A few more words about Democrats and “collusion”

The White House and Fox News want desperately for us to believe that the real collusion story is about Hillary and the Democrats, not Trump and his Republican Party. It’s diversion unworthy of mischievous toddler.

Team Trump (family, campaign staff) is alleged to have worked with Russians directly to hack into an opponent’s email systems and weaponize the fruits of that poisonous tree to influence American voters. There is much evidence to suggest that such an arrangement materialized or at least was pursued – including Trump’s own exhortation of Russians to hack Clinton’s emails and a meeting at which Trump’s most senior hatchet men attempted to achieve congress with Putin apparatchiks.

The Clinton Campaign, on the other hand, is alleged to have hired a US firm (or, more accurately, assumed some financial obligations after inheriting an ongoing opposition-research effort), which firm, in turn, was paying a former British spy, who in turn interviewed Russians in an attempt to discover the nature of Trump’s ties to Russia and Putin.

So Trump’s campaign was allegedly partnering with Russians to defeat Hillary, and Hillary’s campaign was allegedly trying to find out whether Trump was partnering with Russians. And we’re to believe that the two are morally, legally, or politically equivalent.

Let’s define collusion as working together to achieve improper ends. Suppose that one person conspires with the mob to engage in racketeering – and let’s agree that that’s collusion. If a second person (who just wants to know whether racketeering is going on) talks to mob-connected individuals to find out whether person one is conspiring with the mob, is person two also guilty of collusion?

When the FBI works with members of a crime syndicate to discover the nature and extent of its activities, is the FBI thereby colluding with criminals?

It’s preposterous, and only a fool could believe it.