- Joined
- Apr 20, 2018
- Messages
- 10,257
- Reaction score
- 4,161
- Location
- Washington, D.C.
- Gender
- Undisclosed
- Political Leaning
- Undisclosed
After giving it further thought, I am curious. I have not kept up on this but I take the issue to have been over Russian interference in the US elections, and whether or not the Trump campaign colluded with them illegally (i.e. a conspiracy). As of last Friday, we know that to be true?
And, given that collusion is a necessary precondition to conspiracy (how else to conspire?) I don't think it significant that Trump and his attorneys claim that he didn't even collude...which, by the way, has been the initial basis of the partisan's dispute on both sides.
- The Russia investigation and Donald Trump: a timeline from on-the-record sources (as of July 18, 2018)
- How the Russia Inquiry Began
Red + Blue:
- As of last Friday and even today, that Russia tasked people and resources to the end of interfering in the 2016 election so as to aid and abet Donald Trump's winning has been established, is known. The main raison d'etre for seating the Special Counsel was to determine:
- What American citizens, if any, collaborated with Russian state actors and cutouts in Russia's interference in the 2016 election.
- With regard to citizens determined to have thus collaborated, the investigation's aim is to determine whether the nature and extent of their collaboration was conspiratorial, that is to say, criminal in nature and/or extent.
- What American citizens, if any, collaborated with Russian state actors and cutouts in Russia's interference in the 2016 election.
The investigation the Special Counsel leads may, as a matter of course, reveal potentially criminal activity (actus rei) that's unrelated to election interference. The Special Counsel has the imprimatur to investigate those acts and determine whether their nature and/or extent is criminal. An example of such acts are those for which Manafort has been found guilty and those to which Michael Cohen has pled guilty. As has been shown by the DoJ and Special Counsel's behavior, such matters may be given to other DoJ investigative units to pursue and some may not.
- Blue:
The "blue" phrasing is why I could not simply answer "yes" to the "black bold" question you posed.
The explicit focus of the Special Counsel's investigation has never explicitly been to determine "whether or not the Trump campaign colluded [illegally with Russia/Russians]." It has been to identify whether anyone did so.
The first sentence in this bullet point may seem to some as denotationally and connotationally identical to the "blue phrase; however, the two are materially different. Your phrasing necessarily implies the investigation has/had the predicate of Donald Trump having conspired with the Russians. It did not; however, insofar as his election is what the Russians sought to bring to fruition, and given his and his associates (campaign and otherwise) extensive ties/relationship to a host of Russian oligarchs and state actors, he is obviously/necessarily a subject whose behavior is being examined.
An important quality of the matters being investigated in the Russia Investigation is that they pertain to elections. Election matters can be of two basic dimensions:
- Domestic actors "messing about" to influence election outcomes. Such behavior is "typical" election fraud (what's going on in NC is an example) and funding violations.
- International actors, with or without US actors' involvement, covertly acting (via messaging or other means) to influence election outcomes.
This thread's OP posits that among the information Flynn provided is info that pertains to Russia having somehow to some extent infiltrated/compromised US national security. The reasons I have are noted in my OP. I'm aware that I may well be wrong as right for I haven't USIC experience. I do have enough life experience to know the gov't typically says nothing about IC-related ongoings and I know that IC matters involving foreigners can be combated, but rarely, if ever prosecuted as crimes. I know of no other wrongdoing that simply cannot and would not be prosecuted.