It is said the father of our country could not tell a lie.

Most people fancy themselves worthy of that claim. We bandy about the truths of our time, evoking the sources of information we esteem as true to bolster our argument when there are disagreements.

But there are still disagreements because colliding truths never convince each other of their validity. There is something in human nature that thwarts the desirable ability to change one’s mind as evidence arises. If there is something to be gained by dodging evidence, the temptation to ignore facts and maintain a lie usually wins the day.

Nowhere is mendacity more pronounced than in the political arena. And since we all depend on the integrity of those who legislate our circumstances, nowhere is honesty more crucial.

There is no faction that has a corner on official lying. As months pass, our government remains embroiled in a scandal of leaked e-mails, vague collusion, and secret meetings. Will the truth please come forward?

It’s a tug of war. Only one of two sides can win. Victory has nothing to do with the worth of one side or the other. It has everything to do with muscle. Sheer strength. The force of physics.

That’s fine for tug-of-war. But in national affairs and geopolitical diplomacy, truth matters a great deal.

In the matter of Russiagate versus wishful thinking, a beacon of truth is needed to locate and illuminate facts and evidence. Too many partisan minds harbor an antithetical desire to destroy the opposition regardless of the truth.

Here’s what we do know.

Last June, Donald Trump Jr. had a meeting with a Russian lawyer at Trump Tower.

In 2012, President Obama signed into law an act named for Sergei Magnitsky, a Russian lawyer who was imprisoned after exposing situations of fraud and graft and who died mysteriously, possibly as a victim of human rights abuse, in prison. The law blocked government officials from entering the U.S. and froze Russian assets in U.S. banks. In 2016, President Obama expanded the Magnitsky Act to exclude a total of 44 suspected human rights abusers worldwide.

Last July, Wikileaks released hundreds of e-mails to and from Democratic National Committee movers and shakers. The emails illuminated a plot to elevate Hillary Clinton over Bernie Sanders for the Presidential nominee spot. In a tacit admission of the veracity of the emails, Debbie Wasserman-Schultz resigned from her position as DNC chair.

On Dec. 29, 2016, President Obama ordered 35 Russian diplomats to leave the country and sanctioned nine individuals and groups for “malicious cyber-enabled activities” connected with the American election in November.

What a mouthful. But what does all this vague eloquence amount to?

Trump’s defenders cry “much ado about nothing” in the matter of the Trump Tower meeting last June. Trump Jr. now claims the only subject of that June meeting was the Magnitsky Act and what to do about it. Yet right after that tete-a-tete, candidate Trump boasted that he was on the brink of revealing incriminating information about Hillary Clinton. Coincidence?

Democrats still bruised over their loss want Russia punished for “meddling” in the election. What constitutes “meddling” — digging for dirt on the candidate, thereby infecting an already corrupt nominating process with a foreign layer of corruption? Tampering with electronic voting machines? A valid claim would involve compelling evidence. It has yet to materialize.

Some Clinton partisans have claimed last year’s Wikileaks dump was perpetrated by Russians. After months without proof, the claim seems like a deflection from an examination of the real reasons for Clinton’s loss, including her right-of-center, neoliberal policy positions. Not to mention the substance of the emails — a tale of deception and domestic “meddling” potent enough to cost the DNC chair her seat.

The timing of Donald Jr.’s discussion with the lawyer and Sr.’s boast cast doubt on the stated purpose of the Trump Tower meeting.

And the case for claims that Russia colluded in last July’s leak of DNC emails hasn’t the firm muscle of proof behind it.

A diligent examination of facts transcending partisan wishes sure would help.

Renee Gravelle is a Dunkirk resident. Send comments to editorial@observertoday.com