Seth Abramson @SethAbramson Attorney. Professor @UofNH. Columnist @Newsweek. NYT bestselling author. Proof of Conspiracy @StMartinsPress: Analyses @BBC. Views mine. Mar. 23, 2019 5 min read

What I can commit to, in light of the chance we'll only see a sliver of the intel Mueller uncovered, is that if you read Proof of Collusion, then Proof of Conspiracy, you'll know more about what Trump, his family, and his aides did than anyone outside DOJ. 

1/ What this man, his family, and his aides did is criminal, harrowing, and would lead any reasonable observer to conclude that Trump, much of his family, and several of his aides are criminals who are a national security threat and need to be out of the White House immediately.

2/ I have written two books on this with 4,500 citations in total. I'm sorry that people who have done less research than me—and therefore know less on these topics—have a bigger voice. I can't do anything about that except present my credentials and all the evidence I have seen.

3/ Mueller brought 199 charges. Work ongoing in 5 other jurisdictions will almost certainly produce more. Congressional and counterintelligence probes could eventually produce still more. But as to Trump, this was always a *political* question—not a beyond-a-reasonable-doubt one.

4/ I focused my 2 books on the collusion and conspiracy questions—because as to obstruction even just the evidence that we had publicly was clearly enough to convict the average American. But as the question was always what Congress would do with that evidence, I left it to them.

5/ The question of whether Congress has sufficient evidence to impeach has also never been in doubt—whether it's on emoluments, abuse of power, obstruction, violation of an Oath of Office, or various forms of coordination with a hostile foreign power that attacked our elections.

6/ Follow me on this, as it's critical: whether there was or is *beyond a reasonable doubt* evidence on Trump on *conspiracy* is not only *not* the question that's ever been before us, but so far from the question that only Trump and his allies have pushed it as a key issue here.

7/ As to conspiracy allegations involving Trump, the only question was *ever* whether there was enough evidence to impeach—which there is—and it was *never* whether Bob Mueller would or even *needed* to make out a *criminal* case with a "beyond a reasonable doubt" level of proof.

8/ Having said that, what *does* confuse people is that Mueller had ample evidence for conspiracy on Manafort and didn't proceed with it, and cut deals with Gates/Flynn to help them avoid potential conspiracy charges but then didn't indict the man they would've given up: Kushner.

9/ Do I have an answer for why the public evidence—just *that*—against Manafort didn't add up to conspiracy? No, I don't—not as a criminal attorney, and not as an investigator. And I don't know that Mueller can explain it, either. Why do you think he interviewed him for 50 hours?

10/ But I've tried many criminal cases—and I've no doubt I've written two books that would lead a reasonable juror to believe Manafort, Kushner, Flynn, and Gates participated in a conspiracy. Presumably, Gates and Flynn have helped Mueller so much that he decided to let them go.

11/ What Trump supporters want to hear—what even some in media want to hear—is those of us who've researched this issue say the evidence that's there isn't there. That's won't happen. But I *would* like to know why not one fact in Proof of Collusion has been contested. By anyone.

12/ Nor are there any facts in *Proof of Conspiracy* that don't come from major-media sources—so I don't expect any of the facts in *that* book to be contested, either. And everyone who read Proof of Collusion calls the facts harrowing (and the facts in the sequel are far worse).

13/ So I'm at a loss: not because the evidence isn't there (it is, and Mueller surely has much more); not because I don't have the professional background and experience to assess the evidence (I do); not because Mueller didn't seem distressed by the same evidence I was (he did).

14/ I watched a lot of TV tonight, and know what my peers in the law were thinking—not my peer Democrats; not rank partisans; not journalists with no legal/criminal-investigative background; what my *peers in the law* were thinking—that none of this makes sense. *Professionally*.

15/ You don't interview Cohen and Manafort for 50 hours each with no new indictments. You don't give Flynn a deal—or Nader or Gates—without new indictments coming from it. And if you think Cohen, Manafort, Flynn, Nader and Gates don't point to Kushner you don't know the evidence.

16/ I saw @AllMattNYT falsely claim on CNN tonight that hashtag "resistance" folks—a group I'm not in—say there's still going to be a big conspiracy indictment. I've seen no one say that—but I *have* seen professionals say something here isn't making sense and it eventually will.

17/ And that's my primary message tonight: if you've worked this case hard for 2 years, and if you have the necessary expertise to grok the evidence, something isn't making sense right now—but you've also worked in the system long enough to know that it eventually (somehow) will.

18/ The opinions of those with no legal/investigative expertise—pro-Trump, anti-Trump, in media, out—don't matter now. And I mean that respectfully. So if you're a non-legal #MAGA troll writing to bark about a legal issue, I'm sorry to say that *as to that topic* I don't see you.

19/ Meanwhile, if you're someone with legal or investigative expertise and you're on media tonight saying that what's happening now makes sense, I can say for certain you don't know *this case*. And if you have expertise *and* know this case, I'm sorry—you're bad at what you do.

20/ There are folks out there who always approached this case as partisans—always dialogued through it as partisans—and if #MAGA folks want to bark at those folks tonight, well, it's premature, but it's also Twitter. But if you think any *experts* are sanguine tonight... no. /end

You can follow @SethAbramson.



Enjoy Threader? Sign up.