Let's get some definitions straight, so we are all on the same page.
The article says:
“If we write a report based upon the facts that we have, then we don’t have anything that would suggest there was collusion by the Trump campaign and Russia,” Burr told CBS.
Burr specifically states there was "no collusion."
So before we proceed with your side track, there are two points. One, if you want to make "collusion" so broad that you think you can prove it, then the literal statement he's making if taken at face value says that even by that standard it fails.
Second, he's far more likely to be suggesting that there is no evidence that supports any finding of illegal conduct in the broad area of what "collusion" could actually mean (since that's not an express crime). In that case, your breakdown of the definition of collusion really does not add anything.
So what is "collusion?"
Better question would be why do we care?
But the actual question is what did Burr mean by collusion.
"to collude" is to "cooperate in a secret or unlawful way in order to deceive or gain an advantage over others." (Emphasis mine.)
So to collude, you need to (at a minimum):
1. cooperate
2. in secret
3. to gain an advantage
You can also do it
a. in an unlawful way
b. to deceive
You may want to look at the definition of "obfuscate" while you are at it. As your goal seems to be to cast shade and confuse.
No one - and I mean no one - should care about any version of "collusion" that does not represent illegal conduct.
Otherwise, one could easily redefine most human business interactions as "collusion." They are often about cooperation, frequently secret until they have to be disclosed and almost always to gain advantage. Why then do we not call them collusion? Because when we use the word we almost always mean to draw the negative inference. You've separated those out to a separate section (why? classic set up for a motte and bailey).
Points 2 and a and 3 and b are separated by an "or," which means one or the other needs to be true in order for the word to apply. But one point must be true for collusion: cooperation. Without it, there is no collusion.
So, for collusion you need cooperation that is either in secret or unlawful, to either deceive or gain an advantage. Agreed?
No I don't agree that construction has merit. What I'd say, is you are playing a literalistic game to strip the meaning from a word that only has meaning in context. The "secret" concept has no real relevance with respect to Trump.
Did you ever agree for example that Clinton colluded with CNN for the debate questions? Clear cooperation in secret to gain an advantage, ergo Clinton colluded by that meaning. Can I count on you to prominently state that Clinton is guilty of collusion in the future?
So, does the information we have indicate that the Trump campaign cooperated with the Russians in secret to gain an advantage?
No.
If Manifort provided polling information to the Russians, then he (and therefore the campaign through him) was cooperating with the Russians.
Interesting, and this is why I said no above. You've made several assumptions that are not warranted. First, to my knowledge the redacted information that leaked that Manafort shared polling data doesn't actually say when he did it. Manafort was connected to the polling firms (he retained most of them), and its entirely possible that he had access to their data even after he was terminated by the campaign (for his undisclosed contacts with Ukrainians/Russians I believe - odd thing to fire your "spy coordinator" for).
Second though, you are assuming the tie into the "campaign." How did you show that? Is it not possible that Manafort was a bad actor (seems we have objective evidence that his conduct was illegal and deceitful in other contexts - cough - special counsel's charges)? How then did you make the jump?
Third, he provided the data to a business associate of his, for whom it has been
alleged he has
connections to Russian intelligence. Are you also assuming that Manafort was aware of those connections and intentionally sent them the data (of course you are!). Sounds like you are asserting Manafort was a spy (which if Mueller believed he'd have charged).
If not for a mutual purpose, why else would he provide such information, or even offer such information?
Well again, you've not expressed any analysis of how often such information is shared. Just from my own research it appears that internal polling data is routinely "leaked" by campaigns to people in the media and out for a host of reasons.
I can see a large amount of reasons a person would send the data to a friend or associate that asked for it. If you're honest I'm sure you can too.
Heck, even I've heard people talk about what their internal polling was showing before.
I also note, there is some dispute - based on what we know - whether what he shared was
public polling data or whether it was mixed (I haven't seen anything that clearly says it was all internal data).
Even if it was as payment, that still is cooperating (since we can assume what he paid for was something he wanted).
"Even if" lol
So your "proof" that this is "collusion" is that Manafort sent it, period. No matter why, it's "cooperation," would Manafort had to have been tortured for it not to be? Would it have to have been an error?
Is every leak of poling data (which happens virtually every day in campaigns) now collusion?
Was it well known that they were cooperating with the Russians? No.
Was it misleading to frame a question as if the assumption you are making is true? Yes. So to be clear. There is no evidence "they" were cooperating with the Russians. There is evidence that Paul Manafort sent polling data, that may have been public, at time when he may or may not have been part of the campaign to an individual Russian that it has been asserted is connected to Russian intell (but not proven) that Manafort had known an interacted with for years. No assertion of why (other than leaving the implication unstated).
Is there any evidence anyone else in the campaign knew about it? Not that we've seen.
Is there any evidence that the campaign authorized it or directed it? Not that we've seen.
So pretty safe to assume that "no one knew the campaign was cooperating with the Russians" because the campaign was not cooperating with the Russians ergo there was nothing to "know."
Trump Jr. (and purportedly Trump himself) lied about the nature of the meeting in Trump Tower to keep the true reason a secret.
I've actually expressly debunked this claim for you personally more than once. Trump Jr. flat out said he thought the meeting was to get dirt, and it turned out to be about adoptions. That's literally the opposite of what you are implying.
There is literally no evidence that the meeting had a "true reason" other than the Magnitsky Act.
Recently it seems to have been conclusively proven from Jr.'s phone records that he did not in fact call his father about the meeting.
Why do you keep reasserting a debunked conspiracy theory?
Manifort lied to the FBI about his interactions with the Russians. So it was done in secret.
Whether or not Manafort lied is just a question of fact. His attorneys certainly presented a reasonable argument that he had not intentionally lied. You might question why he would "lie" about specific details when the government had the actual electronic records and he knew they did. The lies on this topic are post cooperation agreement, not before.
I mean I'm assuming that's what you mean by "lied to the FBI" since all of this came out of the unredacted reply to the Special Counsels attack on his plea deal. I'm not aware, nor have I seen, an allegation that he was speaking to the FBI on this.
And secret from whom? Seriously, who is it secret from? You seem to believe that privacy is equal to secrecy. What's the basis for that? Both campaigns maintained appropriate secrecy and were trying to win the election, that doesn't mean we'd call them guilty of collusion.
Did they hope it would gain them an advantage in the election?
Did Manafort hope it would gain him a personal advantage? Actually seems more likely.
To turn this into what you want it to be requires a bunch more elements, which is exactly why I said you were making a lot of assumptions and its exactly why the statements coming out of the Senate are so damaging to your desires.
They had access to those other people, the ones that you'd need to make your case. If they can't draw a line, and worse if the Dems are admitting off the record they can't, it absolutely kills the argument you are making.
So, assuming the information above (among others) are correct, there was collusion.
I think for the reasons I laid out, if we agreed with you here, we'd have to relabel most of interhuman communication and cooperation as "collusion."
Now, I have repeatedly heard that collusion, in and of itself, is not illegal per our laws. IIRC, secret cooperation for illegal purposes has a different name: conspiracy. So whether the collusion was illegal or not is irrelevant. It is only relevant if someone is charged with conspiracy.
Since the only reason you want to use the word collusion is for a negative inference it's not irrelevant.
And since you can only get to collusion by effectively re-defining the term so broadly any time two people agree to cooperate they are "colluding" its not useful.
Now, to give Senator Burr the benefit of the doubt, he may not have been using the word "collusion" in the accepted way. He may have meant "conspiracy."
Or he may have meant that collusion as most people understand it, the version upon which the full negative inference is appropriate, and the illegality is in play isn't there. Bigger than conspiracy, smaller than every conversation held in private in human history.
But I think we can say to a fair degree of certainly that the Senate Intelligence Committee did not thoroughly investigate the Trump campaign to the extent that they can definitively state there was no collusion.
Lol. Again on what wold would this be the correct standard? Are you suggesting that the appropriate standard is guilty unless one can prove to 100% certainty innocent?
I think, the logical read, based on speaking to 200 witnesses that they eliminated all reasonable and probably lines of concern. And if they found no collusion, it for all practical purposes doesn't exist.
The Trump campaign contacted far too many people associated with Russian intelligence and exchanged information with them too often for there to be no doubt that there was no collusion.
You have cited 2 such potential instances. A one off contact with a Russian lawyer that has been asserted as a suspicious amount of Russian state clients (and who met with Fusion GPS before and after the meeting - remember the DNC connection right). And a long standing relationship of Manafort.
Are you somehow of the view that no one who knows a Russian is allowed to work on a campaign? Or that no one who's contacted a Russian is? You are aware that more than likely, every federal politician in America has been approached by Russian agents?
I would further speculate that the Mueller investigation will reveal other specific instances where the Trump campaign cooperated with the Russians in the hopes of influencing the election.
Of course you would "speculate" that. I think the definition that's relevant (from Merriam Webster) is "to take to be true on the basis of insufficient evidence."
It is a fine line between mere collusion and conspiracy, one that the Senate Committee may not have investigated enough to be able to distinguish. It will be interesting to see if Mueller's report shows any crossing of this line.
It's not a fine line. There are clear elements of the legal crime.
Collusion as you are trying to use it is meaningless, and quite clearly every politician on both sides of the aisle is guilty of the Wayward collusion standard with countless people many of whom are probably not American citizens.
