,
5 tweets,
2 min read
Read on Twitter
Wittes here catches up to what many of us have said for two years: Trump's obstruction was collusive. But it's not an either/or: the evidence tells us there was also pre-election collusion.
This article seems to hail from 2017—well before all we know now. lawfareblog.com/what-if-obstru…
This article seems to hail from 2017—well before all we know now. lawfareblog.com/what-if-obstru…
2/ Most Americans have heard of the idea of committing a crime "after the fact"; most Americans know that part of a conspiracy is the cover-up; most Americans know that Trump has deliberately taken actions that benefitted the Kremlin by making its actions harder to detect/punish.
3/ By way of (only one) example, I began discussing "aiding and abetting" well over a year ago.
Note what DOJ says: "It does not take much evidence to satisfy the facilitation element once the defendant's knowledge of the unlawful purpose is established." justice.gov/jm/criminal-re…
Note what DOJ says: "It does not take much evidence to satisfy the facilitation element once the defendant's knowledge of the unlawful purpose is established." justice.gov/jm/criminal-re…
4/ In PROOF OF COLLUSION, I trace Trump's legal responsibility not to aid or abet Russian crimes in detail. Nearly *all* of his obstructive behavior occurred *after* the date he had sufficient knowledge of Russia's unlawful conduct he was legally prohibited from facilitating it.
5/ While tonight's NYT news is about a counterintel investigation, the fact that by May '17 the FBI had a reasonable basis to think Trump's actions had the effect of aiding Russian crimes and endangering America *does* tell us something about Trump's potential criminal liability.
