Trump says, “There was no collusion in the report” after saying that he’s, “actually a very honest guy” and I wanted to point out what the person writing the report wrote when they mentioned the word collusion.
Below is all the times that the word collusion is mentioned in the report by the investigators and not by Trump or anyone in his administration. (Which many posts on Twitter are referencing to the word collusion within the report, however in those instances, the word collusion is not actually being mentioned by the person, or people writing this report)
—
In evaluating whether evidence about collective action of multiple individuals constituted a crime, we applied the framework of conspiracy law, not the concept of “collusion.”
But collusion is not a specific offense or theory of liability found in the United States Code, nor is it a term of art in federal criminal law.
Like collusion, “coordination” does not have a settled definition in federal criminal law.
Potential Coordination: Conspiracy and Collusion As an initial matter, this Office evaluated potentially criminal conduct that involved the collective action of multiple individuals not under the rubric of “collusion,” but through the lens of conspiracy law. In so doing, the Office recognized that the word “collud[ e ]” appears in the Acting Attorney General’s August 2, 2017 memorandum; it has frequently been invoked in public reporting; and it is sometimes referenced in antitrust law, see, e.g., Brooke Group v. Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp., 509 U.S. 209, 227 (1993). But collusion is not a specific offense or theory of liability found in the U.S. Code; nor is it a term of art in federal criminal law. To the contrary, even as defined in legal dictionaries, collusion is largely synonymous with conspiracy as that crime is set forth in the general federal conspiracy statute, 18 U.S.C. § 371. See Black’s Law Dictionary 321 (10th ed. 2014) (collusion is “[a]n agreement to defraud another or to do or obtain something forbidden by law”); 1 Alexander Burrill, A Law Dictionary and Glossary 311 (1871) (”An agreement between two or more persons to defraud another by the forms of law, or to employ such forms as means of accomplishing some unlawful object.”); 1 Bouvier ’s Law Dictionary 352 1897) (”An agreement between two or more persons to defraud a person of his rights by the forms of law, or to obtain an object forbidden by law.”). For that reason, this Office’s focus in resolving the question of joint criminal liability was on conspiracy as defined in federal law, not the commonly discussed term “collusion.” The Office considered in particular whether contacts between Trump Campaign officials and Russia-linked individuals could trigger liability for the crime of conspiracy-either under statutes that have their own conspiracy language (e.g. , 18 U.S.C. §§ 1349, 195l(a)), or under the general conspiracy statute (18 U.S.C. § 371).
(Please, pay special close attention to when, where, and how much is redacted from this report.)
—
As you can see, they couldn’t use collusion as a legal term or a means of investigation, even though the investigation is completely hinged on and was created in order to “expose collusion” to no avail.
Trump was telling the truth, but seems to leave out self incriminating details that might have to do with the report, or what he’s done that he’s just not talking about, and might be purposely avoiding. This is natural, as self incrimination is encouraged to never be done in order to protect yourself. But, ask yourself this…. Why would anyone start an investigation based on a charge that doesn’t exist that has as many years in the field as Bobby Mueller does? Does this mean he’s incompetent? And if so, then why is he still employed with the government?
My question for Donald is that if you’re such an honest guy, why aren’t you coming clean about the hoax tragedies being brought to you by “alleged” crooks like George Soros and Jim Murren?
Mass Shootings are staged tragedies so people like George Soros can profit via put option stock trading. —Presidential Candidate: Chance Trahan
