A new understanding of 'collusion' and obstruction - By Jennifer Rubin
By Jennifer Rubin
Opinion writer
December 10 at 9:45 AM
Politicians, the press, President Trumps lawyers and White House staffers until now have thought of collusion as a plot operating in 2016 between then-candidate Donald Trump and Russians to manipulate the election. The Trump Tower meeting in June 2016 would be evidence of this, as would communications from Russians to Jerome Corsi to Roger Stone to Trump about WikiLeakss release of emails from Hillary Clintons campaign chairman. Trump calling for the release of stolen emails would be some evidence that Trump knew of it and approved it.
But what if collusion between Russians and Trump began much earlier in a plot to make hundreds of millions while Trump denied any deals with the Russians? Notice the word synergy in the sentencing memorandum filed by special counsel Robert S. Mueller III in the Southern District of New York. According to Mueller, Michael Cohen was contacted shortly after Trump declared his candidacy, in November 2015, by a trusted person" in the Russian government who could offer the campaign political synergy and synergy on a government level. A proposed meeting between Individual-1 (Trump) and Russian President Vladimir Putin would have 'phenomenal' impact not only in political but in a business dimension as well. Translation: Trump would get rich and get help to win the presidency, all thanks to a foe of the United States.
The definition of synergy is the interaction or cooperation of two or more organizations, substances, or other agents to produce a combined effect greater than the sum of their separate effects. In other words, collusion. If there is concrete evidence of Trumps approval (how could there not be?) to cooperate with Russia to make money and get some help, all of Trumps collusion denials crumble. Tying Trump to collusion in 2015 makes it interesting but nonessential to prove, for example, that he knew the Trump Tower meeting was ongoing. Knowledge of the overall scheme with a foreign power would be more than enough to incriminate Trump.
Now lets turn to obstruction. Obstruction, Trumps lawyers argue, cant be based on the presidents exercising his normal duties. I am in the camp of many legal scholars who think that is dead wrong. But what if firing then-FBI Director James B. Comey isnt necessarily part of the obstruction scheme? What Trump and every one of the Trump associates and family members from 2016 through the present did was to deny the existence of any ties between Russia and him. Trump frequently over-denies bad facts, so no deals becomes lightly looked when the facts come out about the Trump deal in Moscow. All of the alleged lying the false statement Trump dictated about the June 9, 2016, meeting, testimony by Cohen to Congress, testimony by Donald Trump Jr. to Congress, Paul Manaforts breached plea deal, etc. all seem to have worked to hide Donald Trumps original sin: his alleged synergy with Russia during the campaign. The plot to lie, to cover up has gone on, possibly, through this year when both Cohen and Manafort had contacts directly or indirectly with the White House.
Its an adage in law enforcement that if a very large group is lying about the very same thing, chances are there is a conspiracy to lie. Its hard enough to get two people to line up stories; its impossible to get a half-dozen or more to do so without some planning.
more
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2018/12/10/new-understanding-collusion-obstruction/?utm_term=.5b52e3b39b59