Collusion Confusion

[Draggingtree]

National Review

Collusion Confusion

BY ANDREW C. MCCARTHY NR August 14, 2017, 

 

The question is, Collusion in what? Allegations of Trump-campaign collusion in Russia’s 2016 election meddling have always been studiously ambiguous. The controversy is the subject of a reportedly intensifying investigation by Justice Department special counsel Robert S. Mueller III. Yet collusion is too vague a concept on which to premise a prosecution. The criminal law concerns itself with conspiracy: an agreement between two (or more) people to commit a specified penal-law violation. Conspiracy is a crime. Collusion is two parties collaborating on . . . something. It takes two to tango, but if the pair just make goo-goo eyes, it’s not a tango, even if there’s background music.

The lack of an agreed-upon crime — in this case, between the Trump campaign and the Russian regime — would ordinarily be cause for shutting down an investigation. Indeed, it would be grounds for refusing to appoint a special counsel. Such an appointment is authorized under federal regulations only when there is evidence of a crime that the Justice Department is too conflicted to investigate legitimately.