Summations Only

Is this a serious question? One of the things that I thought liberals had over our more right-leaning brothers was our lack of propensity to throw around charges of treason lightly.Trump today accused Democratic legislators of treason based on not applauding his work at the state of the union address. I was considering making a post about that, but now I see little reason to bother.

I find this position difficult to understand from a legal standpoint. Proving a conspiracy would require simply showing that there was a plan to perform an illegal act, with at least one overt action towards furthering the conspiracy being a required legal element. The overt action required need not be performed by the defendant but can be performed by any conspirator.Collusion, on the other hand, is a conspiracy in action. Proving collusion is far more difficult because more extensive involvement by the defendant is a required element to be proven by the prosecutor. A prosecutor would rarely go to the trouble of proving collusion if he has already proven a conspiracy; the penalties available for conspiracy are just as harsh as the ones available for being an active participant in the entire affair.On the other hand, if the acts that are collusion are not criminal, then there is no conspiracy either. So I just don't understand your point. I think there is some danger for Trump that his investigations will uncover non-election related criminal issues. I would not want to speculate on what the chances of that are. But I really don't see Trump taking a bullet for other folks in his administration. The danger would have to be a personal one.

Conspiracy is what counts for exactly the reasons that I gave. But in this case, the conspiracy in question is about acts of colluding with the Russians to tamper with the election.Let me put it another way. A conspiracy to commit only legal actions is not a crime at all. That means that an underlying crime must exist and also that Trump or his administration must have some role in the planning or execution of that crime. If that's not clear enough then I give up even trying to explain. Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

No, I don't view a conspiracy as being innocent. A conspiracy requires criminal acts. Saying that a "conspiracy to commit legal acts is not a crime" should be taken as saying that it is really not a conspiracy at all.That still brings us to the same point. Unless there is an underlying crime, then the prosecutors cannot make a conspiracy case. If it is legally okay to collude with the Russians to tamper with the election, then planning/conspiring to do it exactly that is not a crime either. Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

I just explained exactly that in my previous post, Percy. I just explained that in my previous post, Percy. That's is moronic. A collusion could be legal or illegal. The question is not whether in general collusion is illegal, but whether a specific collusion that is relevant to this discussion is illegal. Is that really so hard to understand?Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

This is familiar territory. It's pretty much what you said when I quoted the CBA. I will try one more time.Conspiring is essentially just planning an illegal operation. It is possible to be guilty of conspiracy even if the illegal activity gets busted up by law enforcement and thus never gets carried out. Legally, some small action in furtherance of the crime is required before a case for conspiring. But that action need not be carried out together and need not be illegal. The crime is actually the planning of an illegal operation.Legally, we say that conspiracy is an inchoate crime meaning that it is committed in advance of an actual criminal activity.On the other hand, colluding refers to conducting actual activities together, rather than merely planning them. Collusion can be a lawful activity. Hence it is correct to say that collusion alone is not a crime. However, a colluding with others in conducting illegal activities is a crime, and a conviction can be gotten on merely based on conspiring to do those illegal activities even without proving that the activities took place. It is also possible to convict someone for taking part in the actual activities. None of those things are counter to my point. It is okay to say that collusion is not a crime, but if you collude on some illegal activities, then that collusion is a crime and the planning of that activity with more than one person is a conspiracy. Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

My wife, Joey and I form a conspiracy to rob a bank. Not only do we plan the robbery, we actually collude to carry it out. I hold the Tommy gun and cover here while she yells at the bank teller to fill up the bag. Joey, our inside man at the bank pretends to trigger the silent alarm but does not do it.In that set of events we have the conspiracy and a collusion each of which separately is a crime. Again the conspiracy is just the planning stage, while the collusion is an integral part of committing the crime and getting away with it.Are you actually asking me to provide a reference for the collusion aspects being criminal? I'm not saying there is a crime called collusion. I am saying that colluding in a criminal event is a crime. Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

I expect that the ultimate issue will be Paul Ryan and the Republicans in the House. Paul Ryan does not appear inclined to do the bidding of anyone other than the "Freedom Caucus" aka "Tea Party" wing of the House on the subject of immigration. Until we hear something positive from the house, then we should not be overly optimistic. I just don't see it happening.

If that's the definition you are going with, one that includes a deceitful contract to defraud, then I wonder exactly what you are arguing, Percy. If Trump had a contract with the Russians to defraud someone, then surely that would be illegal.I have to conclude that your argument is not helping you here. Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

Percy, we are referring to the definition you cited. That's your argument and not one you just passed on. Your definition included blatant illegality and thus does not support the position that collusion cannot be illegal.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

Percy, you selected the definition to use in response to my post. I have no idea why you would bother posting a definition of collusion that included what was obviously criminal activity in response to my position that collusion could be legal or illegal. Doing so simply does not make sense.But hey, you are just the messenger, right?Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

I don't really care if what you post backs me up. I expect that your choices are made with that in mind. But what you post cuts in ways you won't acknowledge.Nonetheless, there is no question that the definition of collusion that you posted supports my position that collusion can be criminal and not the one you've latched onto that says the opposite. So your summary is just incorrect.I'll also note that your inability to make sense out of what you post when I ask you about it is also very telling.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

Trump continues to tweet attempts to support former White House staff secretary Rob Porter even after Porter's resignation. Here are some excerpts from CNN's article on the subject.

quote:

---

Peoples lives are being shattered and destroyed by a mere allegation," the President tweeted. "Some are true and some are false. Some are old and some are new. There is no recovery for someone falsely accused - life and career are gone. Is there no such thing any longer as Due Process?

---

quote:

---

Trump told reporters on Friday that Porter's departure was "very sad" and that "he did a very good job while he was in the White House." The President did not express any sympathy for the women Porter allegedly abused, instead focusing on Porter's claim of innocence.

---

Now contrast that attitude to the huge discussion we've had regarding Al Franken and others over sexual harassment. Also, consider that the 'mere allegations' include pictures of Porter's ex-wife with her face beat up, that the allegations included an investigation by the FBI who refused to grant him a security clearance. Also, consider that the White House knew about the allegations for months -- possibly as long as 13 months.Trump's formal statements are that he wishes Porter well and reminds us that Porter denies everything. The president expressed not a single word of consideration at all for the women involved. We might remember similar reactions considering Bill Oreilly's sexual harassment and Roy Moore's rape allegations.Trump's a keeper. Ask any Republican in Congress.

I would suggest that the record shows where I have explained my position. Of course, false denials of such things from you are commonplace. We can find them in this very thread.

Exactly.I am reminded here of ICANT's recent arguments that Moses did not have nouns; just ancient words that Moses applied to a person, place or thing. Saying there is no federal crime called collusion is decidedly different from saying that the collusion being investigated is not a federal crime.There is also no federal crime called "coldcocking a federal officer during a legal arrest", but is there any doubt that federal charges could result from such an action? Would it be reasonable to write that coldcocking is not a federal offense? I think not.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.