Commenter Cassander has brought to my attention a fascinating article written by J. E. Dyer. In her article, For The Spygate Probe, It’s Not Necessarily Indictments We Want – Now Or Later, Dyer argues that we may well be better off trading knowledge for indictments. In other words, she maintains that the most important outcome for the good of our republic is that the American people should be educated regarding the full facts behind the agenda that led to the events that we have come to know as the Russia Hoax. That desired outcome, she argues, could actually be derailed by a single minded pursuit of indictments.
Before I explain why I disagree with that assessment, I'll review the background that Dyer sets forth, and with which I wholeheartedly agree.
Dyer argues that the motives behind the Russia Hoax have been widely misunderstood. She maintains that the Russia Hoax must be viewed as part of a broader and trans-national effort directed against what has broadly been termed "populism":
... it is instructive – indeed, essential – to extend our view abroad, and observe the similar animosity toward any leaders or national political forces showing signs of being “Trump”-like, whether the Brexiteers in the UK, the Salvini faction in Italy, the persistent gilets jaunes in France, the much-maligned “far right” leaders in Eastern Europe, or Jair Bolsonaro in Brazil.
...
... The project of Spygate was not to prevent Trump from being elected in 2016. The project of Spygate was to plant seeds for the aftermath of the 2016 election, whatever its outcome.
... It was about alarming the public, for a future with a much longer horizon.
...
It’s clearly not coincidental that there was a commonality of interests between certain U.S. officials and their foreign associates – all of them with government connections and working through “civil society” institutions – in places like the UK and Italy. The people involved didn’t just come together at the last minute to do something about the 2016 election.
...
Whatever that agenda is – that’s what the American people need to know about. (And the British and Italian people, for that matter.)
Certainly Dyer is correct in stating that what she calls "the urgency, recklessness, and sheer, demented vituperation of the operation against Trump" demonstrates that the Russia Hoax cannot simply be an operation of partisan politics--that preservation of an agenda far beyond the election of Hillary was at stake. Far beyond even "Obama's legacy." This big picture is a perspective well worth keeping in mind.
However, focusing more narrowly on the Russia Hoax, Dyer maintains that we need to focus closely on the "infrastructure" that made it possible. This "infrastrucure" must, she argues, be the central focus of all investigation--to the exclusion of indictments, if necessary:
