Good question - let’s hope it happens soon.
Andrew McCarthy gives Collusion 3.0 its due. He has an open mind regarding the possibilities, which do not make out collusion with the Trump campaign. He is scrupulous with the details. His column performs a service. I think it is must reading. I continue to doubt that the Kremlin favored the election of Donald Trump, however, and we have yet to reckon with the Kremlin’s possible role in transmitting the dirt found in the Steele dossier.
Goldberg warns Times readers to contain their excitement: “It’s important not to get carried away, if only because a scenario in which the Russian investigation ensnares the N.R.A., probably the most influential conservative group in the United States, seems a bit too much like Resistance fan fiction, too delicious to be true.” It’s a warning that would have served Times readers well in the case of the Times stories retailing Collusion 1.0 and Collusion 2.0 as well.
Times readers aren’t giving up on Collusion 1.0 or Collusion 2.0. The process here is additive. Now we have Collusion 3.0. Scott Fitzgerald held that the test of a first-rate intelligence is the ability to hold two opposed ideas in mind at the same time and still retain the ability to function, but why stop at two opposed ideas? Times readers will test the outer limits of Fitzgerald’s proposition.