Here's a *great* primer on the pre-election "Grand Bargain" that has expanded Mueller's probe from Trump-Russia collusion to Trump-Russia-UAE-Saudi Arabia-Qatar-Israel collusion. I'll say it again: this is the most important and complex story of our lives. nymag.com/intelligencer/…
2/ As you read this, remember there is criminal collusion (which often leads to a Conspiracy charge) and non-criminal collusion (which arguably is still impeachable as a violation of the presidential Oath of Office, and inasmuch as impeachable crimes may occur in covering it up).
3/ Trump's 2016 campaign engaged in criminal *and* non-criminal collusion, which often causes people confusion—especially as only *some* criminally collusive acts involve a charge of Conspiracy (others, other charges) and only *some* non-criminally collusive acts are impeachable.
4/ So a FARA offense could be criminally collusive, or Soliciting Foreign Campaign Contributions, or Bribery, or Money Laundering, or an act of Fraud (e.g. Wire or Bank Fraud) or an act of Conspiracy (with the underlying offense being anything from Computer Crimes to Espionage).
5/ Now imagine a foreign nation made repeated offers to illegally assist Trump's campaign—and a cabal of Trump aides decided to do everything possible to hide the meetings from American voters (which hiding would also benefit the offering nation). That'd be noncriminal collusion.
6/ The public evidence that has emerged from the Trump-Russia case already includes the broadest, most prolonged, most unpatriotic course of noncriminal collusive conduct in the history of U.S. politics—hundreds of lies told that aided foreign nations in covering up their crimes.
7/ We also have evidence of criminal collusion of the sorts I've already mentioned. But what Trump/his aides have done is *misdefined* collusion so it means ONE THING and ONE THING ONLY—Conspiracy (Before the Fact) to Commit Computer Crimes. But that's not what "collusion" means.
8/ So my new book is called PROOF OF COLLUSION because it *retrieves* the definition of collusion from the sinister twisting of it that Trump and his aides have perpetrated on America for their own ends (and that I fear some in the media have accidentally coddled by adopting it).
9/ Just so, when NEW YORK MAGAZINE discusses "the new Trump campaign collusion story" they're discussing *both* criminal and noncriminal collusion. Therefore, when they refer to "concrete evidence" they're playing Trump's game—redefining collusion in the narrowest way imaginable.
10/ *Real criminal cases* don't require what *political stories* do: a movie-ready "smoking gun" moment—either a confession or a "caught-in-the-act" reveal. Again, that's *not* real life. *Fact*: we *already* have *scores* of pieces of evidence that would blow a jury's hair back.
PS/ That said, before this is over we *will* have both confessions *and* caught-in-the-act reveals. Because the media knows that—and knows entertainment-hungry audiences demand such reveals—it's waiting until they arrive to say there's evidence of collusion. But there already is.
