Donald Trump has made a critical legal breakthrough. After months of consideration, deep study, and watching Fox and Friends he has discovered something that was only known by everyone else on planet Earth: There is no federal crime called “collusion.”
And, of course, since there is no crime, in Trump’s very-good-legal-brain there can be no cover-up.
Only … no. Because not only is it perfectly possible to have the crime of obstruction even if there were no underlying crime, a momentary look at the a few other “leaked” documents—the indictments that Special Counsel Robert Mueller has filed against Paul Manafort, Rick Gates, and thirteen Russian operatives, and a number of Russian organizations— might suggest to Trump that while the word “collusion” doesn’t make the cut, there is another phrase that does. It’s called “Conspiracy against the United States.”
But if Trump and his Fox News handlers have suddenly resorted to this angels-dancing-on-pins argument, it’s clearly because a leaked list of potential questions from Mueller’s team—many of which point out what was clear months ago: The evidence to prove a conspiracy by Trump’s campaign has been visible all along.
There are some points in the supposed list of Mueller questions that point in intriguing directions, such as this one concerning Paul Manafort and his communications with Russian operatives while he was on Trump’s campaign team.
• What knowledge did you have of any outreach by your campaign, including by Paul Manafort, to Russia about potential assistance to the campaign?
Which certainly suggests that Mueller has followed the Manafort, Gates, van der Zwaan, “Person A” trail to definitively connect Manafort’s actions on the Trump campaign, to his ongoing relationship with Russian oligarch and Putin associate Oleg Deripaska, most of the questions on the list obtained by the New York Times concern familiar events.
• When did you become aware of the Trump Tower meeting? …
• What involvement did you have in the communication strategy, including the release of Donald Trump Jr.’s emails? …
• During the campaign, what did you know about Russian hacking, use of social media or other acts aimed at the campaign? …
• What did you know about communication between Roger Stone, his associates, Julian Assange or WikiLeaks? …
All of this points to a conspiracy that was spelled out almost from the moment that the first news about the Trump Tower meeting and the connections between the campaign and WikiLeaks became public. As was spelled out on this site last November:
- The Trump team was made aware of the emails.
- The Trump team was enthusiastic to meet about the emails.
- The Trump team agreed to the payment for the emails in the form of reviewing the Magnitsky Act.
- The Trump team coordinated with WikiLeaks to use the emails, even as they pretended that WikiLeaks was neither a “pro-Trump” or “pro-Russia” source.
That’s conspiracy.
And then returning to some other items in the New York Times’ list:
• Regarding the decision to fire Mr. Comey: When was it made? Why? Who played a role? …
• What did you mean when you told Russian diplomats on May 10, 2017, that firing Mr. Comey had taken the pressure off? …
• What did you mean in your interview with Lester Holt about Mr. Comey and Russia? …
• What did you think and do regarding the recusal of Mr. Sessions? …
• What efforts did you make to try to get him to change his mind? …
• What discussions did you have regarding terminating the special counsel, and what did you do when that consideration was reported in January 2018? …
• What involvement did you have in the communication strategy, including the release of Donald Trump Jr.’s emails?
All of which speak to the many levels of obstruction Trump has employed—and obstructing an investigation is a crime in itself, even if the ultimate findings of the investigation did not result in a finding of conspiracy.
But that’s not an issues. Because there was conspiracy.