Thread by @ThatShockratees

Go with me for a sec, on the Burr thing. There are several possible ways to define the central idea of Trump/Russia:

- conspiracy to steal election and put Trump in WH

- conspiracy to buy politicians with money-laundered Russian mob proceeds

- conspiracy to fuck shit up in USA

https://twitter.com/natashabertrand/status/1095358723806191617

Defined these three different ways, it would be perfectly legit to look at the same evidence and say “Yes, campaign colluded” or “No, campaign didn’t collude,” based on what you’d need to prove they conspired or colluded IN.

Now I must law-nerd digress. Conspiracy is the crime.

It’s a crime where you collude to accomplish a goal that’s criminal. It has two basic requirements: 1) an agreement to engage in criminal act(s) 2) some action that each charged defendant takes to further the goal of that agreement.

Let’s focus on “agreement.”

Say Burr and Warner frame the conspiracy as the third option - “to fuck shit up.” That’s the broadest. No matter what the intent of each player in Trump/Russia ultimately was, it was clear they’d all agreed to commit some crimes for the purpose of fucking shit up in the US govt.

The middle one is a little less broad. To agree to launder Russian mob money, you’d have to know or at least think it likely that it was MOB money. Lots of Trump/Russia players would fit in that narrower def, but some would be ruled out.

Now let’s look at the narrowest of all - Number One. “Conspiracy to steal election by electing Trump illegitimately.” If the criminal plan is defined that way, you’d have to intend that Trump WIN THE ELECTION in order to be a conspirator, or colluder.

So my original question: “How could Burr and Warner both look at same evidence, make two seemingly-opposite statements, but both essentially be acting in good faith, though with ulterior motives?”

Remember the video when Trump hears the announcement that he won? SHOCK.

Junior’s elated. Trump is stunned.

If we accept, as many do, that Trump NEVER INTENDED TO WIN, and that the whole campaign was (in Trump’s mind) designed to jumpstart his failing commercial franchise with political underdoggery, then Trump himself did not agree, and . . .

. . . .if the conspiracy’s defined that way, did not conspire, collude, etc. Def committed other crimes. But lacked the central element of the conspiracy - the agreement to the criminal enterprise.

You could argue against that. But it would not be lying for Burr to frame that.

In contrast, if Warner adopts one of the two broader views, it’s much clearer that Trump and his whole campaign conspired. But if the campaign was to lose, and jumpstart a business, then anyone in campaign not privy to steps taken to throw election is a non-conspirator.

What I actually suspect here? Warner and Burr have both agreed to disagree, FOR NOW, on the scope of the conspiracy, thus each placating their own base and focusing attention elsewhere, on the ppl who did the money crimes and info crimes and all.

Why? Think of that vid again.

Junior - elated.
Donald Trump - stunned.

There’s an overwhelming temptation to view Trump Sr. as the center of everything, because that’s how he views himself.

Drop that paradigm and you’ll start to see things you missed.