Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


EvC Forum Side Orders Coffee House The Trump Presidency

Summations Only

Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   The Trump Presidency
Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.3


(3)
Message 1802 of 4573 (827884)
02-03-2018 3:07 PM
Reply to: Message 1799 by RAZD
02-03-2018 11:59 AM


Re: Nuclear Policy Reversed.. Insanity is the order of the day
RAZD writes:
You guys who couldn't stomach voting for Hilary. Feel better now?
No. The fact remains that Hillary lost the campaign by failing in several key states, and I could have voted for Pat Paulson and it would not have changed that.
The disaster that is the Trump presidency was immanently foreseeable. No political position or outlook or other preferred candidate justified casting a vote (or not casting any vote) that improved the chances of a Trump victory, which is what everyone who didn't vote for Clinton did. I can't help but blame Trump's election on everyone who didn't vote for Clinton. Don't mistake this for an argument for Clinton. It's an argument for any sane Trump opponent who actually had a chance of winning. It just happens the person was Clinton.
People in secure blue states are not off the hook, because the key states that Clinton lost (Wisconsin, Michigan, Pennsylvania) were thought secure. Living in some other supposedly "secure" blue state doesn't grant one license to have ignored the Trump threat, because there's no way one could know in advance which "secure" blue states would topple. Even living in California, Vermont, Massachusetts or some other very blue state doesn't give one an excuse, the dangers presented by Trump were so great.
Election day 2016 still seems like yesterday. Trump's first year has gone by in a whirlwind of lies, accusations, meanness, racism, misogyny, ill-advised legislation, and childish Twitter rants. Before we know it it will be November 2018, and I only hope that over the months until then we don't become inured to the continual Trump assaults on our democracy and its institutions. We must turn out to vote for whoever has the best chance of winning who isn't a Republican, because the Republicans have become complicit in this Trumpian tragedy.
It's important to say this now because 2018 is an off-year election, so only House and Senate (23 Democrats, 2 independents who caucus with Democrats, and 8 Republicans) members are up for election. Even if your non-Republican representative or senator won in 2016 with 98% of the vote, or even if the non-Republican candidate lost with only 2% of the vote, get out there and vote. It is that important, and we can't take any chances.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1799 by RAZD, posted 02-03-2018 11:59 AM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1803 by NoNukes, posted 02-03-2018 3:55 PM Percy has seen this message but not replied
 Message 1805 by RAZD, posted 02-04-2018 8:47 AM Percy has seen this message but not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.3


Message 1815 of 4573 (827934)
02-05-2018 7:58 PM


The Irony of Trump's Obstruction of Justice
There's a lot of irony here.
Whether or not there was any Trump campaign conspiracy with Russia, Trump's still obstructing justice by doing all he can to impede the Mueller investigation. It doesn't matter whether the Trump campaign did anything wrong at all, he's still obstructing justice.
I'm an independent who doesn't believe there was any conspiracy to steal the election between the Trump campaign and Russia. I'm just basing this on currently available information. There was apparently a lot of communications and meetings between members of the Trump campaign and Russian agents, but for the moment it doesn't appear that much came of it, certainly not enough for a conspiracy charge to stick (collusion, apparently, isn't illegal, but I don't think collusion happened either).
Then why is Trump working so hard, and so naively openly and overtly, to obstruct the Mueller investigation? Because he can't accept that his election was aided by the Russians, can't accept that it was the result of anything more than his own wonderfulness. He probably believes he ran the most marvelous campaign in the history of political campaigns.
And that's where the irony comes in. Trump should just let the Mueller investigation run its course, because it's unlikely to find anything more than some, in the overall scheme of things, minor misbehaviors by people associated with his campaign, but he's doing his darndest to impede the Muller investigation, and so despite that he likely did nothing wrong with Russians, Mueller will probably conclude he engaged in obstruction of justice. Of course, the Republican Congress will not act on this finding, but that's what the Mueller investigation will find.
I have no idea when the Mueller investigation will conclude. If Ken Starr's investigation is any guide then it will be years from now, but while Mueller appears to be proceeding in a deliberate fashion, he also seems to be moving at a faster pace, so my guess is late this year.
--Percy

Replies to this message:
 Message 1816 by jar, posted 02-05-2018 8:06 PM Percy has seen this message but not replied
 Message 1817 by Rrhain, posted 02-05-2018 9:09 PM Percy has replied
 Message 1818 by NoNukes, posted 02-05-2018 11:05 PM Percy has replied
 Message 1819 by nwr, posted 02-06-2018 12:10 AM Percy has seen this message but not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.3


Message 1821 of 4573 (827940)
02-06-2018 9:14 AM
Reply to: Message 1817 by Rrhain
02-05-2018 9:09 PM


Re: The Irony of Trump's Obstruction of Justice
I don't have a legal background, so responding is going to be a bit of a slog, but I'll give it a try. I'm starting out this reply still thinking that Trump is driven far more by ego than by goal directed conniving, but let's see where I end up.
Rrhain writes:
Percy writes:
quote:
Then why is Trump working so hard, and so naively openly and overtly, to obstruct the Mueller investigation?
Because there is some conspiracy between the Russians and Trump: The sanctions.
First, my preconceptions:
Isn't whether anything Trump does or did regarding Russian sanctions only a conspiracy if there was a quid pro quo? After the election maybe something like, "I'll tamp down on the sanctions if you keep quiet about my dealings with you"? Or, "I'll keep our government from doing anything serious about Russian interference in our elections if you keep quiet about my dealings with you"? Or before the election, "When elected I'll tamp down on the sanctions if you continue your interference in our election to aid my campaign"? These last two would be not only conspiracy but treason, wouldn't they?
And maybe there doesn't have to be a quid pro quo, though the presence of a motive is always better. But let's say there was no quid pro quo, I guess Trump would still be guilty of conspiracy even if he received nothing in return.
Kushner was trying to set up back-channel communications with Russia after the election. Trump told the Russians that they wouldn't have to worry about the sanctions. And despite the Congress near unanimously approving the imposing of even more sanctions, Trump has decided he isn't going to do it despite having signed the bill that requires him to do so. He does not have the option to say no, only to choose at least eight from the list of sanctions approved by Congress, at least five from one section and at least three from a previous law.
This Washington Post article says Even if Trump is blatantly ignoring the Russia sanctions law, there’s not a lot Congress can do about it. But if not implementing the sanctions is conspiracy then there *is* something Mueller can do about it in the form of concluding in his final report that Trump conspired with the Russians. That doesn't mean a Republican congress would take any action, but maybe after November it will no longer be a Republican Congress.
Does it matter when Mueller releases his report? If he issues it while the Republicans still control Congress, say he releases it this summer, then can't the Republican Congress just ignore it? And if they do and the Democrats take over Congress in the fall, can they take up the report's findings then?
There now appears to be a question of the Russians laundering money through the NRA to benefit Trump's election.
But if true, did Trump or the Trump campaign know about this?
Carter Page was a known Kremlin operative (by his own admission).
He only worked with the Trump campaign for a month, the connection dissolving as news about his Russian connections became public.
George Papadopoulos tried to set up connections with Russians (by his own statements).
Isn't the information we have now that he succeeded in setting up only one meeting with the Russians, and that nothing came out of that meeting? Is a failed attempt at conspiracy still a conspiracy?
Paul Manafort was a foreign agent who was involved in the Russian invasion of Crimea.
But that came before Manafort's association with the Trump campaign, and so far he's only been charged with money laundering during a period prior to the Trump campaign, so it has nothing to do with the election. Same for Gates - his misdeeds came before the campaign.
So yes, there has been conspiracy with the Russians to get Trump elected. And remember, conspiracy doesn't have to involve the two ends directly talking to each other. Remember when Trump made his campaign statement to Russia regarding "finding the emails"? Well, they had, indeed, hacked the DNC, which is a crime. Under US law, Trump doesn't have to know who did it. Trump's acceptance of it is grounds for conspiracy.
Trump's a blabbermouth who can't keep a secret, particularly if he thinks it weakens a political opponent, but he also tends to run at the mouth and say many things that aren't true (otherwise known as lies). I think his off-the-cuff request to the Russians to find the missing Clinton emails was just something he made up off the top of his head, and in the end it turned out not to be true, anyway. The Russians had hacked into DNC emails, not Clinton emails.
He's engaging in obstruction for quite a number of reasons. Does he honestly believe that he landed in the White House (for he didn't win the election...he only won the Electoral College) all on his own? Perhaps. He's enough of an egotist and narcissist that it wouldn't surprise me if he did truly believe that and thinks that all of his actions with Russia had nothing to do with it.
My own view is that Trump undoubtedly believes he won the election because of how wonderful he is. His ego wouldn't have it any other way.
But then again, the man lies about absolutely everything so all of his protestations may simply be his natural reaction to getting caught: Lie first, lie second, lie some more, and keep on lying.
Yes, this is the Trump way. If every time his lips are moving you bet that he's lying, you'll win far more than you'll lose.
But there's also the fact that he's been in debt to Russians for many, many years...
Isn't this speculation, not fact?
...and is worried that investigations into his connections with Russia will lead to information regarding his financial dealings with Russia.
But is there's anything illegal about financial dealings with Russia?
Given that there are significant signs that he was involved in money laundering for various Russian oligarchs (more than 1300 cash transactions for Trump condos through shell companies worth more than $1.5B), indicted for money laundering, so there is certainly a question regarding Trump.
Again, I think any money laundering by Trump may only be speculation at this point, but this is certainly something within Mueller's mandate.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1817 by Rrhain, posted 02-05-2018 9:09 PM Rrhain has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1855 by Rrhain, posted 02-10-2018 10:55 PM Percy has replied
 Message 1856 by NoNukes, posted 02-11-2018 1:15 AM Percy has replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.3


Message 1822 of 4573 (827941)
02-06-2018 9:57 AM
Reply to: Message 1818 by NoNukes
02-05-2018 11:05 PM


Re: The Irony of Trump's Obstruction of Justice
NoNukes writes:
collusion, apparently, isn't illegal
I find this position difficult to understand from a legal standpoint.
I don't have a legal background, so I don't understand the distinction at all from a legal standpoint. I'm just repeating what I've read in many news articles and opinion pieces, that collusion isn't illegal, and so Mueller won't be looking for evidence of collusion.
Trying now for the first time to find the legal distinction between conspiracy and collusion, let's see if I come up with anything...
Here's an article from Esquire Magazine (The Word of the Summer Is 'Collusion.' What You Need to Focus on Is 'Conspiracy.') that concludes the distinction is important:
quote:
Black's Law Dictionary defines collusion as "a deceitful agreement or compact between two or more persons, for the one party to bring an action against the other for some evil purpose, as to defraud a third party..." A conspiracy, on the other hand, is defined as "a combination or confederacy between two or more persons formed for the purposes of committing, by their joint efforts, some unlawful or criminal act, or some act which is innocent in itself, but becomes unlawful when done by the concerted action of the conspirators." Got it? You can have collusion without having a criminal conspiracy, but you can't have a criminal conspiracy without some sort of collusion.
Your definitions of collusion and conspiracy agree that conspiracy requires collusion, but the article doesn't say anything about the difficultly of proving collusion because it doesn't see collusion as a crime. In the end the Esquire article concludes that collusion is a political word, a media word, and that conspiracy is the word that counts.
Here's another article from the Chicago Tribune (Collusion is not a crime by itself. Here are the charges Mueller could be exploring.) that says collusion is not a crime, and that the kinds of crimes Mueller might be investigating could be making false statements to Federal officers or conspiracy (to commit a computer crime, to launder money, to fail to report foreign bank accounts, to defraud the Justice and Treasury departments, to defraud the US by interfering in the election). It also quotes someone about collusion versus conspiracy:
quote:
"Collusion is not a crime, but basically the criminal equivalent is conspiracy," said former federal prosecutor Randall Eliason. "You could have a conspiracy to defraud the U.S. by interfering with our election."
I don't recall having ever read either of the above articles, so adding these to the articles I'd already read stating that collusion is not illegal, they seem to pretty much agree, and I'm unable to reconcile them with your definition in such a way that I can address this point you raise next:
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.
All I can say is that the articles I've read don't believe that being guilty of conspiracy first requires being guilty of collusion, which they don't think is illegal.
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.
Agreed.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1818 by NoNukes, posted 02-05-2018 11:05 PM NoNukes has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1823 by NoNukes, posted 02-06-2018 10:09 AM Percy has replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.3


Message 1824 of 4573 (827944)
02-06-2018 10:31 AM
Reply to: Message 1823 by NoNukes
02-06-2018 10:09 AM


Re: The Irony of Trump's Obstruction of Justice
NoNukes writes:
If that's not clear enough then I give up even trying to explain.
It's not that it's not clear enough. I understand what you're saying. You asked, in essence, how my point that collusion isn't illegal while conspiracy is makes any sense, and I told you I got that from news and opinion articles.
I then had no trouble finding additional articles making precisely that point.
The main difference between you and them is that you see collusion as part of the definition of conspiracy, but the articles I've read do not define it that way. The Esquire article quotes from Black's Law Dictionary, which does not define conspiracy in terms of collusion. I just looked up collusion and conspiracy myself in Black's:
COLLUSION
A deceitful agreement or compact between two or more persons, for the one party to bring an action against the other for some evil purpose, as to defraud a third party of his right Cowell. A secret arrangement between two or more persons, whose interests are apparently conflicting, to make use of the forms and proceedings of law in order to defraud a third person, or to obtain that which justice would not give them, by deceiving a court or it officers.
CONSPIRACY
In criminal law. A combination or confederacy between two or more persons formed for the purpose of committing, by their joint efforts, some unlawful or criminal act, or some act which is innocent in itself, but becomes unlawful when done by the concerted action of the conspirators, or for the purpose of using criminal or unlawful means to the commission of an act not in itself unlawful.
The main difference between you and Black's seems to be that you view a conspiracy as possibly being innocent, while Black's defines conspiracy only in the context of criminal law where a crime or unlawful act is part of the definition.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1823 by NoNukes, posted 02-06-2018 10:09 AM NoNukes has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1825 by NoNukes, posted 02-06-2018 11:05 AM Percy has replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.3


Message 1826 of 4573 (827958)
02-06-2018 11:50 AM
Reply to: Message 1825 by NoNukes
02-06-2018 11:05 AM


Re: The Irony of Trump's Obstruction of Justice
NoNukes writes:
No, I don't view a conspiracy as being innocent.
Oh. Well, what I actually said was, "you view a conspiracy as possibly being innocent," but if that's wrong then what did you mean in Message 1823 when you said, "A conspiracy to commit only legal actions is not a crime at all"?
A conspiracy requires criminal acts.
Okay, but again, what did you mean in Message 1823 when you said, "A conspiracy to commit only legal actions is not a crime at all"?
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.
Okay, but again, what did you mean in Message 1823 when you said, "A conspiracy to commit only legal actions is not a crime at all"?
Maybe you meant to say, ""A conspiracy to commit only legal actions is not a *conspiracy* at all"?
Unless there is an underlying crime, then the prosecutors cannot make a conspiracy case.
This agrees with Black's.
If it is legally okay to collude with the Russians to tamper with the election,...
Since tampering with the election is a crime, and since collusion isn't criminal, in a legal context "collude" is the wrong word to use to characterize tampering with the election. In Black's, collusion is applied to things like legal actions, court cases and trials.
...then planning/conspiring to do exactly that is not a crime either.
Since your premise is conflicted, your conclusion is false.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1825 by NoNukes, posted 02-06-2018 11:05 AM NoNukes has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1827 by NoNukes, posted 02-06-2018 11:57 AM Percy has replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.3


Message 1828 of 4573 (827965)
02-06-2018 1:00 PM
Reply to: Message 1827 by NoNukes
02-06-2018 11:57 AM


Re: The Irony of Trump's Obstruction of Justice
NoNukes writes:
I just explained exactly that in my previous post, Percy.
Ah, yes, I see it now. Don't know how I missed it, I even quoted it. Sorry.
That's is moronic. A collusion could be legal or illegal.
Not according to Black's, and all the articles and analysis I've read have said that collusion is not a crime. Type "Criminal Collusion" into Google and here are the links you get back:
Click on that last link about whether collusion is a crime. One person's opinion is that "collusion is a hopelessly vague term." It goes on to say:
quote:
There is no federal law that criminalizes collusion between a political campaign and foreign government. Even though colluding with a foreign government, especially one as hostile as the Russian government may be inappropriate or politically damaging, it’s not illegal. In this sense, collusion is viewed as a political term and not a legal term.
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?
Oh, it's easy to understand. I'm just saying that your view is sort of standing on an island by itself.
That's is moronic.
Please (would have more impact without the typo, by the way ).
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1827 by NoNukes, posted 02-06-2018 11:57 AM NoNukes has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1830 by NoNukes, posted 02-06-2018 1:24 PM Percy has replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.3


Message 1831 of 4573 (827980)
02-06-2018 6:29 PM
Reply to: Message 1830 by NoNukes
02-06-2018 1:24 PM


Re: The Irony of Trump's Obstruction of Justice
NoNukes writes:
None of those things are counter to my point.
Actually they are.
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.
Nothing I've read says this (except for one link that says in antitrust law collusion can be a crime). Can you point me at something that agrees with you?
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1830 by NoNukes, posted 02-06-2018 1:24 PM NoNukes has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1833 by NoNukes, posted 02-06-2018 9:04 PM Percy has replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.3


Message 1835 of 4573 (827988)
02-07-2018 9:12 AM
Reply to: Message 1833 by NoNukes
02-06-2018 9:04 PM


Re: The Irony of Trump's Obstruction of Justice
NoNukes writes:
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.
According to the news and opinion articles I've read and the links I've provided, you're not colluding. Here's Blacks' definition of colluding again:
COLLUSION
A deceitful agreement or compact between two or more persons, for the one party to bring an action against the other for some evil purpose, as to defraud a third party of his right. Cowell: A secret arrangement between two or more persons, whose interests are apparently conflicting, to make use of the forms and proceedings of law in order to defraud a third person, or to obtain that which justice would not give them, by deceiving a court or it officers.
NoNukes writes:
Are you actually asking me to provide a reference for the collusion aspects being criminal?
Well, there's your opinion, and then there's all these news articles and opinion pieces and links with an opinion that contradicts yours, so yes, I'm actually asking you to provide something beyond your own opinion that any collusion involving l'affaire Russia is criminal. Don't you feel some obligation anyway to provide supporting documentation for your opinion that, at least to this point, seems to run against what everyone else is saying?
I propose a bet: That if Trump is charged with any criminal wrongdoing in Mueller's final report, it won't include criminal collusion. What are the stakes? How about the loser has to post a message clearly describing why he was wrong about collusion in l'affaire Russia.
Here's another link that disagrees with you: What does ‘collusion’ really mean?
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1833 by NoNukes, posted 02-06-2018 9:04 PM NoNukes has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1840 by NoNukes, posted 02-07-2018 10:34 PM Percy has replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.3


Message 1836 of 4573 (828029)
02-07-2018 5:36 PM


Has There Been a Significant Victory on Immigration?
DACA advocates may have achieved a significant victory today, but I'm not sure. Jennifer Rubin, columnist at the Washington Post, seems to think so (McConnell and Schumer jam the House: Six things that just happened):
quote:
3. Pro-DACA advocates ironically have a better shot at getting a deal than they did when they were tying DACA to the budget. The reason: McConnell promised a shell bill will be put on the floor, allowing free-flowing amendments. If there are 60 votes (as backers of DACA insist), then they will get their bill out of the Senate regardless of what Stephen Miller or John F. Kelly or Sen. Tom Cotton (R-Ark.) want. Moreover, that bill very well could have none of the poison pills Trump wants stuffed into the deal (e.g., limits on legal immigration).
But news coverage of this is sparse. This New York Times article has a rather undetailed reference to it that doesn't mention anything like a "shell bill" (Pelosi Holds House Floor to Advocate for ‘Dreamers.’ For 7 Hours and Counting.):
quote:
In the Senate, Senator Mitch McConnell, the majority leader, has promised an open debate on immigration legislation if a deal is not reached by Thursday. In the House, Ms. Pelosi is calling on Speaker Paul D. Ryan to make a similar commitment. But that may not be enough for some of the advocates, who are furious that, as they see it, the Dreamers are being left behind.
But the phrase "open debate" might be something that always includes a "shell bill".
Anyone understand this?
--Percy

Replies to this message:
 Message 1839 by NoNukes, posted 02-07-2018 10:27 PM Percy has seen this message but not replied
 Message 1843 by Taq, posted 02-09-2018 5:58 PM Percy has seen this message but not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.3


Message 1841 of 4573 (828049)
02-08-2018 2:57 PM
Reply to: Message 1840 by NoNukes
02-07-2018 10:34 PM


Re: The Irony of Trump's Obstruction of Justice
NoNukes writes:
A deceitful agreement or compact between two or more persons, for the one party to bring an action against the other for some evil purpose, as to defraud a third party of his right.
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.
Apparently not. I don't pretend to understand it, I'm just passing on what's been said in the press, in a number of cases citing people or written by people with legal credentials.
I have to conclude that your argument is not helping you here.
Whoops, timer just went off, I gotta go, this has to be short. I don't really have my own argument. I'm just bringing into the thread some of the information from stuff I've read explaining why collusion is not a crime while conspiracy is.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1840 by NoNukes, posted 02-07-2018 10:34 PM NoNukes has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1842 by NoNukes, posted 02-09-2018 8:17 AM Percy has replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.3


Message 1844 of 4573 (828096)
02-09-2018 7:01 PM
Reply to: Message 1842 by NoNukes
02-09-2018 8:17 AM


Re: The Irony of Trump's Obstruction of Justice
Percy writes:
I'm just passing on what's been said in the press,
Percy, we are referring to the definition you cited. That's your argument and not one you just passed on.
I'm afraid you're wrong. The Esquire article I referenced in Message 1822 cited Black's (The Word of the Summer Is 'Collusion.' What You Need to Focus on Is 'Conspiracy.'). I didn't even know Black's existed before reading that article. I'm telling you, this isn't coming from me. I'm just passing on what I've read. If anything written about the Russia investigation agrees with you then just provide a link and we can try and reconcile it with the other articles and figure this out.
Your definition included blatant illegality and thus does not support the position that collusion cannot be illegal.
Collusion can be illegal (I think antitrust law was mentioned), but according to everything I've read out there not in the case of the Russia investigation.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1842 by NoNukes, posted 02-09-2018 8:17 AM NoNukes has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1845 by NoNukes, posted 02-10-2018 12:47 AM Percy has replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.3


Message 1846 of 4573 (828103)
02-10-2018 9:17 AM
Reply to: Message 1845 by NoNukes
02-10-2018 12:47 AM


Re: The Irony of Trump's Obstruction of Justice
NoNukes writes:
I'm just passing on what I've read.
Percy, you selected the definition to use in response to my post.
No, I used the definition provided by the Esquire article (The Word of the Summer Is 'Collusion.' What You Need to Focus on Is 'Conspiracy.'). The Esquire article, and the other articles I cited, made strong arguments for why collusion in this case is not illegal while conspiracy is. I've tried to bring some of those arguments into this thread. You haven't offered any counter-arguments other than declarative statements that collusion in this case is too a crime.
I have no idea why you would bother posting a definition of collusion that included what was obviously criminal activity...
The Esquire article says:
quote:
There is no federal crime of collusion. No one is sitting in a dank prison cell whining to his cellmate that he is innocent of collusion.
The Washington Post (Collusion is not a crime by itself. Here are the charges Mueller could be exploring.) article says:
quote:
Collusion the word Trump often uses to describe Mueller’s case, even as he asserts such a thing never happened is not itself a crime, and Mueller’s team will probably have to sort through unseemly political dealings to determine whether a law was broken, legal analysts said.
From The New Yorker article (Michael Flynn’s Guilty Plea Sends Donald Trump’s Lawyers Scrambling):
quote:
With regard to Mueller’s broader investigation, the White House lawyers’ position continues to be that President Trump didn’t commit a crime because no one didor couldbecause there is no federal crime called collusion, and Rosenstein’s order did not refer to any criminal statutes that may have been violated. In several conversations with me, Sekulow emphasized that collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia, even if it did take place, wouldn’t be illegal. For something to be a crime, there has to be a statute that you claim is being violated, Sekulow told me. There is not a statute that refers to criminal collusion. There is no crime of collusion.
From Politico Magazine (What Is Collusion? Is It Even a Crime?):
quote:
Collusion is not a federal crime (except in the unique case of antitrust law), so we should all just stop using collusion as a short-hand for criminality.
From the National Paralegal College (Is Collusion a Crime?):
quote:
The term collusion is defined as concerted activity toward a common purpose. The colloquial connotation of the word indicates that people who collude have worked together, usually in secret, to do something illegal. Still, other than in an antitrust context, collusion is not the name of a crime. (In antitrust law, two product sellers who conspire to set the price for goods may be guilty of collusion, but that is obviously not relevant here.) Former federal prosecutor Andrew McCarthy recently wrote that collusion is a hopelessly vague term. There is no federal law that criminalizes collusion between a political campaign and foreign government. Even though colluding with a foreign government, especially one as hostile as the Russian government may be inappropriate or politically damaging, it’s not illegal. In this sense, collusion is viewed as a political term and not a legal term. As a result, Trump Jr, Manafort, and Kushner could not be prosecuted under a charge called collusion.
How many quotes saying you're wrong do you need?
...in response to my position that collusion could be legal or illegal.
Well, yes, of course, the articles have said the same thing, that in some contexts collusion can be illegal, but not in the case of the Russia scandal.
But hey, you are just the messenger, right?
I am, as I have said all along, just passing along what I've read in the press, and none of it backs you up.
--Percy
Edited by Percy, : Grammar.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1845 by NoNukes, posted 02-10-2018 12:47 AM NoNukes has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1847 by NoNukes, posted 02-10-2018 12:52 PM Percy has replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.3


Message 1849 of 4573 (828117)
02-10-2018 2:11 PM
Reply to: Message 1847 by NoNukes
02-10-2018 12:52 PM


Re: The Irony of Trump's Obstruction of Justice
NoNukes writes:
I am, as I have said all along, just passing along what I've read in the press, and none of it backs you up.
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.
And that you apparently can't explain.
Nonetheless, there is no question that the definition of collusion that you posted supports my position that collusion can be criminal...
Yes, of course, but not in the context of the Russia scandal.
...and not the one you've latched onto that says the opposite.
You mean the one that everyone but you agrees with?
So your summary is just incorrect.
Again, in ways you apparently can't explain.
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.
Again, in ways you apparently can't explain.
Here's the short form of excerpts disagreeing with you in the context of collusion in the Russia scandal being a crime:
  • There is no federal crime of collusion.
  • Collusion...is not itself a crime,...
  • ...because there is no federal crime called collusion,...
  • Collusion is not a federal crime...
  • Still, other than in an antitrust context, collusion is not the name of a crime.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1847 by NoNukes, posted 02-10-2018 12:52 PM NoNukes has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1850 by NoNukes, posted 02-10-2018 2:22 PM Percy has replied
 Message 1852 by Modulous, posted 02-10-2018 4:01 PM Percy has replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.3


Message 1851 of 4573 (828119)
02-10-2018 3:02 PM
Reply to: Message 1850 by NoNukes
02-10-2018 2:22 PM


Re: The Irony of Trump's Obstruction of Justice
NoNukes writes:
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.
Gee, another great explanation!
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1850 by NoNukes, posted 02-10-2018 2:22 PM NoNukes has seen this message but not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024