NY Times columnist admits 'how little evidence' there is to prove Trump-Russia collusion

New York Times columnist David Brooks admitted in his column Tuesday that, despite the dominant news media narrative that President Donald Trump’s presidential campaign had improper contacts with Russia during last year’s election, there is “little evidence” to suggest any criminal wrongdoing.

Ever since Trump defeated Hillary Clinton in last year’s presidential election, the dominant narrative from the left and mainstream media has been that Trump rose to the White House by some nefarious means.

Trump’s opponents for months have said that his campaign “colluded” with Russian operatives last year to undermine Clinton’s campaign — and ultimately American democracy. They point to meetings that now-Attorney General Jeff Sessions had with Russian Ambassador to the U.S. Sergey Kislyak.

But despite near constant coverage of the alleged collusion by the media, in addition to an active FBI investigation, there has been little evidence to prove the allegations are true, something Brooks admitted Tuesday.

"There may be a giant revelation still to come. But as the Trump-Russia story has evolved, it is striking how little evidence there is that any underlying crime occurred — that there was any actual collusion between the Donald Trump campaign and the Russians," Brooks wrote.

"There were some meetings between Trump officials and some Russians, but so far no more than you’d expect from a campaign that was publicly and proudly pro-Putin. And so far nothing we know of these meetings proves or even indicates collusion," Brooks explained.

In fact, Brooks wrote that in comparison to recent presidential scandals, like the Whitewater scandal from the 1990s involving former President Bill Clinton and then-first lady Hillary Clinton, the alleged Trump-Russia scandal pales in comparison in terms of evidence.

"[I]t has to be confessed that, at least so far, the Whitewater scandal was far more substantive than the Russia-collusion scandal now gripping Washington," Brooks wrote.

"I’m not saying there shouldn’t be an investigation into potential Russia-Trump links. Russia’s attack on American democracy was truly heinous, and if the Trump people were involved, that would be treason," he said. "I’m saying first, let’s not get ahead of ourselves and assume that this link exists."

Indeed, Brooks' position represents a break from the Times' own editorial board, which regularly pushes the unfounded idea of Trump-Russia collusion.

Just last month, the Times editorialized that links between Trump's presidential campaign and Russia "continue to pile up" before giving short exposés about on major Trump administration or campaign figures tie into the conspiracy.

They titled the editorial, "The Trump-Russia Nexus."

And over the weekend, the Times editorial board tore into Trump for allegedly being indifferent about Russia's alleged attempt to cyber "hack" last year's presidential election.

"A rival foreign power launched an aggressive cyberattack on the United States, interfering with the 2016 presidential election and leaving every indication that it’s coming back for more — but President Trump doesn’t seem to care," the board wrote.

Brooks concluded his column by agreeing with Trump over a recent tweet he wrote, where the president said that Democrats and the mainstream media "made up a phony collusion with the Russians story, found zero proof, so now they go for obstruction of justice on the phony story."

"Unless there is some new revelation, that may turn out to be pretty accurate commentary," Brooks wrote.