Sunday, March 5, 2017

Trump, The Russians, and the Null Hypothesis

In the last six months, a nebulous and nefarious Russia-Trump connection has been dogging at the heels of our current president.  Conservatives are calling it conspiracy; liberals are calling it grounds for impeachment.  Yet, for all of the circumstantial threads, there has yet to be a smoking gun.

One way or another, the future of our nation hinges on the truth of the matter.  If, in fact, the administration is in cahoots with the minions of Vladimir Putin, then that's a threat to the integrity of our democracy.  If not, we owe it to the stability of our constitutionally appointed and duly elected government to do their jobs without this cloud hanging over them.  If not, everything they do will be viewed through the lens of possible collusion.

Let me be absolutely clear: I'm not happy about any of this.  It gives me no joy, regardless of how this turns out.  Either it has been the most reckless case of political innuendo ever, or our electorate have allowed an adversary to literally plant their cronies at the highest level of government.  Either way, this is an extremely dire sign of the state of our democracy and institutions.

I've written a series of short posts on Facebook, titled Debunking 101.  One of those posts was about the "Null Hypothesis".  It's an analytical approach where, being stuck on a problem, you work to prove the opposite is true.  If you can find proof of the Null Hypothesis, then you have to abandon your theory.  So that's what I'm going to do here.

Theory:  Donald Trump is NOT in collusion with Vladimir Putin.  
Likely Indicators:

  • Support for NATO - America's premier military counterpoint to Russia
  • Opposition to Russian aggression in Ukraine and the annexation of Crimea, most likely through supporting ongoing sanctions that have been levied in response
  • Actively supporting the Ukrainians in repelling Russian aggression
  • Condemnation of a Russian intelligence and propaganda campaign to influence our election in 2016
  • Statements clarifying the administration's position toward Russia
  • No associate connections to Russia or Russians
  • No financial connections to Russia or Russians
  • No philosophical connections to Vladimir Putin, Russia, or Russians
  • A sense of transparency and trustworthiness in general
If all, or even most of these are provably true, then we have to abandon the idea of the Putinized President.  

On NATO, the president has been quite muddy.  Since taking office, he has referred to NATO as "obsolete" but later expressed his support.  On the campaign trail, he was consistently anti-NATO.  His cabinet and VP Pence have worked to shore up the appearance of support for NATO, but it really remains to be seen which of the president's positions will emerge as the "real" policy.  

As for the Ukraine, the president has yet to make a public statement.  However, it is noteworthy that military action in the eastern regions of that country increased in the days following his first phone call with Vladimir Putin.  And no criticism has been heard from the administration in response.  The Russian version of the readout  of that call mentions the "importance of restoring mutually beneficial trade and economic ties," but goes no further.  We are told that Mike Flynn discussed sanctions during a phone call with the Russian ambassador, but we don't have any details about what was said.In a private, off-the-record meeting with a Ukrainian official, the president is said to have told her that he "would not abandon" the Ukraine.  Still there are no more details and no public statements.  We do have increasing evidence that elements of the Republican platform supporting the Ukraine were removed at the specific insistence of the president. 

On the subject of the Russian hacking and propaganda campaign during the election, the president made a single statement in public.  "He shouldn't have done it.  I don't believe he will be doing it more now."  That was in response to press questions on the subject in his first press conference after the election.  I understand that this is a politically awkward position, as he tries to defend the legitimacy of his election while simultaneously acknowledging the fact that the election itself was the subject of influence from a foreign power.  

On Russia in general, the president has been very equivocal.  He'd like to do a deal, wants to have better relations, but hasn't gone out and done anything to either blatantly soften or strengthen America's stance toward Russia.  Not much to go on here.  

When it comes to Russian contacts and connections, there's something you need to understand.  There is almost no distinction between private and government actors in the Russian system.  Communism may be officially dead, but all successful institutions in Russia operate with the explicit blessing (and to the benefit) of Vladimir Putin.  Private citizens often operate at the behest of the state, and the intelligence directorate is literally everywhere.  So when you look at associations, it's very difficult to separate legitimate private actors from state-sponsored ones.  

Still, you have a string of actors on this stage that raise questions.  Manafort is deeply connected to pro-Kremlin actors.  Flynn worked for state media, RT. Carter Page worked for and with GAZPROM.  Rex Tillerson is a recipient of the Russian Medal of Friendship.  And Wilbur Ross co-chairs a bank in Cyprus with at least one Russian Oligarch that is known to deal with vast sums of Russian money.  None of these high-level associations help disprove or even dissuade any Russian associations.  

Finally, we come to transparency.  There isn't any.  The president has either ignored or circumvented tradition and law that requires disclosure of finances and removal of conflicts of interests.  It's not unusual for large and wealthy companies and operators to use shell companies to compartmentalize and shield assets from liability.  But without tax returns and other disclosure, it's impossible to know where these rabbit holes lead.  The president has had a demonstrable issue with the truth in ways small and large.  In specific relation to Flynn and other revelations, there has been a pattern of strong denial until the point where the facts are revealed in the press.  These patterns make it extremely difficult to discern what is true in his statements.  

So, what are we left with?  There are definitely some nods toward the Null Hypothesis, but nothing particularly solid.  So, while we don't have a smoking gun in favor of the "collusion angle," we certainly don''t have enough to discard it either.  As American citizens, we must know the truth.  Party and politics aside.  All of us should be pushing our elected representatives to investigate the entirety of this matter as quickly and thoroughly as possible.  And we should all continue to gut check against the Null Hypothesis to make sure we aren't chasing shadows that just aren't there.  

No comments:

Post a Comment