,
5 tweets,
1 min read
Read on Twitter
BREAKING NEWS (from NBC NEWS): Multiple Members of Special Counsel Mueller's Team Consider the "Evidence on Collusion" to Be "Very Compelling" mediaite.com/tv/nbcs-ken-di…
1/ This is why I wrote threads on standards of proof. Beyond a reasonable doubt is roughly 90% proof—but America *won't be OK* with having a president against whom there's 75% (say) proof of collusion with a hostile foreign power, and that's *before* the other 20 probes conclude.
2/ Moreover, Barr says that Mueller only looked at "conspiracy" (and "coordination," yes, but in a footnote Barr explains that, in effect, coordination was defined as synonymous with conspiracy) so Mueller's team saying there's "very compelling" conspiracy evidence is *shocking*.
3/ "Collusion" is far broader than a conspiracy charge, as bribery can be undergirded by collusive acts, or money laundering, or obstruction, or many other crimes. Conspiracy is a *narrow type* of collusion. So "very compelling evidence" of conspiracy means something specific.
4/ "Conspiracy" is the type of collusion the *fewest* people have accused Trump of—as it's considered unlikely compared to aiding and abetting, bribery, money laundering, illegal solicitation of donations, obstruction, and so on. If there's "very compelling" evidence of *that*...
