Summations Only

I think you have to go back to where the discussion began in NoNukes Message 1818. Here's some excerpts from that message: NoNukes is arguing that collusion is a crime, and is giving it a definition that legally it does not have (he calls collusion "conspiracy in action", which while a possibility is not the definition). I was only pointing out that nothing I've read agrees with this. Right, a point made by the articles I've cited. A couple of the articles made very similar points. For instance, the Esquire article (The Word of the Summer Is 'Collusion.' What You Need to Focus on Is 'Conspiracy.') said these things that are similar to your point:

quote:

---

Let's agree, for now, that "collusion" is a political word, a media word, a polite word countless hacks have settled on because its use allows everyone to cover this catastrophe without having to actually accuse the president and his tribunes of something that sounds like a crime.
...
The good news, for those of us in the rational world or those of us who simply want to understand the scope of what has happened here, is that Mueller and his team know the difference between collusion and conspiracy. If there is evidence a criminal conspiracy took place here, or if there is evidence of obstruction of justice or any other criminal conduct, Mueller will be the one to tell us so.

---

I agree with what you're saying about collusion. If NoNukes is now saying the same thing then I agree with him, too. The articles I cited pretty much say that evidence of conspiracy is what Mueller will be looking for, and conspiracy is easy to say, too. Right - the articles made that point, too.--Percy

Ah, that makes sense. And if Mueller reports that Trump violated the law and either DOJ decides to do nothing or they decide to charge Trump but he argues and wins before the Supreme Court that sitting presidents cannot commit a crime or be charged with a crime or some such, then that again leaves it up to Congress. I would think that Congress can act even after some months have passed. In other words, if the Democrats somehow do take over Congress, they could act on the Mueller report then. Again, not a legal expert here, but just Googling this says they have to show you knew the goods were stolen in order to support a charge of conspiracy. I was only making the point that Carter Page didn't have much time to get a conspiracy going, but if did manage to engage in a conspiracy with Russia in the short time he was with the Trump campaign then you're of course right that this is more trouble for Trump. Trump pretty consistently makes bad personnel decisions because he hires his buddies without much regard for qualifications, taint or political appearances, plus Trump boasted about his own Russia connections during the campaign, so he saw Russia connections as good thing. Of course this brings us back to the question of why Trump is so favorably biased toward Russia. We need some hard evidence there. I was unable to verify that Trump "started crowing about the sanctions" immediately after the Kushner meeting, but Trump of course started working on reducing the Russia sanctions after taking office. I agree that Trump's favorable treatment of Russia and Putin is highly suspicious, but it seems very weak evidence. It feels like more direct evidence is needed. Still, Manafort is only charged with money laundering so far. Speculation isn't evidence, so we'll have to wait for the Mueller report to see if there's evidence of conspiracy concerning Manafort. I don't doubt the existence of Russian spying efforts on all facets of our government, especially the significant ones like State, but as far as we know Russian efforts to hack into Clinton emails were not successful. Of course, the Russians didn't have to hack Clinton's emails, we made them available on-line, though redacted, of course. He was playing to a crowd. I can see Mueller using things said during campaign speeches as supporting evidence for other charges, but not as crimes themselves. When you said Trump's been in debt to Russians for many, many years I thought you meant that in the sense of debt he can't repay, thus giving Russians leverage over him. After reading your response it seems you're referring to Trump's Russian financing, but we still don't have many details. What we know so far mostly involves Deutsche Bank, not Russian banks or oligarchs. That'd be great - sounds impeachable. Why more Trump supporters don't see this as obvious evidence that he's hiding something is beyond me. Well, we'll just have to continue hoping the Mueller's investigation turns up evidence.--PercyEdited by Percy, : Spelling.

Your link is broken, so I just fixed it for you in your message, and I'll put a working version of the link here, too: Of course you're not, why should you bother yourself with cut-n-pastes when others will do it for you? But I already posted the definition of conspiracy from Black's a while ago in Message 1824, here it is again: If you look at what you just quoted me saying, I asked the question in the specific context of Russian sanctions, because that is what Rrhain called attention to in his Message 1817: "The sanctions."I know the definition of conspiracy doesn't include anything about quid pro quo, but in the context of the Russia sanctions isn't one pretty much required? If Trump as president just decides not to enforce the sanctions and gets nothing in return, isn't he just exercising his right as president?But if Trump gets something back, a quid pro quo, then a crime might be involved depending upon what he gets back. If he declines to enforce the sanctions in return for Moscow committing to wind down their interference in Ukraine, isn't he within his rights acting as president? But he if holds up the sanctions in return for Moscow keeping secret any illegal dealings (such as an agreement to influence the election in his favor), then isn't he committing a crime, probably a treasonous one? And if during the campaign he made a deal with the Russians to protect Russia from sanctions (once elected) in return for their influencing the election in his favor, then isn't that a crime, too, and again, probably a treasonous one?So it does seem to me that in order for Trump to commit a crime involving Russia sanctions that some kind of quid pro quo would have to be involved.--Percy

Responding to your last two messages to me...Responding to your Message 1860: I was writing in the context of the Russia sanctions. I think a quid pro quo is necessary in this context, and I explained why. You say no quid pro quo is necessary, but you don't explain why, and since you never mention the Russia sanctions you may have been speaking generally, and if that's true then your comments don't really bear on what I said. Before a trial can begin in the Senate articles of impeachment have to be voted by the House. The House was under control of the opposite party when Clinton was impeached. At present the House is controlled by the same party as Trump, so impeachment seems very unlikely unless the House changes hands in November. The Senate is unlikely to change hands, so you're right that the bar for conviction is pretty high. The complaint was no biggie, you just can't be bothered doing a cut-n-paste. Anyway, I had already provided a cut-n-paste of Black's definition of conspiracy last Tuesday, and I did so again in my message yesterday. Plus your link to Black's was broken, I fixed it, you're welcome. There was already no "doubt about the matter" regarding the definition of conspiracy. The actual context was what a conspiracy regarding the Russia sanctions might involve, which you ignored.People working together toward an agreement is not a conspiracy unless a crime is involved, so unless Trump's recent actions on Russia sanctions involve a crime (e.g., doing it in return for help in upcoming elections) there's no conspiracy. In other words, unless he traded lightening up on the sanctions for some benefit to him there's no crime and no conspiracy, he's just acting within his prerogatives as president.Much more problematic would be if during the 2016 campaign Trump worked with the Russians toward some agreement beneficial to him, e.g., providing financial assistance or engaging in election fraud, both illegal under current campaign laws. Even if no quid pro quo was involved (Which seems strange. Why would Trump agree to help Russia out on the sanctions in return for nothing? Or why would Russia agree to help out in the election in return for nothing? Neither makes sense.), it would still be a crime. Trump has a problem keeping his mouth shut, and Rrhain's suspicions that Trump's campaign statements are hints of involvement with a Russian conspiracy might have merit.If Trump did engage in something so stupid as conspiring with Russia for help in the 2016 election, why would he do it? I wonder if his ego was involved. Expecting to lose and wanting the margin of loss to be as small as possible, maybe he conspired with Russia, knowing after his expected loss there would be too little concern or scrutiny to lead to an investigation.Responding to your Message 1861: So why the big hullabaloo when I said back in Message 1818 that "collusion, apparently, isn't illegal"?--Percy

You say, "there is no crime of collusion on the books," and I say, "collusion...isn't illegal." We seem to be saying the same thing, but you're reacting as if you see two blatantly contradictory statements. How so? Your sentence may be missing a word or two, but anyway, I thought Modulous' explanation was fine, as it was consistent with all the webpages I cited and quoted from. See Message 1846 and the end of Message 1849. Yes, of course. This makes little sense. Did you mean to say, "saying that collusion is *not* illegal"? I'll assume that's what you really meant. I can tell you feel very strongly about this. The only thing clear is that you seem very irritated. Yeah, this seems to indicate that you did earlier leave out the word "not". How is saying, "collusion is not illegal," any different from saying, "there is no crime of collusion"? You're welcome to your opinion that they're being silly, but they're also correct and you apparently agree with them. At the risk of further irritating you, I'm just repeating what I've read in many news articles and opinion pieces. Again, see Message 1846 for links and relevant excerpts. Actually, your post did not include the cut-n-paste I mentioned, for which you also posted a broken link. But I didn't say conspiracy requires a quid pro quo. What I actually did was try to think my way through the issue, and I tried to look at both sides. Quoting from my Message 1821 to Rrhain: You next say: I don't think so. Rather than me missing a point I think you failed to make one. Quoting from your Message 1856 after your excerpt from 8.20 CONSPIRACYELEMENTS: You wrote a paragraph about how actually carrying out the criminal act isn't necessary to it being a conspiracy, then simply tacked on the conclusion, "No quid pro quo is required." Your explanation was completely unrelated to quid pro quo. And anyway, I'm not claiming that a quid pro quo is required. In the case of the Russia scandal I do think that scenarios with a quid pro quo make the most sense, but I don't think it's required.This subdiscussion began simply with your Message 1818 where you responded to my "collusion...isn't illegal" comment by saying, "I find this position difficult to understand from a legal standpoint." After all these posts you still haven't made clear why you think this, since legally collusion is not illegal, or in your words, "There is no crime of collusion."--Percy

Apologies for not being more entertaining.For my part I just don't see what NoNukes problem is with my comment that "collusion...isn't illegal". It isn't. Tons of people have written news articles and opinion pieces saying so. Though widely believed I don't know if this is strictly true, but I don't think there's any harm in it since it would never be an issue in a courtroom, and it isn't the focus of disagreement. But because federal statute uses the term conspiracy and not collusion, the term collusion is left adrift from a legal standpoint. That's why article's have referred to collusion as an umbrella term or a political word, because conspiracy is the word used in federal statutes and is therefore a crime, while the word collusion isn't used in federal statutes and is therefore not a crime.And that is why Trump's legal team has Trump and his administration using the term collusion while at the same time making the point that collusion isn't illegal. Even though it's just a semantic game that in any legal fight involving judges and lawyers would have no effect, it does have an effect on public opinion.As the article What Is Collusion? Is It Even a Crime? says:

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. But that doesn’t mean that the alleged cooperation between the Trump campaign and Russia is of no criminal interest. To the contrary, if true, it may have violated any number of criminal prohibitions.

​

For example, if Donald Trump Jr. sought dirt on Hillary Clinton from the Russians, he might be charged with conspiring to violate the election laws of the United States, which prohibit foreign nationals from contributing any thing of value to an electoral campaign.

---

--Percy

But I never claimed quid pro quo was part of the definition of conspiracy. If you'd read my messages more carefully you'd know that. I even quoted the definition of conspiracy from Black's a couple of times, and it does not include quid pro quo as part of the definition, so of course I wouldn't say that it does.What I did say was that a quid pro quo seemed likely in the case of the Russia sanctions. It was Rrhain who introduced this subtopic, and in my last message to you I even quoted from my reply to Rrhain where I considered both possibilities. Perhaps you should read the messages you reply to more carefully and do a pre-send review/edit of your posts.--Percy

You are very confused. If you identify the "recent post" I'll explain things for you.--Percy

You can't find it, huh. The explanation you claim was there wasn't, and the claim you keep casting accusations about was never made. If you do say so yourself.What you should do is: a) Link to the post; b) Quote the relevant passages; c) Make your case.Doing now the kind of simple substantiation of claims that you refuse to do, the fact remains that, as I already clearly explained in Message 1866 yesterday, I explored the quid pro quo issue from both sides: Given how clearly I've laid all this out for you several times now I can only surmise that you've got a false recollection in your mind that you refuse to give up, even though it's contradicted by the message history, which explains why you refuse to link to any messages. Unable to admit error you continue making false allegations that I've made statements I haven't.As I said in Message 1866, your original point way back in your Message 1818 was that my statement "collusion...isn't illegal" was "difficult to understand from a legal standpoint." But you later said "there is no crime of collusion" (Message 1861), so I don't see where we disagree. All this discussion has been unnecessary.AbE: I see you edited your post, but you didn't describe what you changed, so either I somehow just missed this or you added this as an edit. Anyway, it seems like you're just making up one accusation after another, so if you stop making up accusations I'll stop pointing out how they're wrong. I'm seeking common ground based upon what we've really said, not capitulation.--PercyEdited by Percy, : AbE.

Yep. I was just commenting on the part of the analogy about not knowing the goods were stolen. Again, I was only saying that Carter Page didn't have much time to get a conspiracy started. Otherwise I agreed with you. I refer you to where I said, "You're of course right...etc..."You're also right that Carter Page was a member of the Trump campaign for a number of months. Trying to remember where I got the information that it was just a month, I think it came out of the White House. When will I learn that if their lips are moving they're lying. Boy, it must have been a sight to see Sanders struggle through today's press conference about Rob Porter. She won't admit it to the press core, but inside she knows she was lied to by multiple people multiple times. Yeah, that's what I mean, we need some hard evidence. Yep, I remember all that. I was just unable to verify that Trump "started crowing about the sanctions" immediately after the Trump Jr. meeting. Sure, that would do, though I wouldn't hold my breath that one will turn up, and who videotapes anything anymore?
I'm just saying better evidence is needed than Trump treating Russia favorably regarding things like sanctions. Sure, but how do you prove a connection between a comment in a campaign speech and something the Russians always do anyway? I'm not thinking about what it would take to convince me but what it would take to convince the DOJ or the House. Again, I thought you were talking about debt that would give Russians leverage over Trump. This doesn't do that. Seems pretty weak as evidence. Only some of which is verified. Again, I'm not thinking about what it would take to convince me. I'm thinking about what it would take to convince the DOJ or the House.--Percy

At the end of December the Washington Post ran an editorial titled The 10 worst things Trump has done in his first year in office. You have to be suspicious of it because it is by Marc A. Thiessen, a rabid Trump Republican apologist, but here's the list:

1. He has failed to condemn the alt-right.
2. He stood by Roy Moore.
3. He has dismissed Russian interference in the 2016 election.
4. He fired James B. Comey.
5. His noxious tweets undermine his presidency.
6. He has attacked the FBI and the intelligence community.
7. He is giving Miranda rights to captured terrorists.
8. He is empowering al-Qaeda in Syria.
9. He has spent more time attacking Republicans than Democrats.
10. He has made no effort at bipartisanship.

This is a milquetoast list, and I think I can come up with a much better one:

1. Obstructing Russia scandal investigation, e.g., firing FBI director James Comey, criticizing intelligence agencies.
2. Ignoring Russian meddling in the American democratic process.
3. Phasing out the DACA program.
4. Dismantling the EPA by appointing Scott Pruit.
5. Attacks on the Affordable Care Act.
6. Alarming allies throughout the world.
7. Blatant racism, e.g., saying "There were good people on both sides" after Charleston.
8. Blatant misogyny, e.g., comments about Rob Porter, criticizing gold star widow after death of husband.
9. Withdrawal from climate accords.
10. Roiling already unstable relationship with North Korea.
11. Coddling Russia and cozying up to Vladimir Putin.
12. Muslim travel ban.
13. Withdrawal from Pacific trade pact.
14. Support of Ray Moore.
15. Abandoned Puerto Rico.
16. Made "fake news" a rallying cry for dictators the world over.
17. Made lying standard operating procedure for himself and his administration.
18. Brought respect for the US and the office of the Presidency to new lows.
19. Did not make tax returns public as promised.

Once I started I couldn't stop, so there's many more than 10 items in my list. I attempted to order it by severity.
Anyone want to suggest their own list?--PercyEdited by Percy, : Add failure to make tax returns public to the bottom of my list.

Yeah, that's from the Thiessen list, I'm not really sure. NoNukes probably knows a lot more about the appropriateness of extending Miranda rights to foreign nationals, combatants and terrorists not arrested on American soil.This is the Thiessen item I found most interesting:

9. He has spent more time attacking Republicans than Democrats.

So I thought I'd compose a list of Trump nicknames for American politicians and government employees and see whether more Republicans or Democrats are on the list.

1. Crooked Hilliary (Hillary Clinton (D))
2. Pocahontas (Senator Elizabeth Warrren (D-MA))
3. Little Adam Schiff (Rep. Adam Schiff (D-CA)
4. Sloppy Steve (Steve Bannon (R))
5. Dicky Durbin (Senate Minority Whip Dick Durbin (D-IL))
6. Sneaky Dianne Feinstein (Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-CA))
7. Jeff Flakey (Senator Jeff Flake (R-AZ))
8. Al Frankenstein (Senator Al Franken (D-MN))
9. Liddle Bob Corker (Senator Bob Corker (R-TN))
10. Wacky Congresswoman Wilson (Rep. Frederica Wilson (D-FL))
11. Little Marco (Senator Marco Rubio (R-FL))
12. Lyin' Ted (Senator Ted Cruz (R-TX))
13. Low Energy Jeb (Governor Jeb Bush (R-FL))
14. Crazy Bernie (Senator Bernie Sanders (D-VT))
15. Crying Chuck (Senator Chuck Schumer (D-NY))
16. Leakin' James Comey (Former FBI Director James Comey (R))

The count:

• Republicans: 7
• Democrats: 9

So at least according to the derogatory nicknames Trump has used, he attacks Democrats more. Wikipedia has a good list of Trump nicknames that is broader, extending outside the political realm.Of course, Thiessen is right that Trump is hardest on those who work for him or who are in his own party, and he demands complete loyalty. Who can forget the televised cabinet meeting where one cabinet member after another obsequiously offered their obeisance to Trump.What would be a good nickname for Trump? I like liar-in-chief.Note: I forgot to include that Trump didn't make his tax returns public in my list, I'll add it now at the bottom.--Percy

Other articles about the indictments of Russians for 2016 election meddling:

• Washington Post: Russian troll farm, 13 suspects indicted for interference in U.S. election]
  
• New York Times: 13 Russians Charged With Interfering in 2016 Election

One of those indicted Yevgeniy Viktorovich Prigozhin, a Russian businessman who helped with financing the disinformation campaign, in effect said Americans are naive and that he was proud to be indicted:

quote:

---

"The Americans are very impressionable people and they see what they want to see. I respect them very much. I am not at all disappointed that I appear in this list. If they want to see the devillet them.

---

Naturally Russia will not extradite their own citizens to the US, but this could prevent them from traveling outside Russia.Interesting that the Russians were pushing Sanders during the primaries - I wasn't expecting that.--Percy

Hillary never reached the point where she wanted out of her marriage to Bill, and I assume Melania will never try to escape her marriage to Trump, but she sure has plenty of reasons. In addition to all the sexual harassment claims, Stormy Daniels is now free to talk about her 2006 affair with Trump, and there are reports that former Playboy Playmate Karen McDougal also had an affair with Trump from 2006 to 2007. Add this to Summer Zervos' (Apprentice contestant) suit against Trump for defamation after he called her a liar when she alleged he sexually assaulted her.Washington Post article: The latest alleged Trump affair coverup is a damningly familiar tale--Percy

You say, "As I read it." Are you referring to the BBC article PaulK linked to (Russians charged over US 2016 election tampering)? If so then what you say seems at odds with it:

quote:

---

What does the indictment say?
It says a group of Russians:

​

• Posed as Americans, and opened financial accounts in their name
• Spent thousands of dollars a month buying political advertising
• Purchased US server space in an effort to hide their Russian affiliation
• Organised and promoted political rallies within the United States
• Posted political messages on social media accounts that impersonated real US citizens
• Promoted information that disparaged Hillary Clinton
• Received money from clients to post on US social media sites
• Created themed groups on social media on hot-button issues, particularly on Facebook and Instagram
• Operated with a monthly budget of as much as $1.25m (890,000)
• Sent money to a US member of the organisation with the aim of building a cage large enough to hold an actress portraying [Hillary] Clinton in a prison uniform

---

Some of these sound pretty serious, constituting "conspiracy to commit wire fraud and...aggravated identity theft." "Only"???!!! Isn't "hiding their identities as Russians" what spies would do? Sounds pretty serious.Or by "As I read it" do you mean you've read the indictment, which no one has posted a link to yet, so here it is: The IndictmentThe indictment reads much more damning than what you say. Here are what I thought were the most significant parts:

• 1. ...U.S. law bans foreign nationals from making certain expenditures of financial disbursements for the purpose of influencing federal elections. (Only applies to non-citizens)
  ​
• U.S. law also bars agents of any foreign entity from engaging in political activities within the United States without first registering with the Attorney General. (Only applies to non-citizens)
  ​
• And U.S. law requires certain foreign nationals seeking entry to the United States to obtain a visa by providing truthful and accurate information to the government. (Only applies to non-citizens)
  ​
• 2. ...From in or around 2014 to the present, Defendants knowingly and intentionally conspired with each other (and with persons known and unknown to the Grand Jury) to defraud the United States by impairing, obstructing and defeating the lawful function of the government through fraud and deceit for the purpose of interfering with the U.S. political and electoral processes, including the presidential election of 2016.
  ​
• 4. Defendants, posing as U.S. persons and creating false U.S. personas, operated social media pages and groups designed to attract U.S. audiences. These groups and pages, which addressed divisive U.S. political and social issues, falsely claimed to be controlled by U.S. activists when, in fact, they were controlled by Defendants.
  ​
• Defendants also used the stolen identities of real U.S. persons to post on ORGANIZATION-controlled social media accounts. Over time, these social media accounts became Defendants' means to reach significant numbers of Americans for purposes of interfering with the U.S. political system, including the presidential election of 2016.
  ​
• 5. Certain Defendants traveled to the United States under false pretenses for the purpose of collecting intelligence to inform Defendants' operations. Defendants also procured and used computer infrastructure, based partly in the United States, to hide the Russian origin of their activities and to avoid detection by U.S. regulators and law enforcement.
  ​
• 6. Defendant ORGANIZATION had a strategic goal to sow discord in the U.S. political system, including the 2016 U.S. presidential election. Defendants posted derogatory information about a number of candidates, and by early to mid-2016, Defendants' operations included supporting the presidential campaign of then-candidate Donald J. Trump ("Trump Campaign") and disparaging Hillary Clinton. Defendants made various expenditures to carry out those activities, including buying political advertisements on social media in the names of U.S. persons and entities. (This is identify theft, illegal for both citizens and non-citizens.)
  ​
• Defendants also staged political rallies inside the United States, and while posing as U.S. grassroots entities and U.S. persons, and without revealing their Russian identities and ORGANIZATION affiliation, solicited and compensated real U.S. persons to promote or disparage candidates.
  ​
• Some Defendants, posing as U.S. persons and without revealing their Russian association, communicated with unwitting individuals associated with the Trump Campaign and with other political activists to seek to coordinate political activities. (I bet there was a lot of discussion about whether to include the word "unwitting".)
  ​
• 7. In order to carry out their activities to interfere in U.S. political and electoral processes without detection of their Russian affiliation, Defendants conspired to obstruct the lawful functions of the United States government through fraud and deceit, including by making expenditures in connection with the 2016 U.S. presidential election without proper regulatory disclosure; failing to register as foreign agents carrying out political activities within the United States; and obtaining visas through false and fraudulent statements.
  ​
• 9. From in or around 2014 to the present, in the District of Columbia and elsewhere, Defendants, together with others known and unknown to the Grand Jury, knowingly and intentionally conspired to defraud the United States by impairing, obstructing, and defeating the lawful functions of the Federal Election Commission, the U.S. Department of Justice, and the U.S. Department of State in administering federal requirements for disclosure of foreign involvement in certain domestic activities.

And I only got as the top of page 5. Looks pretty bad. Wouldn't a meeting about Hillary Clinton emails with Russians with connections to the effort to subvert the 2016 election process, however indirect, constitute conspiracy?--Percy