hear from some quarters of the left, the Mueller probe almost certainly puts to rest the extreme version of the Russia collusion narrative.

If there were compelling evidence that Donald Trump clandestinely conspired with the Russian government, it’s safe to assume that Special Counsel Robert Mueller would have found it. And if he found it, he would have put it in his report. And if he put it in his report, Attorney General Bill Barr would have indicated as much in his summary.

Even if Barr were inclined to cover up such findings, he knows that the truth would come out, and that his career and reputation would be utterly destroyed.

But it does not — and really cannot — put to rest the softer versions of the collusion charge. Candidate Trump publicly called on the Russians to keep hacking away at Hillary Clinton’s emails. Don Jr. and the entire senior leadership of the Trump campaign took a meeting with a self-declared emissary of the Russian government to get dirt on Hillary (and then lied about it later at the president’s direction). Trump’s campaign manager, currently in prison, worked with Russian-aligned oligarchs in Ukraine. Various campaign peons and hangers-on were eager to cultivate relations with Russia.

Moreover, the ironclad conclusion of the intelligence community as well as the Mueller investigation found that Russia did indeed work to get Trump elected. The Trump campaign may have been dishonorably happy for the help, but that’s not collusion.

And let’s be clear: That is very good news. If you believed that Trump was a traitor, it’s one thing to want that exposed, quite another to want it to be true, which is where a lot of people ended up.

Those people will not go away, nor will they lose their adamantine convictions about the president’s fitness or legitimacy.

Which is one of the reasons why this will remain a never-ending story.

Like Hillary Clinton, Trump is an avatar in a broader culture war. We’re still hearing about Clinton’s emails. Why should we expect the clamor over Trump’s alleged collusion to end any time soon?

Beto O’Rourke, who, like most of his competitors for the Democratic nomination, is trying to personify the collective liberal id, simply ignored the news and proclaimed that he believed “beyond the shadow of a doubt” that Trump sought to collude with Russia.

Similarly, just as there are people irretrievably locked into the idea that Trump is illegitimate, there are legions of people equally committed to the idea that the probe itself was an illegitimate witch hunt, or, in the president’s words, an attempted “illegal takedown.”

Never mind that the same people who insisted that Mueller was a dirty deep-state operative doing the Clintons’ bidding are now celebrating Mueller’s integrity and thoroughness. (Last July, Rudy Giuliani called the probe “the most corrupt investigation I have ever seen.”)

Both the collusion and deep-state narratives have always been subordinate to the larger and deeper motives driving and sustaining political polarization.

A chapter has closed, but the story goes on. Because too many people need it to.

Jonah Goldberg is the author of “Suicide of the West.”

TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.