A weekly window on the American political scene hosted by the Monitor's politics editors.

The Russia Report returns . . . from the GOP

The Republican-led Senate Intelligence Committee released a report on Russia's interference in the 2016 election. Like the special counsel's findings last year, it's no exoneration.

Andrew Harnik/AP/File
Paul Manafort, President Donald Trump's former campaign chairman, leaves Federal District Court in Washington on Nov. 2, 2017.

Dear reader:
 
Call it an August surprise. Or an October surprise that came early.  
 
The last volume of a hefty report on Russia’s attempts to influence the 2016 presidential election, produced by the Republican-controlled Senate Intelligence Committee, landed with a metaphorical thud in Washington inboxes on Tuesday. It was a bit startling, to say the least.  
 
The report contained more detail and direct language than special counsel Robert Mueller’s corresponding effort. Some examples:  
 
Then-campaign manager Paul Manafort represented a “grave counterintelligence threat” to the United States because he shared internal polls and otherwise communicated with longtime associate Konstantin Kilimnik, whom the report specifically identifies as “a Russian intelligence officer.”  
 
President Donald Trump told Mr. Mueller in written testimony that he couldn’t recall speaking with advisor Roger Stone about WikiLeaks and their leaked Democratic emails. “Trump did, in fact, speak with Stone about Wikileaks … on multiple occasions,” writes the GOP-led committee.  
 
Mr. Stone even drafted pro-Russian tweets for President Trump, and forwarded them to a White House aide under the subject line “Tweets Mr. Trump requested last night.”  
 
Yes, GOP Senators on the panel said the report did not find illegal “collusion” between the Trump team and Russia.  
 
Yet the Intelligence Committee document – like the Mueller Report – is not an exoneration. Much remains unknown, it says. The committee obtained “two pieces of information” which raised the possibility that Mr. Manafort was connected to Russia’s hack-and-leak operation – which, if true, would pretty much be … collusion.  
 
What the new volume may really accomplish is to undermine the October Surprise reporters already expected: the ongoing Justice Department probe, led by federal prosecutor John Durham, into the origin of the FBI Russia investigation.  
 
President Trump has promoted the Durham investigation, intimating that it could land a number of former officials, including high-ranking ones, in jail. 

But it’s pretty hard to read the Senate Intelligence report – approved, remember, by Republican lawmakers – and then agree with Attorney General William Barr that the Mueller probe was based on a “very thin, slender reed.”  
 
From Mr. Manafort to Carter Page, a former Trump campaign official the report describes as slippery, it’s clear how agents found the whole thing suspicious – and why they felt a need to investigate.  
 
“How exactly could the FBI not investigate such things?” writes Benjamin Wittes, a Brookings Institution senior fellow and editor of Lawfare.
 
 Let us know what you’re thinking at csmpolitics@csmonitor.com.

You've read  of  free articles. Subscribe to continue.

Dear Reader,

About a year ago, I happened upon this statement about the Monitor in the Harvard Business Review – under the charming heading of “do things that don’t interest you”:

“Many things that end up” being meaningful, writes social scientist Joseph Grenny, “have come from conference workshops, articles, or online videos that began as a chore and ended with an insight. My work in Kenya, for example, was heavily influenced by a Christian Science Monitor article I had forced myself to read 10 years earlier. Sometimes, we call things ‘boring’ simply because they lie outside the box we are currently in.”

If you were to come up with a punchline to a joke about the Monitor, that would probably be it. We’re seen as being global, fair, insightful, and perhaps a bit too earnest. We’re the bran muffin of journalism.

But you know what? We change lives. And I’m going to argue that we change lives precisely because we force open that too-small box that most human beings think they live in.

The Monitor is a peculiar little publication that’s hard for the world to figure out. We’re run by a church, but we’re not only for church members and we’re not about converting people. We’re known as being fair even as the world becomes as polarized as at any time since the newspaper’s founding in 1908.

We have a mission beyond circulation, we want to bridge divides. We’re about kicking down the door of thought everywhere and saying, “You are bigger and more capable than you realize. And we can prove it.”

If you’re looking for bran muffin journalism, you can subscribe to the Monitor for $15. You’ll get the Monitor Weekly magazine, the Monitor Daily email, and unlimited access to CSMonitor.com.