Mueller May Find 'No Collusion,' but Still Find Crimes

[DonViejo]

Sen. Richard Burr’s comments were trumpeted by the president. He shouldn’t be so sanguine about semantics.

Barbara McQuade
02.14.19 5:26 AM ET
OPINION

“No collusion” has by now become a familiar refrain from President Donald Trump and his supporters to deny allegations of involvement with Russian efforts to influence the 2016 presidential election.

Senator Richard Burr, the Republican chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, said last week that his committee’s investigation has found “no collusion” between Trump and Russia, a statement that Trump promptly trumpeted on Twitter.

But is asking whether “collusion” occurred the right question? When I was in law school, a professor taught us that arguments are often won or lost by the framing of the issue. While it may be true that no collusion can be found, is that the same as saying that no crimes were committed?

“Collusion” is a word not generally found in the U.S. criminal code, with limited exceptions. Collusion is defined as a secret agreement for a deceitful purpose. In the law, it applies most often in the antitrust context, where two or more companies agree to fix prices at a higher level than would result from competition in the marketplace. That is not what is at issue in the Russia investigation.

Instead, Special Counsel Robert Mueller is likely looking at conspiracy, not collusion, based on some of the indictments he has already filed. His theories of election interference appear in two of his indictments, the case filed against the Internet Research Agency and others relating to the use of social media to influence the election (Russia’s “troll farm”), and the case filed against 12 Russian intelligence officers for hacking into computers and stealing email messages. In both cases, Mueller charged conspiracy.

more
https://www.thedailybeast.com/mueller-may-find-no-collusion-but-still-find-crimes?ref=home

[riversedge]

1. We can only hope that Mueller has more evidence than Burr and his committee have

[Hortensis]

8. :) No need to hope. We already know.

And we don’t know a fraction of it.

Just a defensive shot from Fortress Trump Where they’ve all gathered to battle.

[Botany]

2. THE STONE INDICTMENT SHOWS THE TRUMP CAMPAIGN DIRECTED COLLUSION

https://themoscowproject.org/dispatch/the-stone-indictment-shows-the-trump-campaign-directed-collusion/


Longtime Trump advisor Roger Stone has been arrested and indicted by the special counsel on seven charges, including obstruction, making false statements, and witness tampering. This is the first indictment that shows directed collusion from the top of the Trump campaign – potentially from Trump himself.

snip

Stone himself revealed that he communicated with then-chief executive of the Trump campaign Steve Bannon in October 2016 about the WikiLeaks dumps.

snip

Stone was a longtime business partner with Paul Manafort, and advocated for Trump’s selection of Manafort as his campaign manager.

snip

Stone was involved in more than just the email release: he was mentioned, unnamed, in the GRU indictment, which notes that the Russian officers asked Stone what he thought about a voter turnout model stolen from the DCCC. Stone replied it was “pretty standard.”

snip


A senior Trump campaign official was directed to ask Stone about WikiLeaks “after the July 22, 2016 release of stolen DNC emails.” By this time, the Trump campaign had reason to strongly suspect that WikiLeaks was linked to Russia, and a month later, they knew for certain.

snip

It has always been clear that Trump ran the Trump campaign—he was completely in control of his campaign team. The Stone indictment is the latest in a long string of indictments linked to Trump campaign associates, but it is the first to show such a clear top-down direction of collusive activity.

[bdamomma]

3. You may find this interesting

Malcolm Nance on Stephanie Miller yesterday and how the word "collusion" is being thrown around so much.

[Corgigal]

4. Might find conspiracy against the United State,

cause when you're charged they use legal terminology.

Stop getting played for a word. The media, besides thus article must do better,

[bdamomma]

5. K&R

nt

[manor321]

6. The headline is nonsense. The reality will be *bad* and the press will be shocked.

[democratisphere]

7. I believe the Mueller report will have absolute proof of collusion

and conspiracy with Russia in drumpf's illegitimate Presidential so-called win.

[Andy823]

9. I am sure they have a lot on trump

Whatever it is will be very bad for him. Whether or not it will get republicans in congress to stand up and do their job to help get rid of him is another story.

[Wounded Bear]

12. At the very least...

what they have on Trump will turn the 60% of the population not licking his boots solidly against him come 2020.

[NewJeffCT]

10. "Direct" evidence is not no evidence

see this great explanation from Rep. Eric Swalwell

Link to tweet

THREAD: Let's talk about direct vs circumstantial evidence. The law treats them the same. @SenatorBurr says there's no "direct evidence of collusion" b/w Trump & Russians. Put aside the fact that @MarkWarner doesn't agree w/ this. What matters is if there's evidence of collusion.

[Wounded Bear]

11. Dumb headline...Mueller has already FOUND crimes...

the only question is how many more crimes they find.

[spanone]

13. ...and Santa might be real.