'Collusion' can be mere cooperation - and there was lots of that

By Jennifer Rubin January 22 at 12:15 PM

In connection with the Russia investigation, we’ve all gotten hung up on the word “collusion.” It is not a legal term. Collusion is not a crime. And the word’s definition encompasses a broad range of conduct. Collusion might consist of a concrete joint plan of action, reviewed and signed off by the involved parties, or it might consist of handing purloined materials to your allies. However, it can also be an informal kind of back-scratching where one side winks and the other helps. Call it “synchronization” or “cooperation.” Either way, it is only if such actions violate specific laws (regarding, e.g., cybertheft, campaign finance, etc.) that the parties have criminal exposure.

The term “collusion” has been thrown around so much, we’ve lost track of its meaning. When using the term, lawmakers and media seem to assume it must entail intricate, deliberate planning and explicit joint action. That’s why you often hear: “I see no collusion.” Nevertheless, the “collusion” between Donald Trump’s campaign and Russians may be hiding in plain sight.

For one thing, the June 2016 meeting for the express purpose of getting “dirt” on Hillary Clinton would fit even a more exacting standard for collusion. The Moscow Project explains:

The purpose of this meeting was to obtain information from the Russian government that was damaging to their opponent, explicitly as part of Russia’s broader government “support for Mr. Trump.” Top Trump campaign officials knew the purpose and participated. This latest revelation, with all the other information now known, confirms that the Trump campaign knew about the Russian effort to intervene in the election and encouraged and participated in the effort both in private and in public.

The undisputed facts about the June 9 meeting point to clear intent to coordinate with the Russian government’s covert intelligence operation to influence the election. The apparent eagerness on the part of the most senior members of the Trump campaign to meet with Kremlin-linked figures; the willingness to acquire and use material provided by the Russians; the failure to report the meeting to U.S. law enforcement; the subsequent repeated public denials that any meetings with Russians had occurred; the misleading statements made about the meetings in the face of evidence that they had occurred; and the denial of any Russian election interference demonstrated that the Trump campaign was a willing and capable partner with Moscow in its covert influence operations targeting the election

The crime(s) at issue would likely concern campaign finance laws. That’s the legal hook in the Russia investigation wherein “collusion” — or what we might call coordination or cooperation — becomes potentially criminal. (There is as yet no evidence that Trump officials assisted in advance in the hacking project to turn up embarrassing information on Clinton. That would invoke a host of cybercrimes.)

more
https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/right-turn/wp/2018/01/22/collusion-can-be-mere-cooperation-and-there-was-lots-of-that/?utm_term=.f3a9479016e0&wpisrc=nl_popns&wpmm=1