The debate around Russia’s influence campaign during the 2016 election has centered in part on the question of possible “collusion” between Russian intelligence operatives and members of Donald Trump’s team. This is an important issue to look into, both legally and politically, but it’s worth noting that while many of these past events are somewhat shrouded in mystery, evidence of ongoing political collusion is clear and obvious.

Just look at what Trump himself said today in Poland when asked to give a “yes or no” answer to whether Moscow interfered in the 2016 election: “I think it was Russia, and I think it could have been other people in other countries. Could have been a lot of people interfered.”

Watch: Trump is asked if he believes Russia interfered in our election, instead attacks Obama and the media. https://t.co/IrfviRPwru — Kyle Griffin (@kylegriffin1) July 6, 2017

He then follows up with some rambling attacks on Barack Obama and the media, before returning to the theme: “I think it was Russia, but I think it was probably other people and/or countries. I see nothing wrong with that statement,” he said. “Nobody really knows. Nobody really knows for sure.”

Meanwhile, the White House is resisting Senate-passed legislation to sanction Russia for election hacking, fired the FBI director for looking too hard at the Russia issue, and is reportedly contemplating how to return the Russian spy facilities the lame-duck Obama administration seized.

American law contains the concept of an accessory after the fact, a person who doesn’t participate in the commission of a felony but who nonetheless knowingly helps a person who has committed a felony to get away with it. Trump is doing the political equivalent of this, and has been ever since Russian involvement with the hacking of the Democratic National Committee emails came to light and Trump said instead that it could have been a fat guy lying on his bed. CNN’s Marshall Cohen has an exhaustive list of everything Trump has said about Russian hacking since the summer of 2016, and over and over again, the thrust of his remarks has been to call Russian culpability into question.

The relatively benign explanation for this is simply that Trump is uncomfortable with facts that he sees as being used to call the legitimacy of his election into question (less benign possibilities are also out there), but that hardly serves to exonerate him. At best, he’s acting to help Russia get away with serious wrongdoing because admitting that an unsavory foreign power wanted him to win would make him look bad.

Journalism often puts an unwarranted premium on the revelation of new secrets compared to simply seeing what’s out in the open. Leaks and investigations into the events of last year are interesting and important, but there’s an element of collusion that’s happening in real time right before our eyes.