emptywheel

It’s a problem with 280 characters, not the word. But yes, context matters. “Colluding” with spies who stole your opponents emails > “colluding” with an oppo researcher > “colluding” with U.S. Bank arena to schedule a rally.

It’s not my word, I didn’t foist it on to the discourse, but I think people who stridently object to it are being a bit obtuse.

I think when "collusion" was first being tossed around, it meant: did the Trump campaign criminally conspire with the Russians to hack DNC/Podesta emails? Once people mostly abandoned that line, "collusion" has expanded greatly since then to the point of meaninglessness.

Some people may have meant it that way. That would be really bad. But lesser forms of collusion (cooperation whatever) are also bad.

From my perspective, the effort to set the bar at criminal conspiracy has been the Trump tactic, and to dismiss anything under that as normal politics. Reading back on this thread, it’s been an effective tactic!

When there is a Special Prosecutor quite active, issuing subpoenas and indictments, the question of what is and isn't criminal is going to be important. It isn't the only important question, of course, but it's certainly one of them!

I agree. I anticipate I’ll use different language if/when Mueller charges people with actual crimes.

Or rather charges more people with crimes related to the election.