Did the Trump campaign collude with the Russkies?


As stated above, this familiar question doesn't exactly make sense:
Last Friday morning, Professor Goodman tackled a nagging problem. In an op-ed piece in the New York Times, he criticized the widespread use of the term "collusion" in our recent discussions and debates.

"Can We Please Stop Talking About ‘Collusion’?" That's what the professor asked in his headline. Early on, he started trying to define the problem surrounding the ongoing use of that term:
GOODMAN (11/3/17): For one reason or another, “collusion” has become the term of choice for discussing what the Trump campaign may or may not have done with Russians. Those in the Trump camp use it regularly: “I did not collude, nor know of anyone else in the campaign who colluded, with any foreign government,” Jared Kushner told Congress this summer. “I did not collude with any foreign government,” Donald Trump Jr. said. “I deeply resent any allegation that I would collude with the oppressive Russian state,” the Republican strategist Roger Stone harrumphed.

It isn’t just those in the Trump camp, though, who have settled on using this word. Among the first to refer to collusion was John Podesta, Hillary Clinton’s campaign chairman, who raised the specter on “Meet the Press”: “I would argue that there’s very, it’s very much unknown whether there was collusion.” In that same week, Senator Harry Reid, Democrat of Nevada, said of Trump campaign connections to WikiLeaks, “So there is collusion there, clearly.” The term has been a touchstone ever since.
There is no question that this term has been in widespread use. For our money, the professor quickly got into the legalistic weeds when he started trying to explain what's been wrong with use of the term.

As a general matter, he notes that committing "collusion" isn't a crime—unlike, let's say, committing burglary or committing a murder. But we think his argument soon becomes narrow and hard to follow.

That said, the term is being thrown around in a promiscuous, imprecise way. A few notes here on the term "collusion:"

You have to collude in something: First, you can't engage in "collusion," full stop. You have to collude with somebody—in this case, with the Russkies, by which we presumably mean with Russian officials.

(While we're at it, please note the imprecise, promiscuous way the term "Russians" gets thrown around.)

Beyond that, though, you have to collude in something. If you're going to accuse Person A or colluding with the Russkies, you are going to have to say what the parties colluded in.

It has to be something illegal, unseemly, improper: When Jimmy Carter joined poor people in building low-cost houses, he didn't "collude" with them in that act. The term "collusion" implies that Person A and Person B have joined in some action which is illegal, unseemly, nefarious, improper or wrong.

In the current circumstance, the term routinely gets thrown around in ways which fudge that distinction. Consider one widespread example from last week:

To the extent that he tried to arrange a meeting between Candidate Trump and President Putin, was George Papadopoulos "colluding" with the Russkies?

It feels good to make such a claim; it makes us feel that our hunt for collusion is done. But in and of itself, on its face, there's nothing illegal or improper about arranging or holding such a meeting.

Example: Candidate Trump flew to Mexico City to meet with Mexican president Enrique Peña Nieto during the last election. On its face, there was nothing "wrong" (or even unusual) with such conduct.

It would be strange to describe such a meeting, in itself, as an act of "collusion." And yet, that's what cable stars were doing last week as they excitedly said that Papadopoulos had engaged in or suggested "collusion" when he lobbied for, and apparently tried to arrange, a meeting between Putin and Trump.

(Note: This is the way the children behave when they go on a stampede. Everything starts to look like an example of the deeply desired conduct.)

Donald J. Trump's blanket denials make no apparent sense: Stampeding pundits are eager to refer to all sorts of actions as "collusion." On the other hand, Donald J. Trump recently offered a trademark pair of tweets, in which he offered these thoughts concerning the criminal charges against Paul Manafort, an extremely junior staffer on his White House campaign:
Sorry, but this is years ago, before Paul Manafort was part of the Trump campaign. But why aren't Crooked Hillary & the Dems the focus?????

....Also, there is NO COLLUSION!
There is NO COLLUSION? How could Trump possibly know that? Conceivably, he could know that he himself didn't join with the Russkies in any nefarious activities. But how could be know that other members of his campaign engaged in no such conduct?

Trump's claims almost never make sense. Those on cable tend to be sad as well. In and of itself, an attempt to arrange a meeting with Putin wouldn't have been an example of "collusion" in any obvious way. This remains true no matter how much the gods of cable long for a simplified world in which their favorite story lines have prevailed.

Our cable stars just aren't real sharp. In truth, they're rather childish. They spend lots of time in makeup and hair. They may spend a bit less time sharpening their analytical techniques.


  1. "Trump's claims almost never make sense. Those on cable tend to be sad as well."

    Both make perfect sense. The establishment, struggling to overturn the election, creates a 'narrative', by repeating (in their typical goebbelsian manner) the same bullshit claims over and over.

    And the president, in his trademark style, is rejecting that 'narrative' and trying to advance another one.

    And that's it: the zombie discourse.

    1. I notice you didn't say Trump was trying to advance the truth...just another 'narrative.' And that indeed is the " zombie discourse."

    2. Imagine how much harder the establishment's struggles would be, if Trump hadn't named them to his Cabinet.

  2. Somerby spends half of this post defining the term "collusion":

    "The term "collusion" implies that Person A and Person B have joined in some action which is illegal, unseemly, nefarious, improper or wrong."

    All of us (well most of the commenters here) are native English speakers, and understand the word.

    If a campaign "worked with" Russians to sway the election (given the unsavory nature of their alleged activities), one might be justified in calling that collusion. There is enough fishiness there to justify the term "collusion", which arguably doesn't apply to charitable co-operation building houses. So much for the dumbness of Somerby's attempted analogy.

    But there's this, referring to Goodman:
    "As a general matter, he notes that committing "collusion" isn't a crime."
    And "But we think his argument soon becomes narrow and hard to follow."
    But it is precisely the legal (i.e. "narrow") definition that is important in Mueller's investigation.
    He is looking at (among other things) conspiracy against the United States, a type of "collusion" that is unlawful.
    Come to think of it, that isn't really that "hard to follow."

    Papadopolous's activities help us understand who knew what when. And he lied about them, like so many in Trump's orbit.

    1. The specifics of what various people did to collude may differ. It makes more sense for journalists to use an umbrella term such as "collusion". I have no doubt the lawyers will spell everything out very specifically.

  3. "Example: Candidate Trump flew to Mexico City to meet with Mexican president Enrique Peña Nieto during the last election. On its face, there was nothing "wrong" (or even unusual) with such conduct. "

    The example of Mexico is as stupid as it gets. Mexico didn't steal emails or buy Facebook ads or try to hack voting systems with the object of getting Trump elected, as Russia is alleged to have done.

  4. The narrative being promoted by the Democrats is McCarthyism. It's impressive that they were able to establish this narrative at a time when the Cold War is over and Russia is not our enemy.

    1. Manafort, Gates, Papadopolous:
      More to come. Tick-tock, tick-tock.

    2. It is a bit ironic that Roy Cohn and President pussygrabber bonded so tightly.

    3. If Russia were our friend, they wouldn't have hacked our election.

    4. Note clown David's illogic. He equates oligarch-controlled Russia to the communist Soviet Union to come up with his crummy analogy.

  5. This isn't hard. Russia is promoted as our "enemy" because it is hated by International Jewry, which controls the levers of power in the US.

    1. If Jews control the levers of power in the US, why have we never had a Jewish president?

    2. Hey shithead - it's obviously too hard for you. You don't think there are Russian Jews?

    3. Jews don't want a Jewish president - Jewish Power thrives when attention isn't paid to it. When it works behind the Goyim Curtain.

    4. @9:23 This is called circular reasoning.

  6. My heart was filled with remorse and pain for the past 7 months when my husband ended our marriage and went back to his EX lover because i was unable to give him a male child and also because our family doctor told us that i'm infected with Herpes Virus. I was so devastated and almost committed suicide. I asked everyone i knew for help but all my efforts were useless not until i was refereed to Doctor Casera by Oliver who i met online that he could be of help to me for he has helped her before. I got in touch with him and i poured out everything i had in mind to him and he promised to make me smile and make me live a better life by getting me cured from the Herpes Virus and also to help get my husband back with his powers between just 24 hours. I believed in him and to my very eyes, my husband came on his knees pleading for forgiveness to come back and rectify his mistakes and i was cured from the Herpes Virus and it was confirmed by our family Doctor and today we are living happily again. If anyone out there needs help of any-kind or to get cured from and diseases like Herpes Virus, Cancer, HIV, AIDS E.T.C should get in touch with the Doctor now for he will help you out.. E-mail: { Relationshipsolutionhome@hotmail.com } OR Call/text: +1 (518) 460-6400.

  7. i think trump is doing good, well that is my personal opinionplease no hater
    BlackCloud Clutches

  8. Hello everyone reading this testimony. I have been rejected by my husband after three(3) years of marriage just because another woman had a spell on him and he left me and the kid to suffer. One day when I was reading through the web, I saw a post on how this spell caster Dr irosi have help a woman to get back her husband and I gave him a reply to his address and he told me that a woman had a spell on my husband and he told me that he will help me and after 3 days that I will have my husband back. I believed him and today I am glad to let you all know that this spell caster have the power to bring lovers back because I am now happy with my husband. Thanks for His great work here is his email: drirosisolutioncenter@gmail.com Or call his number  +2348118829771, Contact Dr irosi and get your relationship problem solved. Great Dr irosi could also help you with the following:
    1) Love Spells
    2) Lost Love Spells
    3) Divorce Spells
    4) Marriage Spells
    5) Binding Spell.
    6) Breakup Spells
    7) Banish a past Lover
    8.) You want to be promoted in your office/ Lottery spell
    9) want to satisfy your lover
    Contact this great man if you are having any problem for a lasting solution
    EMAIL..... drirosisolutioncenter@gmail.com