,
5 tweets,
2 min read
Read on Twitter
Just a clarification: Mueller found no chargeable conspiracy—and then looked at "coordination" under a definition identical to conspiracy. If, for instance, Trump was being bribed for his foreign policy—a collusive act—we'll find out (if at all) from one of the 20 pending probes.
1/ EDNY, for instance, is investigating—using, it appears, 4 cooperating Mueller witnesses: Barrack, Nader, Flynn, Gates—whether Saudi Arabia, UAE, Egypt, Bahrain and (yes) Russia were involved in an effort to bribe Trump via a "grand bargain" on sanctions and nuclear technology.
2/ If EDNY uncovers that Trump's foreign policy was the result of bribes set up by Broidy—whether the offer was made to Trump directly, or via Nader, or to Kushner via Nader or any one of a number of permutations—no will say it wasn't "collusion" because it wasn't Mueller's case.
3/ Bribery is—with Treason—1 of 2 enumerated impeachable offenses, whereas Conspiracy is not, and no one will say being bribed by a foreign power isn't collusion, so any sense we as journalists give to readers that the "collusion" question is closed is unintentionally misleading.
4/ I say this with *great* respect for @AriMelber—who's as good at what he does as anyone, and conducts his inquiries as close to how this lawyer at least wants to see them conducted as anybody on TV now. I hope this tiny suggestion for a tweak in language is taken in that vein.
