Summations Only

No. How about looking up the definition of conspiracy in Black's Law dictionary. https://en.wikisource.org/.../Page:Black%27s_Law_Dictionary_(Second_Edition).djvu/260I'm not going to look it up for you, but I will summarize. In essence, conspiracy requires that two or more people consult for the purpose of committing a criminal act.I will quote the elements that must be proven to convict someone of conspiracy. They are remarkably center to something I already posted.8.20 ConspiracyElements | Model Jury Instructions

quote:

---

First, beginning on or about [date], and ending on or about [date], there was an agreement between two or more persons to commit at least one crime as charged in the indictment; [and]

​

Second, the defendant became a member of the conspiracy knowing of at least one of its objects and intending to help accomplish it[.] [; and]

​

Third, one of the members of the conspiracy performed at least one overt act for the purpose of carrying out the conspiracy.

---

Notice that there is no requirement that the actual criminal act was carried out, or even attempted. Knowing consultation and agreement among a plural number of folks, with at least one overt act furthering the conspiracy is enough even if some folks gets cold feet before the plan comes to fruition.No quid pro quo is required. Edited by Admin, : Fix link to definition of conspiracy.

Assuming the facts show that a conspiracy was committed without a quid pro quo, why does Trump out of all folks on earth, have to have a quid pro quo in order to be guilty of conspiracy? After all, according to the definition of conspiracy, even Trump's actions before his election were sufficient to meet the criminal elements for conspiracy.As a practical matter, as far as federal crimes are concerned, the standard is probably not what is criminal, but is instead, just how horrifying his activities have to be before the Senate is likely to convict. I submit that the standard is pretty high. In fact, much higher than was the standard for Bill Clinton who also was not convicted. Percy, I provided a very authoritative link for the elements of the crime of conspiracy. On the other hand, the Black's law article contains multiple definitions, plus citations to example case law. I provided a summary and left the link for anyone interested. I'm not sure what the basis of your complaint might be. Did my summary or the rest of my post really leave doubt about the matter?ABE:A quid pro quo aspect could indeed make Trump guilty of some other crimes committed while president. Perhaps you are really asking about those. The actual election tampering, if any, occurred prior to the election and was presumably over. However, one might well extend the scope of illegal activities to include any cover-up. That might allow a crime committed by Trump as president without a quid pro quo.So I think there is an issue here. If I missed your intent to talk about only crimes committed in office, then I agree that your question is more interesting. But there may still be something there for which a quid pro quo is not required.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

ROFL!
Percy, it is quite gracious of you to agree with what I am saying "now". Let me see if I can match that standard for graciousness and accuracy.Apparently "now" means 5 or so days ago when I posted this: I know you saw that message because you responded to it quoting only the question part of the quote. Let's see if I made any similar comments prior to that. So no, I have not recently decided that there is no crime of collusion on the books. That has been my understanding from the beginning. If I made statements that can be interpreted otherwise, surely those statements where I explicitly stated what I meant ought to shield me from "If NoNukes is now saying" crap. I am now saying and have been saying exactly the same thing. No, ICANT[1]. I am not arguing that there is a criminal offense called collusion. And yes it is perfectly okay to provide an example of collusion that fits the facts of this particular case. Your statement is mistaken.[1] Yeah, I know.Edited by NoNukes, : ClarifyEdited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

As I have explained several times, saying that collusion is not illegal is a bleeping stupid thing to say in this context and in many other contexts. Modulus has explained why calling collusion is just fine. But as I have said several times, when folks accuse Trump of collusion with the Russians, they are invariably talking about working with the Russians to tamper with the election and not about collusion as a general thing.Given that context, saying that collusion is not illegal is akin to saying that there is no federal offense called "bushwacking an FBI officer". While I am sure that some dumbass would say something like that, such a speaker is an idiot.Is that clear? Absent some better rationale for saying that collusion is not illegal, and to date, your go-to response is that you are just posting what other folks are saying, making multiple quotes just adds to the list of folks I am saying are being silly.Hopefully, that is clear enough that you won't ask me what my position is again. If you disagree, fine. I'd appreciate a rationale. That's all I asked for at the start of this thread. Actually, my post did include the cut and paste I felt was necessary. Did I leave anything out that supported your ridiculous idea that conspiracy requires a quid pro quo? No, I did not. That's a flat-out lie. In addition to my summary of the definition, I also posted the elements of the crime of conspiracy and pointed out that a quid pro quo was not one of the elements. You apparently missed yet another point.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

That's true. However, at various times since the Cold War ended, we have had various stances with respect to Russia, and it is not cut and dried that we would list Russia as an enemy in the sense that treason would be an applicable charge. It is possible to commit espionage by giving away secrets to even friendly powers. We typically call such stuff espionage and not treason.Perhaps my reasoning above is not what would rule the day depending on what the actions involved are. I recall some John Walker betraying the US by selling extremely sensitive information on the US Navy to Russia. A betrayal yes, but treason? I am not sure. On the other hand, I doubt there was much push back on the issue of helping the Soviet Union acquire nuclear weapons. Perhaps the rule of law was not the most important fact it determining what someone who did that was charged with.In short, politics can play a role in this issue. If we read the history of the crime in the US, non-citizens have been convicted of treason. There is one civil war era treason conviction that had to do with the handling of a flag. So there is some ambiguity. You've made your call. I happen to disagree with it.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

What I actually did was quote the elements needed to prove the crime of conspiracy from the website of the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, and then note that quid pro quo was not a required element. Please go back and read the post. Perhaps your head should be in a new position that does not obscure your view for this new attempt.

What you asked was whether convicting Trump of conspiracy required a quid pro quo. In response, I asked you why that would be true for Trump when it was not true for anyone else. I know you saw that exchange because you quoted it in a recent post. So why now pretend that I just posted the definition out of the blue?Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

My description of the post in question provides more than enough detail you to allow you to locate it. After all, the details are in the same post that contains the explanation that you initially denied was present. Any disinterested party that made the effort would see that my description of what you said was accurate.At this point, I am tired of having to repeatedly point to what I have said in response to your denials that I actually said it. We've gone through that exercise at least four times in this thread. Also, given that there is already a complaint that we are "uglying" up the forum, I am of a mind to drop this line of discussion for now. I'm sure we will butt heads in the future.I'm really going to try not to respond to whatever you say about this post. If I say you win, will that end things?Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

Hopefully, this will clear up something in your discussion.Let's postulate that a group of people get together to form a criminal act. In colloquial terms we might call that a conspiracy, but let me describe the legal fine points here.When the folks gather together and plan the criminal act they are conspiring. In order to be convicted of the crime of the conspiracy, one of the conspirators must do an overt act in furtherance of the conspiracy. Something like buying burglary tools or a bugging device would suffice. Even legal acts, like withdrawing money from the bank to finance the crime, even if the money never gets used is enough. Even if the actual crime fails or is frustrated, you can still be convicted of a conspiracy.However, there must be an underlying crime. Just saying that Russians were part of the plan does not mean diddly squat absent some reason why such participation was illegal.Okay, next let's say that some of the folks in the conspiracy go to the next step of trying to bug a DNC computer to gather dirt and intelligence. Whether or not the plot succeeds, the conspirators are guilty of an attempt at whatever the actual crime was. But something more than the niggling act that suffices for conspiracy is necessary. You cannot just buy a map to DNC headquarters to be guilty of attempt. Someone would actually have to hammer at the door or try to pick a lock or something similar.Finally, let's assume that the entire planned crime gets carried out. In that case, all of the conspirators can be charged with the underlying crime.In short, conspiracy is getting together to plan something, the attempt is just trying to carry out the plan, and then there is the actual crime itself. If the crime is a felony, then separately, attempt and conspiracy are also felonies. Unless there are specific statutes saying otherwise, the state can pursue charges for any of those things at approximately the same severity as if the crime fully was committed.As a result, most prosecutors just go with charging conspiracy because the level of effort on the state's part is usually substantially less than that required to prove that all elements of the actual crime were carried out. That is particularly the case if some conspirators were not even participants in the breaking and entering, tampering or whatever.In your discussion, you seem to be simply using conspiracy to represent the whole enterprise. That is simply not the case legally.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

Trump's lawyer says he paid $130,000 to porn star ahead of election | CNN PoliticsIn what would seem to be a bizarre turn of events even on this day full of news, Trump's personal lawyer, Michael Cohen says that he paid Stormy Daniels $130,000 using his (Cohen's) own money, and that there is no connection to Trump.Regarding why he might have done so Cohen said the following:

quote:

---

When asked why he made the payment, Cohen told CNN: "Just because something isn't true doesn't mean that it can't cause you harm or damage. I will always protect Mr. Trump."

---

Not sure what to make off this report, but Cohen would not answer questions that would help clear things up, like whether Trump was aware of the payment, or why in the heck he used his own money.On its face, Cohen's story would seem to make very little sense.

Your list is fine. I am not sure I could argue strongly even for a change in the order. I might have chosen a different climate accord bullet point. Maybe. I'd probably rank disassembling the state department in the top 10.I would expect that even Republicans that were not hanging off of Trump's "strap" might have some issues with the list, so I added some comments on their behalf.

quote:

---

These four on everyone's list:

​

Obstructing Russia scandal investigation, e.g., firing FBI director James Comey, criticizing intelligence agencies.
Ignoring Russian meddling in the American democratic process.
Phasing out the DACA program.

​

There two were Republican priorities well before Trump. Not on a Republicans list:

​

Dismantling the EPA by appointing Scott Pruit.
Attacks on the Affordable Care Act.

​

These three should be on anyone's list
Alarming allies throughout the world.
Blatant racism, e.g., saying "There were good people on both sides" after Charleston.
Blatant misogyny, e.g., comments about Rob Porter, criticizing gold star widow after death of husband.

​

These two probably resonate with most Republicans. Not on their list
Withdrawal from climate accords.
Roiling already unstable relationship with North Korea. (top five on my list)
Coddling Russia and cozying up to Vladimir Putin.

​

Resonant with large portions of the Republican base. Not on their list.
Muslim travel ban.

​

These are okay with most Republicans. Not on their list.
Withdrawal from Pacific trade pact.
Support of Ray Moore.

​

I hope that most folks are not okay with this. I have no idea.
Abandoned Puerto Rico.

​

Most Republicans are onboard with calling facts they don't like fake news:
Made "fake news" a rallying cry for dictators the world over.
Made lying standard operating procedure for himself and his administration.

​

Many Republicans don't see it that way. Not on their list.
Brought respect for the US and the office of the Presidency to new lows.

---

Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

After Trump's press Secretary was dragged from pillar to post yesterday because Trump could not find it in his heart to say some words of support for the women who had suffered physical abuse from is staff member, Trump came out with some strong words today.Donald Trump says he is 'totally opposed to domestic violence' as White House faces questions about ex-aide accused of spousal abuse | The Independent | The Independent

quote:

---

Donald Trump says he is 'totally opposed to domestic violence' as White House faces questions about ex-aide accused of spousal abuse

---

Roflmao! Totally opposed to wife beating eh? And what else? Forest fires? Is he on the right side of that issue too?

quote:

---

Everyone knows that and it almost wouldn't even have to be said.

---

Trump latter statement is correct. If you don't spend the first half week supporting wife punching pieces of crap or praising neo nazi's, you almost would not have to come out and pretend to care about folks with black eyes, or who had been deliberately run over by a manic in a car.Yeah, I am pissed.

That's an easy one to answer. The constitution says that folks under US jurisdiction have constitutional rights. The Supreme court has interpreted that to mean that combatants captured on the battlefield do not have those rights until they are under US jurisdiction. There are some complicated rulings that affect folks at Guantanamo Bay as well as some issues that have not been ruled on, but perhaps that is beyond the scope needed here. The question involved seems to be about the more common case.In the case of folks accused of terrorism, its pretty clear that they do have rights to due process and under the 4, 5th and 6th amendments, but it is equally clear that the political will to actually enforce the constitution in this area is not very strong. But mostly their rights are recognized.Let's recall that Miranda rights do not prevent you from being tortured. Those rights only apply to whether any revealed content can be used in a trial. Only human decency and the rule of law prevent us from torturing anyone at any time. Yes, that was funny. But it was matched by that Republican get together after passing the latest tax legislation. Among those few who refused to participate in the arselicking at the aforementioned cabinet meeting, I believe only General Mattis is still part of the administration.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

Right, but let's look at what these Russians are being charged with...

quote:

---

The goal was "to sow discord in the U.S. political system," including the presidential election, by supporting the Trump campaign and disparaging his Democratic opponent, Hillary Clinton, with ads and rallies.

​

They’re charged with failing to disclose those expenditures, failing to register as foreign agents and obtaining visas through false and fraudulent statements.

---

As I read it, these folks had some very sinister goals, but apparently spreading lies, discord in an attempt to affect democracy isn't a crime. Heck, there is nothing about their campaign that would not be legal for any US citizen to do. Did these guys do anything any worse than the "Swift-boating" of John Kerry? I don't think so.Apparently what the charges in the indictment currently consist of is incidental crimes and rule flaunting necessary only because these folks were hiding their identities as Russians. I would not be surprised if they failed to find a single person from the campaigns who was involved in those kinds of things.

I did not mean that they were not important. What I said was that items in the indictment were incidental to the goals and were primarily the result of folks disguising their identities. Yes, those folks did that stuff on the way to spreading discord and lies and deceiving voters. But apparently, spreading discord, lies, and deceit is perfectly legal.My point is, and still remains, that the stuff they pulled off was totally legal[1] and totally evil. It would be assuming that subverting the election process is criminal. Now, let's talk about what constitutes subversion to the degree that it constitutes a crime. Certainly, something more than swiftboating in my opinion.[1] Totally legal if Americans did it. But foreign influence is illegal.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.