D
Dim Bulb
Guest
Let me 'splain to you in black and white why this whole collusion thing is kind of a red herring and the result is pre ordained to be exoneration.
1. "Collusion" is not a crime. It is not punishable by any jail time or penalties. It is essentially a question of behavior. One person's "collusion" is another person's "sound business practices."
2. Accordingly, there will never ever be a conclusion from the Mueller report that says there was or was not collusion. There will be facts along the lines of: "A met with B on July 7, 2015 and discussed [fill in the blank]."
3. At worst, the conclusion of the report on the behavioral question of whether there was collusion will be: "A showed questionable judgment in meeting with B since A was engaged as part of a US presidential campaign and B was connected to the ruling powers in [fill in the blank]. (Note that this could be Russia and Manafort or Ukraine and Podesta, or whomever and whatever.)
4. The only crimes that may be referred to prosecution are what I would term "secondary crimes." If Manafort lied to investigators, that is a crime under 18 USC 1001, for example. Or if Podesta lied to FBI agents, then same same.
5. Even worst worst case if the President is named for obstruction of justice he will be an "unindicted co conspirator," just like in Watergate. I won't bore you with the reasons for this outcome other than to say that indicting the chief executive of the US is not a legally clear battle and unless he shoots someone on Fifth Avenue, the DOJ ain't taking that fight.
6. Even worst worst worst case the House brings impeachment articles, the Senate, just like in Clinton's case, won't vote in favor of it. Indeed, as was the case with Clinton, President Trump would just become more sympathetic and more powerful.
So at the end of the day, when the report comes out, it will be fodder for political arguments on both sides. Dems will argue it is proof positive of collusion and Republicans will argue it is full and total exoneration.
Full and total exoneration is essentially pre ordained if the question is "Was there collusion and will Mueller refer anyone in the administration for prosecution for it?" Because collusion is not a crime.
This doesn't mean that there wasn't questionable judgment and a bunch of idiotic behavior, but unless someone lies about it (or in Manafort's and Flynn's case failed to register as a representative of a foreign agent), it's essentially a political question.
Which means --- oh, joy --- the cable news shows will be able to amp up their ratings with more of the inane arguments on this subject we tend to see on this board. Like this whole stupid argument that Mueller is a flaming liberal (he's nowhere near it) and the even stupider argument that everyone he hired is a flaming liberal contributor to Obama and Clinton (2 out of 17 contributed although a few worked for Democratic administrations, a few worked for Republicans, and a few --- shocking! ---- worked for both). If you are making this argument you are ignorant about how things work in the Swamp. That's just hoo ha talk that makes cable news ratings go up and bolsters "collusion" arguments that are frankly moot, because as I've shown, there is no such thing as a crime of "collusion."
Nostradimbus has spoken.
1. "Collusion" is not a crime. It is not punishable by any jail time or penalties. It is essentially a question of behavior. One person's "collusion" is another person's "sound business practices."
2. Accordingly, there will never ever be a conclusion from the Mueller report that says there was or was not collusion. There will be facts along the lines of: "A met with B on July 7, 2015 and discussed [fill in the blank]."
3. At worst, the conclusion of the report on the behavioral question of whether there was collusion will be: "A showed questionable judgment in meeting with B since A was engaged as part of a US presidential campaign and B was connected to the ruling powers in [fill in the blank]. (Note that this could be Russia and Manafort or Ukraine and Podesta, or whomever and whatever.)
4. The only crimes that may be referred to prosecution are what I would term "secondary crimes." If Manafort lied to investigators, that is a crime under 18 USC 1001, for example. Or if Podesta lied to FBI agents, then same same.
5. Even worst worst case if the President is named for obstruction of justice he will be an "unindicted co conspirator," just like in Watergate. I won't bore you with the reasons for this outcome other than to say that indicting the chief executive of the US is not a legally clear battle and unless he shoots someone on Fifth Avenue, the DOJ ain't taking that fight.
6. Even worst worst worst case the House brings impeachment articles, the Senate, just like in Clinton's case, won't vote in favor of it. Indeed, as was the case with Clinton, President Trump would just become more sympathetic and more powerful.
So at the end of the day, when the report comes out, it will be fodder for political arguments on both sides. Dems will argue it is proof positive of collusion and Republicans will argue it is full and total exoneration.
Full and total exoneration is essentially pre ordained if the question is "Was there collusion and will Mueller refer anyone in the administration for prosecution for it?" Because collusion is not a crime.
This doesn't mean that there wasn't questionable judgment and a bunch of idiotic behavior, but unless someone lies about it (or in Manafort's and Flynn's case failed to register as a representative of a foreign agent), it's essentially a political question.
Which means --- oh, joy --- the cable news shows will be able to amp up their ratings with more of the inane arguments on this subject we tend to see on this board. Like this whole stupid argument that Mueller is a flaming liberal (he's nowhere near it) and the even stupider argument that everyone he hired is a flaming liberal contributor to Obama and Clinton (2 out of 17 contributed although a few worked for Democratic administrations, a few worked for Republicans, and a few --- shocking! ---- worked for both). If you are making this argument you are ignorant about how things work in the Swamp. That's just hoo ha talk that makes cable news ratings go up and bolsters "collusion" arguments that are frankly moot, because as I've shown, there is no such thing as a crime of "collusion."
Nostradimbus has spoken.
