Understand that if Trump had no intel suggesting Russia is committing crimes against us, in theory he could offer unilateral benefits in negotiations. If he knows they're attacking us, any such gift could be Aiding and Abetting. Understand *now* why Trump rejects the DNI's intel?
2/ One reason to *subpoena the interpreter* is to find out whether, knowing there is a "high likelihood" (the legal standard) that Russian officials are committing crimes against America—and that standard has been met—Trump is secretly offering unilateral benefits to the Kremlin.
3/ Whatever Trump says about Coats, he *is*—legally—on notice of Russia's crimes for the purpose of running afoul of the Aiding and Abetting statute if he offers anything a reasonable person would construe as an implicit or explicit inducement to Russia to continue its behaviors.
4/ I'd argue that nearly all Trump's offers to Putin have been so far outside what a reasonable person in his position would regard as fair or be told by experts was fair that his knowledge that Russia is committing crimes becomes a justiciable issue. A cybersecurity task force?
5/ What about Trump's offer to drop sanctions unilaterally? What about refusing to fully impose the new sanctions he's obligated to impose? What about endorsing without amendment Putin's obscene offer for DOJ and DOD to share confidential (even classified) information with Putin?
6/ So Trump is denying Russia's past/present crimes for a *very specific reason*. He wants to offer Putin unilateral benefits in negotiations and if he says "we're under attack" his hands to a degree are *legally* tied by criminal statute in terms of what gifts he can give Putin.
