THIS PAST ARTICLE TAKES ON MORE SIGNIFICANCE: THE 2016 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION: LETTING THE TRUMP CAMPAIGN, AND THE RUSSIAN GOVERNMENT, OFF THE HOOK.

 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.

THE CONCLUSION IS SIMPLY THIS: THE DEFINITION USED BY THE MUELLER COMMITTEE IS SO NARROW, WHEN REFERRING TO "COORDINATION" TO VIOLATE ELECTION LAW(S), THE TRUMP CAMPAIGN, THE RUSSIAN GOVERNMENT, AND JUST ABOUT ANYONE ELSE COULD HAVE COMMITTED ACTS OF "CONSPIRACY" OR "ELECTION INTERFERENCE", BUT WOULD NOT BE CHARGED UNLESS THERE WAS A FORMAL AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE TWO. 

THIS DOES NOT EXCLUDE AGENTS OF ONE, OR BOTH, ACTING INDEPENDENTLY WITHOUT THE "OFFICIAL " APPROVAL OF THE LEADESHIP. IN FACT, AGENTS OF ONE OR BOTH COULD HAVE BEEN "ENCOURAGED" TO ACT IN A CERTAIN MANNER TO BENEFIT THE TRUMP CAMPAIGN, BUT WITHOUT AN ACKNOWLEDGED AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE "OFFICIAL LEADERSHIP," NO ONE COULD BE CHARGED CRIMINALLY. THIS EXTREMELY NARROW DEFINITION ESSENTIALLY MADE "CONSPIRACY", "COORDINATION", OR "ELECTION INTERFERENCE" PERFECTLY LEGAL.