"This is what a cover-up to a crime looks like," says House Intelligence Committee member Eric Swalwell (D-Calif.) about chairman Devin Nunes's mysterious White House assignation.
More accurately, this is what an amateurish cover-up to a larger and rather obvious crime looks like. Had the Trump campaign been innocent of colluding with Russian hackers and Putin-directed corrupters of the American electoral process, the Trump White House would likely be taking Robert Kennedy's advice; it would be hanging a lantern on this seemingly endless, daily headache of a problem. Instead, Trump is going out of his way to look guilty as hell.
Thus we turn from Robert Kennedy to the 14th century's William of Occam. Trump looks guilty as hell because — analyzed down to the simplest, most admissible level — he is.
Still, the administration's amateurishness in its cover-up is rather cringeworthy. Most recently (following a string of demonstrable lies from former and current Trump associates about their connections to Putin's Russia), the president has Nunes hanging from a Pennsylvania Ave. light post; Nunes's immediate supervisor, the Trump-enabling Paul Ryan, refuses against all logic to cut him down; the Washington Post has learned that Trump attempted to muzzle former acting attorney general Sally Yates, claiming executive privilege (she and "another witness at the [Nunes-canceled] hearing, former CIA director John Brennan, had made clear to government officials … that their testimony to the committee probably would contradict some statements that White House officials had made"); and Trump, this week, has persisted in tweeting highly suggestive signs of raw guilt, such as "Trump Russia story is a hoax."
No mere "hoax" has ever been, or ever could be, so elaborate in its counter-indications. Hence the longer and more heatedly that Trump protests his absolute innocence, the guiltier he looks.