Not a lawyerly type, but certainly. These aren’t Mueller’s indictments - they are indictments by the US Government. Him being fired would be the same as Mueller dying - the case moves on (although obviously the replacement may not be as dedicated).
The indictments are brought on behalf of The United States, not Mueller. They don’t go away if he goes away. Responsibility for the prosecution would go to someone else in the Special Counsel’s office, or - if the whole thing is annihilated - elsewhere in the DOJ.
Collusion is not a crime.
Collusion is not a crime.
Collusion is not a crime.
Collusion is not a crime.
Collusion is not a crime.
Collusion is not a crime.
Mueller is never going to indict anyone for collusion, regardless of what facts are found. Even the conduct that F-P thinks is impeachable collusion is probably not a crime.
Isn’t collusion a crime?
I appreciate that you’ve understood the point I was making.
However, the problem with that is that my initial assertion was that - opposite to what Richard Parker was saying - I believe the definition of “collusion” has been expanding as the likelihood of active coordinating/assisting type collusion has faded somewhat. RP countered that by pointing to a thread he started several months ago, but that thread was about what’s impeachable, not about what’s collusion or about what Trump was assumed to have done.
[Note: I’m not suggesting that you personally have expanded your own definition of collusion, and there could be any number of individuals who thought of “not reporting” as collusion all along. But in aggregate, it does seem to me that this expansion is occurring.]
Oh, I’m sure he can do it. And for me, the about-face would make it even more entertaining. 
Perhaps you can expand on this a bit.
Suppose the Trump campaign (whether or not including Trump himself) did actively assist and coordinate with Russian efforts, including hacking the DNC emails, distributing those emails, or generally distributing misinformation and the like, what crimes might be involved?
There are sufficient crimes that, added together, would amount to collusion in the popular parlance.
There’s also no crimes like “being a crime boss”, “being a deadbeat dad”, or “faith healing”, but people who fall under those headings have likely broken a set of crimes that one could easily guess from the general descriptor.
And, of course, no one cares whether it was collusion or not. “There were fishy things in and around Donald Trump, which seemed related to Russia in some way, during the 2016 election. We should investigate that.” Collusion was one hypothesis which is particularly dramatic, but it’s not like if that was off the table, we wouldn’t care whether Trumpster was laundering money for the Russians or being blackmailed by them.
The issue needs to be investigated. If someone feels like pigeonholing the matter on “collusion” then that’s just that person being (probably) deliberately obtuse, probably to keep on the dream that the ruckus is by Clinton fangirls who want to invalidate the election.
Well, I’m sure that person exists. But they’re a sad a lonely person. The other 300 million of us are worried about the safety of the nation. Liberal or Republican, making sure that your president isn’t tied in some way to a foreign, enemy power seems like a pretty important thing to do.
I think I remember someone, maybe Richard Parker, talking about collusion as a crime. But that was a while ago…
And what if the receipt of those stolen emails was in exchange for sanctions relief? What would that be called?
It could be called a violation of the Logan Act, but I’m guessing it’s more likely that it would be simple conspiracy.
Not directly part of the Mueller investigation, but the WSJ reports:
DoJ is considering whether to file a case. The suspects would never face trial, because they would never be extradited. I don’t really care about that. I just hope that DoJ and Mueller are sharing notes. If DoJ thinks they have identified those responsible for the hacking, and those names turn up in Mueller’s investigation, that would be kind of interesting.
WSJ paywalled link: https://www.wsj.com/amp/articles/prosecutors-consider-bringing-charges-in-dnc-hacking-case-1509618203
Alternate 1: https://www.cnet.com/news/report-us-identified-russian-officials-behind-election-hack/
Alternate 2: US says it's identified six Russian officials as DNC hack suspects • The Register
Collusion has always meant secret cooperation and has never been limited to active assistance.
The following has always been an example of collusion between A and B…
A: Hey, check out this illegal shit we did that will help us achieve that common goal.
B: Fuck yeah bro’. That’s awesome. Let’s see if we can set up a secret meeting between my boss and your boss so they can discuss the deets. Put that fist here bro’.
To be clear, you’re asking about a scenario in which the Russians gave the emails to the Trump campaign (or Wikileaks) in exchange for Trump agreeing to sanctions relief?
That certainly sounds like “collusion” to me, and if it’s reasonable to assume that Trump knew about it I would definitely support impeachment over that. Possibly even if he didn’t.
Just to put things in perspective, does anyone else long for the days, when the big scandalwas that two of your appointees didn’t pay Social Security to their Nannies, instead of laundering millions of dollars for a hostile foreign power.
Or when Fox News went apeshit because Obama wore a tan suit.
And that there were consequences for these scandals?
I don’t think there is one agreed-upon meaning of collusion in popular parlance. That’s part of what my poll in the thread from May demonstrated.
Moreover, I think most of the different things people label collusion are not crimes.
I think it’s safe to assume that if they agreed in advance to hack emails or aided that effort, then they committed some kind of federal crime.
I don’t think it’s clear that if they assisted in using the emails after-the-fact that it constitutes a crime. I’d rate that as unlikely, which is why I said “probably not” in the prior post.
Ah, the good ol’ days!
My guess as to what actually happened is probably illegal, but also nearly impossible to prove. There was a meeting between Russians and Trump Campaign personnel.
Russians: we like Mr Trump…we think that we could work with a Trump Administration to our mutual benefit, if I make myself clear. We want to help him get elected…expect to see certain communications concerning your opponent released soon, that will be beneficial to your campaign.
Carter Page/Roger Stone: pleasure doing business with you.
What crime do you think that constitutes? Please be specific.
My first thought is: “well, treason, obviously” but your question is troubling.
It’s not receipt of stolen property: the Trump campaign never received the hacked emails (Wikipedia did).
Logan Act? Did they conduct foreign policy as civilians? Not in the scenario described, although it’s certainly implied.
Which leads me to the conclusion that there may be more indictments for perjury concerning these meetings, but the meetings themselves may not be illegal. Hgh crimes and misdemeanors (ie, impeachment) is another question altogether, and possibly our only recourse.