THE MUELLER REPORT. (BARR SUMMARY LETTER). PART 4.

THE FIRST 4 POSTS EXAMINING THE MUELLER REPORT, WERE ARTICLES CRITIQUING ATTORNEY GENERAL BARRS SUMMARY LETTER ANALYZING THE FINDINGS. NEEDLESS TO SAY, IT WAS WHAT YOU WOULD EXPECT FROM A TRUMP APPOINTEE. 

As we examine the Summary Letter provided by ATTORNEY GENERAL BARR. IT IS JUST AS IMPORTANT TO FOCUS ON WHAT IT DOES NOT TELL US, AS MUCH AS WHAT IT DOES TELL US.

When speaking of RUSSIAN INTERFERENCE in the 2016 election, we have a problem:
There is the wording in the report, made public, which we can analyze. However, when we talk about information that has not been released, we only have the ATTORNEY GENERALS INTERPRETATION OF WHAT SUCH INFORMATION REVEALS.


QUESTION #1. RUSSIAN INTERFERENCE- IT SEEMS THERE IS A NOTICEABLE LACK OF INFORMATION CONCERNING WHICH RUSSIAN GROUPS, ATTEMPTING TO INFLUENCE THE 2016 ELECTION, CAN BE CONSIDERED SANCTIONED AND DIRECTED BY THE PUTIN GOVERNMENT, AND THOSE WHO ACTED INDEPENDENTLY.

QUESTION #2. HOW DO WE MEASURE THE INVOLVEMENT OF THE TRUMP CAMPAIGN, IN TERMS OF WHO HAD THE AUTHORITY TO COORDINATE OR REPRESENT THE REPUBLICAN NOMINEES INTERESTS. IN OTHER WORDS, WHO HAD THE CAPACITY TO LEGALLY SPEAK OR ACT FOR THE TRUMP CAMPAIGN?

WHY ARE THE TWO ABOVE QUESTIONS SO IMPORTANT?

ACCORDING TO THE SUMMARY LETTER, THE FOLLOWING IS THE DEFINITION USED BY THE SPECIAL COUNSEL IN DETERMINING POSSIBLE CHARGES AGAINST MEMBERS OF THE TRUMP CAMPAIGN.

The Special Counsel defined "coordination" as an "agreement-tacit or express-between the Trump Campaign and the Russian government on election interference."

IF THIS IS THE ONLY DEFINITION USED, THE SPECIAL COUNSELS REPORT CLEARS UP NOTHING, AND OPENS UP SOME DISTURBING POSSIBILITIES.

HOW SO?

IF WE ACCEPT THAT THE ABOVE DEFINITION IS THE 
SOLE MEASUREMENT FOR PROSECUTION, IT LEAVES US WITH  THE FOLLOWING POSSIBLE SCENARIOS:

SCENARIO #1- A RUSSIAN GOVERNMENT OPERATIVE ENLISTS A TRUMP CAMPAIGN WORKER WITH A PLAN TO AID DONALD TRUMP, BY GATHERING AND DISTRIBUTING INFORMATION THAT IS ANECDOTAL IN NATURE, AND FULL OF INNUENDO AND UNSUBSTANTIATED INFORMATION.

SCENARIO #2- A TRUMP ELECTION OFFICIAL APPROACHES A RUSSIAN NATIONAL,WHO CONDUCTS BUSINESS IN THE U.S. THE REASON? HE ASKS THE BUSINESSMAN IF HE COULD OBTAIN "SPECIAL INFORMATION" THAT WOULD AID DONALD TRUMP IN WINNING THE 2016 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION.

THESE ARE EXAMPLES, NOT ACCUSATIONS. THE POINT IS THIS: IF SCENARIOS LIKE THIS, OR OTHER SIMILAR ONES DID OCCUR, NO LEGAL ACTION WOULD BE TAKEN BY THE SPECIAL COUNSEL. WHY? BECAUSE IN NEITHER CASE WAS THE DEFINITION OF PROSECUTORIAL CONDUCT MET.

REMEMBER, IN THE ABOVE DEFINITION, THE "TRUMP CAMPAIGN," AND THE "RUSSIAN GOVERNMENT" HAD TO
BOTH BE INVOLVED, NOT JUST ONE. THE EXAMPLES OF A TRUMP CAMPAIGN WORKER, OR A RUSSIAN BUSINESSMAN,
SHOW US THAT "COLLUSION," OR "ELECTION INTERFERENCE" COULD OCCUR. HOWEVER, THE CONCLUSION OF THE TRUMP CAMPAIGN BEING INNOCENT OF SUCH ACCUSATIONS, AS THE SUMMARY LETTER IMPLIES, WOULD BE VALID, EVEN IF CRIMINAL ACTS WERE PRESENT IN BOTH SCENARIOS.