While this piece is more reasonable and nuanced than most of the five-alarm-fire "Russiagate" calls-to-arms, it's still based on a host of ill-founded presumptions. I'll respond to a few in this thread theweek.com/articles/78593…
It's become a core tenet of the Russiagate narrative that Trump's perceived personal affinity for Putin is just so WILDLY out of character. But... it's firmly *in-character.* Trump always behaves nicely toward people (including world leaders) who are nice to him 
Not saying that's a particularly enlightened way to behave, but the suggestion that it's this mysterious character trait which only Putin seems to induce is just... wrong. Trump has developed affectionate personal bonds with everyone from Macron, to Netanyahu, to Xi Jinping
Trump's attitude toward Putin is firmly in line with the traditions of American statecraft, for good or ill. Saying nice things to world leaders while in their presence is simply not abnormal in the least. Trump just adds a "Trumpian flare," and people freak the F out
That fundamental analytical flaw is worth underscoring, because it shows the entire storyline to be premised on a confabulation -- this "weird affinity" narrative. There's simply not sufficient evidence to conclude that Trump is a "cat's paw" for Putin
...especially when Trump has taken action after action directly *contrary* to Putin's interests. (We could go through the list: Ukraine, Syria, etc.) But that, of course, gets ignored, in favor of this superficial amateur psycho-analysis which modern punditry is so dominated by
Some on "the left" want to imagine that it's possible to accept the main premises of Russiagate, but with some critical distance, in such a way that will advance socialism. But take this one example of a premise that's been accepted. Has "democracy" really been "sacrificed"?
The notion that "Russian interference" has caused the death of American democracy is the exactly the kind of overblown nonsense which is central to Russiagate. To accept it is it to accept the core premises which underlie the entire overblown narrative
In short, you can't really pick and choose elements of the narrative which seem politically felicitous. At the narrative's very base are inescapable, noxious ideological assumptions. The idea that bringing those assumptions into the mainstream could benefit 'The Left' is fanciful
Fundamentally, "Russiagate" encourages a warped conception of how modern politics is constituted -- elevating fictitious enemies, christening fictitious heroes, sewing paranoia. Pretending that such a state of affairs is ever going to produce fruitful politics seems deluded
Is it an important issue? Well, it's dominated the public consciousness for 2+ years, so on that level it's "important." But it's also been extremely harmful, in ways that one Twitter thread could never encapsulate. Anyway, this debate is necessary, and it shall (sigh) continue
