Jim,
From your post and the comment about “goalposts,” you give the impression that you haven’t read the piece. In it, I go back to how “collusion” was defined when the word first started popping up and how the GOP continually changed the definition over time as Trump’s contacts with the Russians became more obvious and damning.
I cite directly to Adam Schiff — the Dem’s apparent point-man on all things Russiagate — who routinely said that Trump would *not* be convicted of conspiracy, but that evidence of “collusion” had already been presented to the public. Mueller wrapped that evidence up in a nice bow.
I’d love to see a citation to someone like Schiff saying that Trump would be convicted of conspiring with the Russians. No serious Democrats were saying that he would be indicted or convicted.
You say that “we know” it’s not the case that Trump is a Russian asset…I’m not sure how you know that; Mueller’s report is a criminal report (he makes this clear in it when he says he referred intelligence matters to the FBI team in the Special Counsel’s office) and he does not come to any conclusions on counterintelligence matters. In the piece you cite, Boot does not say explicitly that Trump is a “Manchurian Candidate,” presents his own findings as “circumstantial” and not conclusive, and instead says that Trump *might* be an “unwitting agent” of the Kremlin. Experts can tell you the difference between that and being a “Manchurian candidate.”
The point of the piece is that Mueller’s report makes it clear that Trump engaged in criminal activity. He is trying to argue that his criminal activity of obstruction does not matter because there was “no collusion.” There clearly was collusion, by the definitions Trump and the GOP set out, by the definitions Democrats set out early on, and according to the actual Dictionary definition of the word.
Regarding the “frame-up job:” You are free to believe whatever conspiracy theories you want; a year ago, Trump supporters were promising that the IG report would reveal indictments for Clinton, Obama, Comey, and improper conduct by the FBI. The report revealed the opposite and criticized Comey for being unfair to Clinton. You need to ask yourself why no FISC judge has ever said the Carter Page application was improper, and why that application was renewed multiple times (meaning it was turning up active intelligence). Maybe also read Mueller’s report, who was tasked with investigating any crimes he came across, and apparently missed any impropriety involved with the Page surveillance. The IG report coming out soon is going to be a disappointment to Trump’s supporters.
