—
What is the Definition of Collusion — that should be the Question.
What are its “parameters” that make it a thing?
What are the “red lines” surrounding it — that must not be crossed, without Legal jeopardy?
Here are a few articles that attempt to hone in on those questions, and whether or not the members of the Trump inner-circle, managed to cross that Collusion “red-line” ...
The Donald Trump Jr. emails definitely show collusion. But collusion in what?
by Andrew C. McCarthy, Washington Post — July 12, 2017
Andrew C. McCarthy is a former federal prosecutor and a contributing editor at National Review.
[...]
Collusion can involve any kind of concerted activity, innocent or otherwise. Conspiracy is an agreement to commit a concrete violation of law.
[...]
The meeting took place at Trump Tower. The Russian attorney, whom Goldstone accompanied, was Natalia Veselnitskaya. She is a former regime prosecutor who now represents Putin cronies and lobbies the U.S. government to repeal the Magnitsky Act, a human rights provision enacted to punish Russia for torturing and killing a whistleblower. The act’s undoing is known to be a Putin priority.
Consequently, we now have solid documentary evidence that the Trump campaign, fully aware that Putin’s regime wanted to help Trump and damage Clinton, expressed enthusiasm and granted a meeting to a lawyer sensibly understood to be an emissary of the regime. Top Trump campaign officials attended the meeting with the expectation that they would receive information that could be exploited against Clinton.
That is collusion — concerted activity toward a common purpose. We can argue about whether the collusion amounted to anything, in this intriguing instance or over time. That is under investigation, and deservedly so. To my mind, though, it is no longer credible to claim there is no evidence of a collusive relationship. It is there in black and white.
[...]
Some take-away’s: the acts of traveling and meeting with foreign representatives, to get damaging information to exploit their opponent — with prior knowledge such negative info (aka “Dirt”) was offered — shows the intent to Collude. … Whether or not that offered dirt was delivered.
—
Here’s what another former federal prosecutor has to say about the elements of Collusion:
by John W. Schoen, cnbc.com — July 11, 2017
[...]
"We (now) have smoking gun evidence of collusion," said Paul Butler, a professor at Georgetown School of Law, and a former federal prosecutor. "That collusion becomes a crime under federal law if you solicit a contribution from a foreign national."
[...]
"If you solicit a contribution from a foreign national, that's a federal crime," Butler said. "A contribution doesn't have to be cash money. It could also be some kind of material aid like opposition research. With this tweetstorm this morning, Trump Jr. exposed himself to federal criminal liability."
Regardless of the criminal liability, the disclosures add to the political liability the White House faces from the ongoing Russia investigations.
"This exudes shadiness because they had a Russian connection from the get-go," said Michael Allen, a managing director at Beacon Global Strategies, a security consultant. "They knew or should have known that this was a terrible idea to have met with this person."
[...]
Some take-away’s: The offered deliverable that causes “a contribution from a foreign national” to become a crime — does not have to be “cash money”. Opposition research from a foreign national crosses that “red-line” threshold of a Collusion Crime.
—
And finally, even though I’m not a fan of this Conservative commentator, I have to give him credit for calling it what it is — the meeting between Russian operators and the Trump inner-circle ...
by Charles Krauthammer, Opinion writer, Washington Post — July 13, 2017
The Russia scandal has entered a new phase, and there’s no going back.
[...]
I was puzzled. Lots of coverup, but where was the crime? Not even a third-rate burglary. For six months, smoke without fire. Yes, President Trump himself was acting very defensively, as if he were hiding something. But no one ever produced the something.
My view was: Collusion? I just don’t see it. But I’m open to empirical evidence. Show me.
The evidence is now shown. This is not hearsay, not fake news, not unsourced leaks. This is an email chain released by Donald Trump Jr. himself. A British go-between writes that there’s a Russian government effort to help Trump Sr. win the election, and as part of that effort he proposes a meeting with a “Russian government attorney” possessing damaging information on Hillary Clinton. Moreover, the Kremlin is willing to share troves of incriminating documents from the Crown Prosecutor. (Error: Britain has a Crown Prosecutor. Russia has a Prosecutor General.)
Donald Jr. emails back. “I love it.” Fatal words.
[...]
The stunning take-away:
Bungled Collusion — is still Collusion.
When a Fox News talking head calls it Collusion, that the “empirical evidence” exist to back up those charges — well that’s saying something.
Next time your conservative co-worker calls it a “witch hunt” — tell them what Charles Krauthammer has to say on the Topic of Collusion.
That the Jr emails, and the subsequent follow-up to acquire Delivery — ARE Evidence of a Crime.
The crime of Collusion.
More Republicans should wake up — and smell the Subpoenas ...