No Collusion
Collusion – “a deceitful agreement or compact between two or more persons, for the one party to bring an action against the other for some evil purpose, as to defraud a third party of his right.” – Blacks Law Dictionary
Looking at the Black’s Law Dictionary definition of Collusion – it sounds bad, and it definitely sounds like it ought to be illegal. To participate in “collusion” means having a “compact for evil purpose” and to “defraud.” But as we have heard over and over again from the many attorneys that have peppered the media for the past two years, there is no US law against collusion.
Some of the Trump Campaign actions that are called “collusion” describe behaviors that might well fall under the definition of conspiracy against the United States under Federal Law (18 US Code §371):
If two or more persons conspire either to commit any offense against the United States, or to defraud the United States or any agency thereof in any manner or for any purpose, and one or more of such persons do any act to effect the object of the conspiracy, each shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than five years, or both.
It is not a “legal mistake” that the President, his attorneys, the Attorney General, and the Republican Congressmen and Senators who are defending him keep chanting the same mantra: NO COLLUSION, NO COLLUSION, NO COLLUSION. Since the term doesn’t have legal meaning, it’s a safe thing to say. No one is going to drag, for example, William Barr the Attorney General into court to determine whether he “lied” about collusion. There is no legal definition to lie about.
All of them should have read the Mueller Report (though Mr. Barr, hearing his answers to the Senate, doesn’t seem to have done so, and Judiciary Chairman Lindsey Graham admits he hasn’t completed the 448 page task.) I have; and while Mr. Mueller does not believe he uncovered enough evidence to satisfy filing charges under 18 US Code §371, there are lots of incidents of contact with Russia; with meetings, shared information, and joint benefits and goals. That’s evidence of conspiracy violating Federal law. That Mr. Mueller does not believe he has a case rising to the criminal standard of “beyond a reasonable doubt” is quite different than the NO COLLUSION battle cry.
But Bill Barr’s actions in misrepresenting the report, leaving his interpretation as the only available information for almost a month, has solidified the Trump talking point – NO COLLUSION. And what the President, his supporters in Congress, and the Attorney General are now doing is simply buying time. The longer that their “narrative” is unchallenged by the actual testimony of Special Counsel Robert Mueller, or White House Counsel Don McGahn, or the multiple other possible witnesses; the longer the NO COLLUSION false conclusion will set into stone.
I heard an estimate today that only three percent of Americans have read the Mueller Report. I get that: even though it’s important, 448 pages of legal document with enumerated footnotes is a lot to get through, along with work and life. So for many Americans, the only way to find out about the Mueller Report will be to hear it from Mr. Mueller himself, and the witnesses that he included.
We know the strength of spoken testimony. In the past few years we heard Hillary Clinton testify for eleven hours, James Comey testify to investigating the President, and Michael Cohen call his former boss a crook and a racist. There is a tremendous impact from hearing the spoken word. We heard them, and we will eventually hear Mueller, McGahn, and the others. It’s how America will learn, just as we learned about Watergate from Nixon’s White House Counsel John Dean and the man who revealed the tapes, Alexander Butterfield.
For the Trump forces it’s all about time. The longer they can stave off the investigation, the more firmly their false narrative becomes established, and the closer the election of 2020 will come. When we get within view of the Presidential election, we will hear the same false reasoning that Mitch McConnell used to stop President Obama’s nomination of Merrick Garland to the Supreme Court: “…we are within a year of the election, we should let the American people ‘weigh-in’ at the voting booth.” It’s the rationale that Mr. Trump has used to justify not releasing his taxes, and paying hush money to porn stars, and assaulting women: the people voted for me, so it’s over.
Literally, time will tell. The Courts are likely to rule in favor of the Congress in their fight for information, but it will take time, time that benefits Mr. Trump. That’s why it’s important for Democrats to campaign on more than just Trump in 2020. This issue may well be decided at the ballot box; for the sake of the nation, Democrats need to be in the right.
Addendum: Secretary of Treasury Mnuchin has just denied the Congressional demand for Mr. Trump’s tax returns. He is defying clear law (26 US Code § 6103 (f) (1)) but it just another part of the strategy – stall-stall-stall.
To read more on the House Ways and Means Committee and the President’s taxes Click this link.
a guy above reproach
given unlimited funding
who sent out 1000s of subpoenae
& about 500 search warrants
who interviewed about 500 witnesses
WHO HAD THE FULL FORCE & WEIGHT OF EVERY WEAPON IN A FEDERAL PROSECUTOR’S ARSENAL AT HIS DISPOSAL (may none of us ever be subjected to that)
concluded
the investigation did not establish that members of the Trump Campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities.
we are a nation of laws not men. & above that, we are not about charges. or evidence that does not rise to the level of criminality. we do not find people “innocent”; we find them “not guilty.” was there “some evidence” of conspiracy? sure. but from a legal prism, there’s either a chargeable crime, or there’s not. There is, admittedly, a 3rd path for one person: impeachment from the Presidency. You wanna shoot that shot? Go ahead. But there’s an old maxim, if you shoot for the king, you had best kill him (or something like that). and you know & I know how that one ends. Clearly Speaker Pelosi recognizes that.
I think collusion/ conspiracy is CERTAINLY dead legally. If Dems can make fodder with findings in 2020 politically, fair game. take him down. I’d prefer it, politically. have at it. but i’d really prefer to know how you are going to make our country better. b/c, as a swing voter in a swing state, that’s how I’m going to cast my vote.
As to obstruction, Mueller really spit the bit on that one. I still cannot say I’ve read the whole report (and 80+ % of the 3% who said they’ve read the whole thing are lying), but I’ll agree w you there is SUBSTANTIAL evidence of obstruction, except for one thing: there was no predicate crime. It defies logic that you can obstruct justice as to actions that were not, in & of themselves, illegal. I suppose there’s some narrow theoretical window, but, as you acknowledged earlier, the American people have more common sense than that. maybe that’s why Mueller punted: he knew he didn’t have a criminal case, and that it just made no damn sense, but he didn’t want to exonerate him, so he left it to Barr, to put him on the horns of a political dilemma.
I regret that this sounds like a defense of POTUS. Whom I despise, on personal, moral & political grounds. I am strictly arguing from a legal perspective here. #NEVERTRUMP.
So there’s this great interview from the Watergate era. Richard Kleindeinst was Attorney General, and a reporter asked him if he knew a newly reported fact about the break-in. Kleindeinst states the stats: 500 interviews, hundreds of agents, thousands of pages of testimony. The reporter then says – did you know this fact – Kleindeinst says “no.”
It feels like Mueller was restricted to the point of being unable to conclude any decisions. I do think the the Democrats in the House need to proceed with investigating, and impeachment if necessary – as an obligation of office rather than a political tactic. But I also agree that Democrats need to continue to advance the political narrative of healthcare, income inequality, the environment, gun control and the rest.
Those issues may not get a ‘moderate Republican’ to want to vote Democrat, but the results of the House investigations may well make it morally impossible to vote for Trump.