Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 79 (8870 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 10-20-2018 11:19 PM
257 online now:
Dr Adequate (1 member, 256 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: paradigm of types
Happy Birthday: Astrophile
Post Volume:
Total: 840,476 Year: 15,299/29,783 Month: 1,243/1,502 Week: 241/492 Day: 36/25 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
RewPrev1
...
120121
122
123124
...
171NextFF
Author Topic:   The Trump Presidency
jar
Member
Posts: 30920
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 1.7


(1)
Message 1816 of 2557 (827935)
02-05-2018 8:06 PM
Reply to: Message 1815 by Percy
02-05-2018 7:58 PM


Follow the money
Percy writes:

Then why is Trump working so hard, and so naively openly and overtly, to obstruct the Mueller investigation?

Because the Mueller investigation can look at anything and that might include finances and funding and Russian money and Russian Banks and ... and that is not simply a threat to the President but a real threat to TRUMP, Inc.


My Sister's Website: Rose Hill Studios     My Website: My Website

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1815 by Percy, posted 02-05-2018 7:58 PM Percy has acknowledged this reply

  
Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6349
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 1817 of 2557 (827936)
02-05-2018 9:09 PM
Reply to: Message 1815 by Percy
02-05-2018 7:58 PM


Re: The Irony of Trump's Obstruction of Justice
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.

The sanctions that were imposed upon Russia because of their invasion of Crimea which were imposed by Obama have been devastating to the Russian economy: The ruble is down significantly (at one point down 57%) as well as the GDP. Then there is the freeze on assets for many of the Russian oligarchs...of which Putin is the biggest (he is rumored to be worth about $200B...that's right, two hundred billion.)

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.

There now appears to be a question of the Russians laundering money through the NRA to benefit Trump's election.

Carter Page was a known Kremlin operative (by his own admission).

George Papadopoulos tried to set up connections with Russians (by his own statements).

Paul Manafort was a foreign agent who was involved in the Russian invasion of Crimea.

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.

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. 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.

But there's also the fact that he's been in debt to Russians for many, many years and is worried that investigations into his connections with Russia will lead to information regarding his 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), he may very well be worried about that more than any concern he has regarding the election. Paul Manafort was indicted for money laundering, so there is certainly a question regarding Trump.


Rrhain

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

Minds are like parachutes. Just because you've lost yours doesn't mean you can use mine.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1815 by Percy, posted 02-05-2018 7:58 PM Percy has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 1821 by Percy, posted 02-06-2018 9:14 AM Rrhain has responded

    
NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 1818 of 2557 (827937)
02-05-2018 11:05 PM
Reply to: Message 1815 by Percy
02-05-2018 7:58 PM


Re: The Irony of Trump's Obstruction of Justice
collusion, apparently, isn't illegal

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.

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

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.


Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)

"Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free, the wretched refuse of your teeming shore. Send these, the homeless, tempest-tossed to me, I lift my lamp beside the golden door!”

We got a thousand points of light for the homeless man. We've got a kinder, gentler, machine gun hand. Neil Young, Rockin' in the Free World.

Worrying about the "browning of America" is not racism. -- Faith

I hate you all, you hate me -- Faith


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1815 by Percy, posted 02-05-2018 7:58 PM Percy has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 1822 by Percy, posted 02-06-2018 9:57 AM NoNukes has responded

  
nwr
Member
Posts: 5583
From: Geneva, Illinois
Joined: 08-08-2005


(1)
Message 1819 of 2557 (827938)
02-06-2018 12:10 AM
Reply to: Message 1815 by Percy
02-05-2018 7:58 PM


Re: The Irony of Trump's Obstruction of Justice
Then why is Trump working so hard, and so naively openly and overtly, to obstruct the Mueller investigation?

For the same reason that he won't release tax returns. He's got something to hide.

Fundamentalism - the anti-American, anti-Christian branch of American Christianity

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1815 by Percy, posted 02-05-2018 7:58 PM Percy has acknowledged this reply

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 19572
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 3.0


(1)
Message 1820 of 2557 (827939)
02-06-2018 9:12 AM
Reply to: Message 1814 by NoNukes
02-05-2018 7:07 PM


Dumbty Trumpty dereliction and treason
Does failure to impose sanctions on Russia, after they were overwhelmingly approved by bipartisan supermajority, NOT constitute giving aid and comfort to Russia, a known enemy?

Is this a serious question? ...

The question is when does he cross the line with each baby step in the destruction of America?

The Mueller investigation continues, obstruction of justice continues (by Trump and other Republicans), the assault on our democracy continues.

I expect that the results of the investigation will show

  • Money laundering (for Russians)
  • Emolument clause violations (use of his hotels and golf courses by Russians and other foreign dignitaries)
  • Dealing with foreign agents (Russian)
  • Dereliction of duty in regards to sanctions (on Russia)
  • Corruption of Justice (interfering in the Russian investigation)
  • Treason

Enjoy


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAmerican☆Zen☯Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1814 by NoNukes, posted 02-05-2018 7:07 PM NoNukes has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 1854 by Rrhain, posted 02-10-2018 10:11 PM RAZD has responded

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 17748
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.6


Message 1821 of 2557 (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 responded

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

    
Percy
Member
Posts: 17748
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.6


Message 1822 of 2557 (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 responded

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

    
NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 1823 of 2557 (827942)
02-06-2018 10:09 AM
Reply to: Message 1822 by Percy
02-06-2018 9:57 AM


Re: The Irony of Trump's Obstruction of Justice
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.

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.


Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)

"Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free, the wretched refuse of your teeming shore. Send these, the homeless, tempest-tossed to me, I lift my lamp beside the golden door!”

We got a thousand points of light for the homeless man. We've got a kinder, gentler, machine gun hand. Neil Young, Rockin' in the Free World.

Worrying about the "browning of America" is not racism. -- Faith

I hate you all, you hate me -- Faith


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1822 by Percy, posted 02-06-2018 9:57 AM Percy has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 1824 by Percy, posted 02-06-2018 10:31 AM NoNukes has responded

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 17748
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.6


Message 1824 of 2557 (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 responded

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

    
NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 1825 of 2557 (827950)
02-06-2018 11:05 AM
Reply to: Message 1824 by Percy
02-06-2018 10:31 AM


Re: The Irony of Trump's Obstruction of Justice
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.

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.


Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)

"Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free, the wretched refuse of your teeming shore. Send these, the homeless, tempest-tossed to me, I lift my lamp beside the golden door!”

We got a thousand points of light for the homeless man. We've got a kinder, gentler, machine gun hand. Neil Young, Rockin' in the Free World.

Worrying about the "browning of America" is not racism. -- Faith

I hate you all, you hate me -- Faith


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1824 by Percy, posted 02-06-2018 10:31 AM Percy has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 1826 by Percy, posted 02-06-2018 11:50 AM NoNukes has responded

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 17748
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.6


Message 1826 of 2557 (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 responded

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

    
NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 1827 of 2557 (827960)
02-06-2018 11:57 AM
Reply to: Message 1826 by Percy
02-06-2018 11:50 AM


Re: The Irony of Trump's Obstruction of Justice
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"?

I just explained exactly that in my previous post, Percy.

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"?

I just explained that in my previous post, Percy.

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.

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.


Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)

"Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free, the wretched refuse of your teeming shore. Send these, the homeless, tempest-tossed to me, I lift my lamp beside the golden door!”

We got a thousand points of light for the homeless man. We've got a kinder, gentler, machine gun hand. Neil Young, Rockin' in the Free World.

Worrying about the "browning of America" is not racism. -- Faith

I hate you all, you hate me -- Faith


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1826 by Percy, posted 02-06-2018 11:50 AM Percy has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 1828 by Percy, posted 02-06-2018 1:00 PM NoNukes has responded

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 17748
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.6


Message 1828 of 2557 (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 responded

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

    
ramoss
Member
Posts: 3086
Joined: 08-11-2004


Message 1829 of 2557 (827966)
02-06-2018 1:02 PM
Reply to: Message 1808 by Coragyps
02-04-2018 4:38 PM


Re: Looking forward not backward
Considering the district, does a democrat have any chance what so ever?
This message is a reply to:
 Message 1808 by Coragyps, posted 02-04-2018 4:38 PM Coragyps has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 1832 by Coragyps, posted 02-06-2018 8:44 PM ramoss has responded

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 1830 of 2557 (827968)
02-06-2018 1:24 PM
Reply to: Message 1828 by Percy
02-06-2018 1:00 PM


Re: The Irony of Trump's Obstruction of Justice
Oh, it's easy to understand. I'm just saying that your view is sort of standing on an island by itself.

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.

Collusion is not a crime by itself. Here are the charges Mueller could ...
Trump lawyer: Collusion is not a crime
What Is Collusion? Is It Even a Crime?
Is Collusion a Crime? - National Paralegal College
And so on...

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.


Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)

"Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free, the wretched refuse of your teeming shore. Send these, the homeless, tempest-tossed to me, I lift my lamp beside the golden door!”

We got a thousand points of light for the homeless man. We've got a kinder, gentler, machine gun hand. Neil Young, Rockin' in the Free World.

Worrying about the "browning of America" is not racism. -- Faith

I hate you all, you hate me -- Faith


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1828 by Percy, posted 02-06-2018 1:00 PM Percy has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 1831 by Percy, posted 02-06-2018 6:29 PM NoNukes has responded

  
RewPrev1
...
120121
122
123124
...
171NextFF
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2015 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2018