> the thriving "new york times" did not report that they found absolutely nothing. what the "times" actually said was, quote, no evid"> > the thriving "new york times" did not report that they found absolutely nothing. what the "times" actually said was, quote, no evid" property="og:description"> > the thriving "new york times" did not report that they found absolutely nothing. what the "times" actually said was, quote, no evid">
times" for a reason. >> the thriving "new york times" did not report that they found absolutely nothing. what the "times" actually said was, quote, no evidence has emerged publicly that mr. trump was secretly in contact with or took direction from russian government officials. publicly. they may have found nothing. the government officials may have found nothing at all or they may have found a lot, but it hasn't been made public. we don't know. this is what i mean when i say that the news is a woefully incomplete draft of history. journalists are trying their best to get to the bottom of this, journalists and commentators try to fill in the holes with speculation and conjecture and all types of theories, but we do not have answers to the pressing questions posed by these two huge newspaper stories. sometimes i think about just how little we know in the moment when we're covering stories like this. i think back to the rnc convention, running into paul manafort, sizing him up, quizzing him about trump, and