The controversy over President Trump and Russia is, at base, a battle between rival conspiracy theories. To hear the president鈥檚 enemies tell it, he colluded with Vladimir Putin to get elected. Mr. Trump sees himself as victim of a plot, hatched by Barack Obama, to smear him as Mr. Putin鈥檚 Manchurian candidate.
At 6 a.m. on Saturday morning Mr. Trump opened a new round in this fight by claiming on Twitter that 鈥淧resident Obama was tapping my phones in October, just prior to Election!鈥� Many press outlets immediately denounced Mr. Trump鈥檚 tweet as baseless. James Clapper, who was Mr. Obama鈥檚 last director of national intelligence, seemed to agree: 鈥淔or the part of the national-security apparatus that I oversaw,鈥� Mr. Clapper told NBC鈥檚 Chuck Todd on Sunday, 鈥渢here was no such wiretap activity mounted against the president, the president-elect at the time, or as a candidate, or against his campaign.鈥�
Mr. Trump鈥檚 accusation and Mr. Clapper鈥檚 categorical denial can鈥檛 both be right鈥攐r can they? Mr. Clapper may be staking his position on a legalistic definition of the phrase 鈥渕ounted against the president.鈥�
What if the NSA was monitoring the calls of close associates of Mr. Trump who were not part of the campaign鈥攑eople who talked to him regularly? In mid-January both the BBC and McClatchy reported that on Oct. 15 a Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act court approved an investigation into Russian activities in the U.S. that focused on nameless Trump associates鈥攖hree of them, according to the BBC. Also in mid-January, the New York Times reported on 鈥渁 broad investigation into possible links between Russian officials and associates of [Mr.] Trump.鈥�
If we assume that the National Security Agency was indeed tasked, as a result of the Oct. 15 decision or in some other context, with monitoring the phone calls of three Trump associates, then it is easy to build a scenario whereby Mr. Trump鈥檚 accusation and Mr. Clapper鈥檚 denial are both true.
Who might be the targets of such an investigation? On the basis of publicly available information, let鈥檚 speculate: First, Roger Stone, an informal political adviser to Mr. Trump. Second, Michael Cohen, Mr. Trump鈥檚 personal lawyer, who in January helped generate a peace plan for Ukraine that the Times depicts as pro-Russian. Third, Mike Flynn, Mr. Trump鈥檚 former national security adviser, who in 2015 received money for a speech from the Russian government. All three had some connection with Moscow or its friends, so the idea that they were monitored is at least plausible.
Stipulating that they were, the government would find itself monitoring all of Mr. Trump鈥檚 calls with one of his political advisers, his lawyer and his national security adviser. Transcripts of those intercepts would be available to the Obama administration鈥檚 senior national-security officials. In this scenario, the tapping of Mr. Trump鈥檚 calls would be extensive, but Mr. Clapper鈥檚 denial would still be true鈥攁t least in a literal sense鈥攂ecause Mr. Trump wasn鈥檛 the direct target.
Critics of Mr. Trump have heaped special scorn on his claim that the theorized wiretaps were ordered by Mr. Obama directly. The former president鈥檚 spokesman issued a carefully worded statement that 鈥渘either President Obama nor any White House official ever ordered surveillance on any U.S. citizen.鈥�
In terms of bureaucratic procedure, the spokesman certainly has a point: The White House never directly generates FISA investigations; that task falls to the Justice Department, to then-Attorney General Loretta Lynch. It strains credulity, however, to believe that Ms. Lynch would have refrained from informing the president if Mr. Trump鈥檚 associates were indeed being monitored, since such an investigation risked exposing Mr. Obama to a grave accusation of domestic spying.
How valid is this scenario? At this stage, we simply do not know. Everything hinges on whether the press reports regarding the FISA investigation are true, on who the targets were, and on the scope of the surveillance. The Trump administration has asked Congress to look into the matter, so perhaps we will soon have more-solid information on which to make a judgment.
In any case, we already know more than enough to dismiss the claim that Mr. Trump鈥檚 complaints are 鈥渂aseless.鈥� The NSA鈥檚 collection of communications by Trump associates鈥攚hether conducted through a FISA investigation or simply as part of routine surveillance of foreign officials鈥攈as so far generated no evidence of an alliance between the Trump campaign and the Russian government. It has, however, generated a torrent of leaks fostering the impression of such an alliance.
President Obama took at least one direct step that could not help but deepen that impression. In the final days of his administration, he changed the regulations on the distribution of NSA transcripts, ensuring their wide dissemination across multiple agencies, while minimizing the effort to conceal the identity of American citizens accidentally caught up in the surveillance. Officials justified the step as an effort to protect information about malign Russian behavior from a coverup. That justification alone furthered the notion that Mr. Trump was allied with Mr. Putin, while the change in procedure served up fresh material available to anti-Trump leakers.
The president鈥檚 critics treat as outrageous any suggestion that senior officials in the Obama administration tailored NSA surveillance to assist them in their efforts to foil Mr. Trump. They would ask us, instead, to believe an alternative conspiracy theory鈥攖hat Mr. Trump is Mr. Putin鈥檚 puppet. For now, at least, the preponderance of evidence favors Mr. Trump.