Quite a few years ago, I read (and still have a copy of) a book called Silent Coup, which sought to answer some of the questions and clarify some of the fuzzy areas surrounding the Watergate scandal.
In it, author Colodny reviewed a mass of facts surrounding Watergate. It did not exculpate Richard Nixon or his aides, at least in general, but it did provide a significant reinterpretation of the evidence. The summary at Amazon.com says, offered “revelations shocked the world and forever changed our understanding of politics, of journalism, and of Washington behind closed doors. Dismantling decades of lies, Silent Coup tells the truth.” It received high touts from President Gerald Ford and a number of people connected to Watergate. It was an intriguing read.
But time hasn’t been kind to Silent Coup. Several figures in the story, including one-time White House counsel John Dean, punching some critical holes in it. The biggest revelation in the book, the identity of journalistic source Deep Throat – Colodny built the case for Alexander Haig – fell apart when Mark Felt’s identity as the mystery man was released by reporter Bob Woodward. They tentposts of Silent Coup‘s story largely fell apart.
It was a cautionary note that came to mind reading the current book Proof of Collusion: How trump Betrayed America, by Seth Abramson. In this far more recent story – we’re much closer in time to the events described than the Watergate book was – the author spins for us the story of what happened in the relationship between Donald Trump and key officials in Russia. It, like Colodny’s book, builds a case: Here, that there is clear evidence of collusion between Trump and his campaign, and Russia.
There’s some temptation to draw a cautionary note from the Silent experience. The difference between the books, though, is also clear. Proof is an assembly of facts, a lot of them, are little is extrapolated from them.
Abramson is an attorney, and much of the book reads like a brief in a legal case. It’s not quite that dry (the material is a grabber), but it’s written in Joe Friday fashion, with much more emphasis on the plain and undisputed facts than on argumentation about them. Where the facts are not clear or undisputed, Abramson seems to be forthright about that too.
The caution is in how much information is still out there. In just the last few days, another critical piece of information – an acknowledgement, apparently, by Trump spokesman Rudolph Guiliani that Trump-Russia hotel negotiations continued right up to election day, rather than ending many months earlier as had been alleged – came into public view. More will be found by journalists, by congressional committees (we can only guess what the House may now unearth) and by special counsel Robert Mueller. How much more, we can’t even really guess.
And yet … so much is already out there that it’s hard to conceive how what remains could be very exculpatory. The assembly into a coherent chronological (roughly) narrative is what Abramson has done here, and the sheer volume of what we already know really is astounding. What he has written (as of before the turn of the year) is so detailed that it almost feels like a complete story. And it is very well documented; through much of the book, most sentences are footnoted, and the detail and backup are impressive.
The whole story won’t be told for some time to come. But Proof of Collusion does a solid intermediate job: It gives us a good framework for putting into place the information yet to come, and working out what it means.
As the title hints, it doesn’t look good. And its hard to see how it could, even if what we now know is all we know.