Recently, three former Trump campaign officials were charged with crimes uncovered during the investigation into whether the Trump campaign conspired with the as of yet publicly identified individual or individuals or entities responsible for criminal trespassing on various computer systems owned or in use by the DNC and the Clinton campaign, and theft of data from those systems.

Paul Manafort and Richard Gates were indicted by a Federal grand jury on twelve counts stemming from violations of the Foreign Agents Acts (FARA): failing to register as foreign agents, holding the proceeds in various off-shore accounts through control of shell entities, and laundering the money through mortgage schemes, failing to declare the proceeds on tax returns, and related conspiracy against the United States as icing on the cake.

George Papadopoulos was charged and pleaded guilty to making false statements about interactions with foreign operatives while a volunteer member of the Trump campaign as they relate to Russian contacts who claimed to be in possession of data in the form of emails regarding the dealings of the Clinton campaign.

The investigation began as one into whether the nature of the contacts between the Trump campaign and Russian nationals were for the purpose of collusion to impact the outcome of presidential elections. Curious about the legal definition of “collusion,” I took the opportunity to look it up in the online Black’s Law legal dictionary:

A deceitful agreement or compact between two or more persons, for the one party to bring an action against the other for some evil purpose, as to defraud a third party of his right Cowell. A secret arrangement between two or more persons, whose interests are apparently conflicting, to make use of the forms and proceedings of law in order to defraud a third person, or to obtain that which justice would not give them, by deceiving a court or it officers. Baldwin v. New York, 45 Barb. (N. Y.) 359; Belt v. Blackburn, 28 Md. 235; Railroad Co. v. Gay. 8G Tex. 571, 26 S. W. 599, 25 L. R. A. 52; Balch v. Beach, 119 Wis. 77, 95 N. W. 132.

Law Dictionary: What is COLLUSION? definition of COLLUSION (Black’s Law Dictionary)

“Collusion” in a legal since apparently is related to schemes of deception between two or more parties used in court, which in the context of offences alleged to have been committed by members of the Trump campaign is a term that is either irrelevant or very loosely applied. I think that the proper term to describe potential dealings between the Trump campaign and Russian nationals as they relate to the election would be “conspiracy” instead. The term “collusion” also involves an element of fraud that is related to the act, and as far as I am aware the validity of the data in the possession of Russian operatives has yet to be disputed.

Even as the incorrect legal term is popularly used in allegations against the Trump campaign conveying the idea that its members conspired with Russians to hack computer systems used by the DNC and the Clinton campaign and subsequently used the data stolen during the hacking to gain an advantage in the election, facts of the matter in public record are exculpatory to that point, establishing that Russian operatives were in possession of the stolen data prior to establishing contact with the Trump campaign. With respect to the allegation of collusion or conspiracy related to computer crimes between the Trump campaign and Russian operatives, there was no collusion or conspiracy including committing computer crimes in order to influence the election, and there is no publically available evidence that the Trump campaign was ever in possession of the stolen data or had influence in its disposition.

In short, despite the charges against former members of the Trump campaign that are unrelated to the allegations of collusion with Russians to commit election fraud, the presence of exculpatory facts render further allegation to that point as nothing more than malicious slander. Trump and members of his inner circle may possibly be nearly everything they have been popularly so accused or described with the exception of traitorous conspirators and cheaters in elections. At least that is the reality that I see.

The other point I have to make here is that politics is a nasty business with infinite possibilities for equally messy blowback along the lines of people in glass houses should not throw stones. According to reports we are now being tipped off to an unethical situation of the Clinton campaign having taken control of the DNC via financial rescue either shortly before or after the presidential primary season began, raising questions about the fairness of the primary election and management of DNC funds.

It is hard for me to imagine the party of a sitting president as popular as Obama as bankrupt. In the past I have questioned management of available funds with the respect to cyber security, but at the time I had no idea the extent of DNC financial difficulty that Hillary recently described in a talk show interview as “having no money to pay its bills, broke, bankrupt.” I wonder how this is possible, and if left to the imagination, improper use of funds it at the top of the list of suspicions.

There have also been reports questioning the propriety of a deal to sell uranium to the Russian Federation that was completed by the Obama administration. The conjecture appears to be along the lines of selling to the Russians uranium to nuke us with, with the participants in the deal leveraging it to benefit themselves. I am aware of negotiated anti-proliferation deals with foreign countries that include the Russian suppling materials to support peaceful use of nuclear technology, however, and I suspect that it might entail utilizing some portion of US supplied uranium. So there may not be anything improper about a deal to sell uranium to Russia. But I could be wrong, and would like to see more information about it.