Not a day goes by that some Leftmedia outlet doesn’t run a hit piece on Donald Trump’s administration, usually regarding supposed “collusion” with Russia. “Jared Kushner represents new front in Trump’s Russia tangle,” screams The Washington Post headline. The trouble is there’s often a shred — if only a shred — of substance to the charges, which makes them harder to rebut. This time it’s the president’s son-in-law, Jared Kushner, who’s in the media’s crosshairs.

Kushner, a 36-year-old real estate investor and developer, is one of Trump’s senior advisers — and one of the furthest left, at that. He has no particular expertise that suits him to his West Wing role, other than being related to the president. And the trouble evidently started even before Trump’s inauguration.

National Review’s Andrew McCarthy writes, “[Kushner] has no national-security or diplomatic experience, however, but was nonetheless chosen to represent the then-president-elect at a Trump Tower meeting with Russia’s ambassador the United States. That would be Sergey Kislyak, a wily Soviet-apparatchik-turned-Putin-operative, who has been at the game of picking America’s pocket for longer than Kushner has been alive. Retired general Michael Flynn, who was slated to become Trump’s national-security adviser, was also at the meeting. On the agenda was the establishment of a back channel for Trump-administration dealings with the Kremlin. In particular, according to the New York Times, the Trump transition team wanted Flynn to have access to a Russian counterpart to discuss Syria and other issues of mutual interest.”

Moreover, Kushner reportedly discussed (whether it was his proposal or the Russians’ is unclear, though Fox News reports it was Moscow’s suggestion) channeling communications through Russian diplomatic facilities in the U.S. In other words, Russian intelligence could have access to those conversations but American intelligence would not.

Back channels aren’t unusual in and of themselves, and neither is working with a geopolitical foe like Russia on areas of mutual interest. But the reported handling of it is colossally naïve — if the reports are true. After all, it’s worth emphasizing that The New York Times and The Washington Post continue to depend upon anonymous sources, and the Times couldn’t confirm the Post’s report.

A couple of questions: If Trump’s campaign colluded with Russia, why was setting up a back channel in December even necessary? It doesn’t appear to have been successful in any case. And why does the media obsess over this story about a meeting known to the FBI for months when Kushner is not the subject of any investigation? With nothing illegal alleged against a guy who’s not being investigated, what’s all the fuss about? We’ll say it again: The media’s Resistance™ is a strategic part of the mission to delegitimize Trump and derail his agenda. All the better when the mark is Trump’s family.

(Updated.)