Summations Only

Actually they are. 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

Ramoss - it’s the whole state, being a Senate seat. And Cruz has pissed off a lot of his base. Whether Dallas, Houston, and the Rio Grande Valley can get enough help from Red Texas will just have to be seen - but it’s not beyond imagination. I’m going to work toward getting my county below 75% Republican, and be real happy if it does.

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.

Wouldn't they just all be charged with armed robbery?Collusion seems to be mostly a civil matter or if the collusion results in a crime, that crime would be charged - fraud seems the most likely.

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: 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

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

Texas is a state of great divides, and very little 'in between'. I know a lot of very liberal Texans, mainly in the bigger cities. On the other hand , in 2016, I spent 7 months in New Braunfels, and that area was so conservative it made my teeth hurt.

Generally the Valley has remained pretty liberal but there has been talk of redistricting such that the balance down here will change. Lloyd Bentsen's family home is just about a mile from my house.

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.

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. 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

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.

A shell bill would require an open debate so that the bill could take shape through amendments. You can also have a well defined bill that goes to open debate which would allow amendments to be voted on and included in the bill.What McConnell appears to be doing is letting the bill take shape through an open and bipartisan process which could result in the first bill in the last year that Congress can actually be proud of. . . Or, it could be a sham and it will be shut down as soon as debate starts.

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. 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

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.