guilty, that then they have something more to sell with respect to the collusion inquiry. because you have to remember it s collusion and then other things that may arise out of the investigation. this may be the arise out part, which leads back into the collusion, if there s a to her to tell there. carl, stunning night. well, jeffrey tu bin has got it exactly right. i ve talked to some of the lawyers who knew this was coming. they believe that the intent is toe get one or more of these people to cooperate and turn over some more facts about what the prosecutors think may be a conspiracy. whether or not these charges go directly to, quote, collusion and one of the things, correct me if i m wrong, i don t think collusion in itself is a crime. i think it would have to be part of a conspiracy. but this all goes really to a larger question of possible disloyalty to the united states by helping a foreign power undermine our elections. so there s all kinds of larger
i think that jeffrey and carl are absolutely right. there s going to be a big effort to flip whoever it is whose indicted. but jeff tu bin, if it is, you know, some past crime, financial crime from years ago, is it you know, david is saying, you know, someone at the white house will say, look, that s nothing about collusion. this is reaching back in history years. is it possible those kind of charges are brought to your point, in order to get them to flip and kind of a smaller fish, charging them with something from the past to get them to flip on what they may know? right. people flip because they know they re going to be convicted and looking at serious jail time. it doesn t necessarily mean they have to flip on precisely the issue that they will testify against higher ups. i mean, i know we are in a position here of spk lating, and that s not that s not ideal.