I see people are really losing themselves in this summary of the report. My take away from the report is that it seems entirely accurate based on the restriction placed on the summary. Specifically the below line in the footnotes:
1 In assessing potential conspiracy charges, the Special Counsel also considered whether members of the Trump campaign “coordinated” with Russian election interference activities. The Special Counsel defined “coordination” as an “agreement—tacit or express—between the Trump Campaign and the Russian government on election interference.”
This statement provides a very narrow window of what Special Counsel would consider "coordination or collusion". This entails that some tangible agreement was established between the two parties specifically on election interference. The likelihood of this is that in truth, some members of Trump's campaign got various information from various sources and may have even alluded to or used this information. However without a specific agreement this could not be seen as proper coordination as per the directive of the Special Counsel.
The second portion, obstruction of justice is specifically not charged due to the follow:
Generally speaking, to obtain and sustain an obstruction conviction, the government would need to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that a person, acting with corrupt intent, engaged in obstructive conduct with a sufficient nexus to a pending or contemplated proceeding. In cataloguing the President's actions, many of which took place in public view, the report identifies no actions that, in our judgment, constitute obstructive conduct, had a nexus to a pending or contemplated proceeding, and were done with corrupt intent, each of which, under the Department's principles of federal prosecution guiding charging decisions, would need to be proven beyond a reasonable doubt to establish an obstruction-of-justice offense.
This is of particular importance. Because the underlying crime of specific agreements with Russia were not present. The idea that there was obstruction to prevent the investigate of a crime that did not exist cannot be proven. In other words, Trump's opposition could be viewed as legitimate due the fact that this specific crime did not take place. In other words it cannot be proven that Trump was attempting to prevent an investigation into an actual crime, rather he could justify his actions in stating that he truly believed he did not commit a crime and was being targeted.
Now, ultimately this is important because it tells us two things.
1) It does not state that there were no crimes. However it does state that there was not a coordinated conspiracy. This is an important distinction to make.
2) Further it does not mean Obstruction of Justice was not committed. Rather, proving it beyond a reasonable doubt would be dubious given that "coordination" was not proven.
3) This does not state other possible crimes or even whether the President was aware of or approved of other actions by Russian nationals. Example, the campaign could have been aware of Russia activities but took no active part in the process, hence no conspiracy nor collusion. The full report will have this information documented, however the lesser indictments of other members of the campaign implies that these individuals were aware of Russia activities and in communication with various entities however not taking an active role in the processes of interference.
Log in to comment