Since collusion and conspiracy are essentially synonymous terms according to Muller I will give it a go.
No, not essentially synonymous, but rather "largely synonymous" according to Mueller (Mueller Report, Volume 1, C. Russian Government Outreach and Contacts, 1. Potential Coordination: Conspiracy and Collusion, pp 180-181):
quote:As an initial matter , this Office evaluated potentially criminal conduct that involved the collective action of multiple individuals not under the rubric of "collusion," but through the lens of conspiracy law. In so doing, the Office recognized that the word "collud[ e ]" appears in the Acting Attorney General's August 2, 2017 memorandum; it has frequently been invoked in public reporting; and it is sometimes referenced in antitrust law, see, e.g., Brooke Group v. Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp., 509 U.S. 209, 227 (1993). But collusion is not a specific offense or theory of liability found in the U.S. Code; nor is it a term of art in federal criminal law. To the contrary, even as defined in legal dictionaries, collusion is largely synonymous with conspiracy as that crime is set forth in the general federal conspiracy statute , 18 U.S.C. 371. See Black 's Law Dictionary 321 (10th ed. 2014) (collusion is "[a]n agreement to defraud another or to do or obtain something forbidden by law"); 1 Alexander Burrill , A Law Dictionary and Glossary 311 (1871) ("An agreement between two or more persons to defraud another by the forms of law, or to employ such forms as means of accomplishing some unlawful object."); 1 Bouvier 's Law Dictionary 352 (1897) ("An agreement between two or more persons to defraud a person of his rights by the forms of law, or to obtain an object forbidden by law.").
For that reason, this Office 's focus in resolving the question of joint criminal liability was on conspiracy as defined in federal law, not the commonly discussed term "collusion."
Also, in the Mueller Report, Introduction to Volume 1, page 2:
quote:In evaluating whether evidence about collective action of multiple individuals constituted a crime, we applied the framework of conspiracy law, not the concept of "collusion." In so doing, the Office recognized that the word "collud[ e ]" was used in communications with the Acting Attorney General confirming certain aspects of the investigation's scope and that the term has frequently been invoked in public reporting about the investigation. But collusion is not a specific offense or theory of liability found in the United States Code, nor is it a term of art in federal criminal law. For those reasons , the Office's focus in analyzing questions of joint criminal liability was on conspiracy as defined in federal law. In connection with that analysis, we addressed the factual question whether members of the Trump Campaign "coordinat[ ed]"-a term that appears in the appointment order-with Russian election interference activities. Like collusion, "coordination" does not have a settled definition in federal criminal law. We understood coordination to require an agreement-tacit or express - between the Trump Campaign and the Russian government on election interference. That requires more than the two parties taking actions that were informed by or responsive to the other's actions or interests. We applied the term coordination in that sense when stating in the report that the investigation did not establish that the Trump Campaign coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities.
So then, no, Mueller was not talking about collusion, but rather about conspiracy and co-ordination which are a different matter.
By conflating them, you are trying to mislead us. You must be an apologist.
Faith claimed quite specifically that the Mueller Report specifically found there to have been no collusion. That claim is completely and utter false! The Mueller Report specifically decided to not investigate the matter of collusion and therefore never arrived at the conclusion that Faith falsely claims. Furthermore, Faith has been fully informed of what the Mueller Report actually says, with direct quotes, so she should know better. Therefore, since she chooses to continue to repeat the liies despite her knowledge of their false nature, she's lyeing to us. Well, certainly nothing new there.
And the reason why Faith refuses to show us where the Mueller Report is supposed to have said what she claims is because she knows full well that the report does no such thing. So she tries to cover up that inconvenient fact while doubling down on the liies. Further evidence that she knows full well what she is doing.
"Based on Justice Department policy and principles of fairness, we decided we would not make a determination as to whether the President committed a crime. That was our decision then and it remains our decision today."--Robert Mueller
Mueller clearly stated that he decided from the outset that he would not determine if Trump committed a crime. He said so himself.
Barr specifically asked him if the rule against indicting a sitting President had anything to do with the conclusions of his report and he said NO. Then tried to take it back but then corrected that attempt too. Such a position would have made such an investigation ridiculous. The point was to IDENTIFY CRIMES HE COULD BE CHARGED WITH IF THERE WERE ANY. NONE WERE FOUND.
It doesn't matter if Meuller could or couldn't. What matters is if Mueller did decide to make a determination if Trump committed a crime, and he decided from the very start that he was not going to make that determination. Mueller was in charge of the investigation and the report, so it is his say so that matters, not Barr's. If you are going to cite Mueller's report, then it is Mueller's decision that is relevant.
By conflating them, you are trying to mislead us. You must be an apologist.
I am not conflating the two terms.
I am saying that collusion is not a federal offense. If I understand it correctly the action of the colluders of fraud would be a federal offense.
Conspiracy is a federal offense.
Testimony concerning conspiracy by Mueller under oath before Congress.
quote:COLLINS: Thank you. Isn't it true the evidence did not establish that the president or those close to him were involved in the charged (ph) Russian computer hacking or active measure conspiracies or that the president otherwise had unlawful relationships with any Russian official, Volume 2, page 76? Correct? MUELLER: I will leave the answer to our report. COLLINS: So that is a yes. Is that any (ph) true your investigation did not establish that members of the Trump campaign conspired or coordinated with Russian government in election interference activity, Volume 1, page 2; Volume 1, page 173? MUELLER: Thank you. Yes.
According to that testimony the president or anyone working for him did not conspire with any Russian interference activity, according to Mueller.
God Bless
"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."
I am saying that collusion is not a federal offense. If I understand it correctly the action of the colluders of fraud would be a federal offense.
Conspiracy is a federal offense.
That's a bit like saying stealing is not a crime, but theft is. Conspiracy is just the legal parlance for collusion in the same way that theft is the legal term for stealing.
Trump's swamp monsters have their own histories which can be very enlightening. For example:
quote:In 1989, at the beginning of his administration, President George H. W. Bush appointed Barr to the U.S. Department of Justice as Assistant Attorney General for the Office of Legal Counsel (OLC), an office which functions as the legal advisor for the President and executive agencies. Barr was known as a strong defender of presidential power. He wrote an advisory opinion justifying the U.S. invasion of Panama and arrest of Manuel Noriega. He wrote legal justifications for the practice of rendition, so that the FBI could enter onto foreign soil without the consent of the host government to apprehend fugitives wanted by the United States government for terrorism or drug-trafficking. Barr declined a congressional request for the full opinion, but instead provided a document that "summarizes the principal conclusions." Congress subpoenaed the opinion, and its public release after Barr's departure from the Justice Department showed he had omitted significant findings in the opinion from his summary document.
Sound familiar? Refusing to provide the actual document but instead providing a "summary" which ends up omitting significant findings and misrepresents the actual document all for the purpose of serving the political needs of the President.
Which is exactly what Barr did again with the Mueller Report. And he is still keeping Congress from getting needed access to the full unredacted report. Maybe now with the impeachment inquiry they'll be able to gain that access that they vitally need.
Like the quoted old women in the black church say: "The Devil don't have no new tricks." (or possibly "no new ideas"; I'm quoting from memory) IOW, he just keeps using the same old tricks that worked before. Like Trump keeps doing and like his minions like Barr keep doing.
As Attorney General, Barr is tasked with enforcing the laws of the USA. Indeed, that is what his oath of office requires of him. Instead, all he's doing is to provide cover for the Trump Administration's repeated violations of federal law. Which includes not enforcing the power of subpoenas.
Funny how you keep reverting to Collins, whom I assume is Rep. Chris Collins, a Trump sycophant (eg, he was the first to endorse Trump). As such, he would be expected to want to twist Mueller's testimony by literally putting words in his mouth. BTW, today Collins submitted his resignation from Congress, effective 01 October 2019, in connection with changing his plea to insider trading to guilty.
Do you have any similar questioning by other members of Congress? Such as by Democrats? Would you even dare to present quotes of such questioning? I didn't think so.
I am not conflating the two terms.
I am saying that collusion is not a federal offense. If I understand it correctly the action of the colluders of fraud would be a federal offense.
Conspiracy is a federal offense.
Yes, you are conflating them even while you point out that they are not the same! Make up your mind!
Of course they are not the same! That is what I keep saying! And that it what you yourself are admitting!
So then just what the hell is quoting about conspiracy supposed to have to do with simple collusion?
Here is what you are doing:
You conflate collusion and conspiracy.
You demonstrate that conspiracy could not be proven.
You conclude (falsely!) that that proves that collusion did not happen.
You are practicing the crudest form of sophistry there! And you wonder why we normals have such low regard for apologists?
Today, I've been kicking this analogy around in my head that might help to explain some differences.
There's a black market of illicit drugs. You have a network of suppliers and a network of distributors. They have negotiated terms of exchange of goods and payments for those shipments of illicit drugs. Those agreements are an example of conspiracy.
You have a chain of illicit drugs going from manufacture to shipment to receipt to distribution. Like any well-oiled machine, every link of that chain has to know when and where and how to perform its function, even if any individual link has no knowledge of the original negotiated terms nor the details of any other link's operations. That all requires co-ordination which requires a lot of planning.
Conspiracy and co-ordination require a lot of fore-thought and planning and working together towards a common nefarious goal. That in part is what makes those acts alone prosecutable (ignoring other collateral infractions).
Now we're down on the street level with the pushers (the terminal points of the distribution network) and the customers. Now we're getting to collusion. The pushers have product, but (ideally) no pre-arranged customers. Customers want product, but don't necessarily know where to obtain it. I see this as the basic collusion level. Providers of dirt seeking recipients of dirt (eg, politically damaging information which Donnie Jr. was eager to get). Sellers of information to provide dirt seeking merchants in dirt (eg, Brad Pitt and Frances Frances McDormand in Burn After Reading with a CD full of useless data that they try to sell at the Russian embassy on May Day (01 May), Paul Manafort passing campaign data to the Russians). It hasn't necessarily been negotiated before-hand (or at least could not be proven) nor co-ordinated. People with a need wandering the streets looking for someone who can meet that need. And people with product looking for those who want it. It's not organized and it's not co-ordinated, but it does happen nonetheless.
Faith wants to classify these nefarious actions "innocent contacts", but there is nothing at all innocent about them.
Does that help you to understand the difference of what we are talking about?
Or does your position depend on not understanding?
Edited by dwise1, : Added non-blanking space ( ) to separate sections.
Funny how you keep reverting to Collins, whom I assume is Rep. Chris Collins,
Sorry to disappoint you but Chris Collins from New York is not the ranking member on the house judiciary committee, Doug Collins from Georgia is.
I will assume you have not read the Mueller testimony before Congress. If you had you would have realized that I was quoting the ranking member that followed Nadler.
The information I posted is from the appearance of Mueller before the judiciary committee.
dwise1 writes:
Do you have any similar questioning by other members of Congress?
I listened too and recorded every word that said at the hearing. I also have the transcript which I was referencing.
It makes no difference who asked the question. The answer Mueller gave is what we are discussing. In fact Collins gave the report and page number of Mueller's report he was getting Mueller's statement he was asking him about.
dwise1 writes:
Does that help you to understand the difference of what we are talking about?
Didn't help me a bit
Collusion: example In economics, collusion occurs when rival firms agree to work together, e.g. setting higher prices in order to make higher profits.
Conspiracy: For example, if Trump officials conspired to help Russians interfere with the election, they could be liable for conspiracy even if only the Russians did the actual interfering.
quote:MUELLER: We found insufficient evidence of the president's culpability.
God Bless
"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."
Fox News today lied in an article about the Biden/Ukraine affair, saying that Joe Biden pressured the Ukraine to fire Ukrainian prosecutor Viktor Shokin because he was investigating Burisma Hldings where his son Hunter Biden sat on the board:
quote:Biden, who has been seeking to unseat President Trump in 2020, once famously boasted on camera that when he was vice president and spearheading the Obama administration’s Ukraine policy, he successfully pressured Ukraine to fire Shokin who was the top prosecutor at the time. He had been investigating the founder of Burisma Holdings, where Hunter Biden had a lucrative role on the board.
Fox News has this exactly backwards. Ukrainian corruption was affecting the western democracies, and when Shokin refused to provide documentation to the British for a lawsuit about dirty Ukrainian money it was the final straw. A collection of western democracies pressured the Ukraine to fire Shokin, and in this group Joe Biden represented the interests of the United States. One of the people Shokin was refusing to investigate was the founder of Burisma Holdings, the aforementioned company where Hunter Biden sat on the board.
So when Joe Biden joined with other western democracies to pressure the Ukraine to fire Shokin he was making it more likely that the founder of the company where his son sat on the board would be investigated.
Geez, Fox, get it right, will ya? It's not like the correct information isn't a matter of public record. You don't have to believe every crazy idea that escapes Trump's lips, especially when the facts exposing them as lies are so readily available.
You don't have to believe every crazy idea that escapes Trump's lips
They kind of do, though. Once they accept one lie is in fact a lie, then they can't hold back the avalanche of all the others. Once the illusion cracks, it will shatter.
Edited by vimesey, : No reason given.
Could there be any greater conceit, than for someone to believe that the universe has to be simple enough for them to be able to understand it ?
Why are you all carrying on about the Biden comments when the phone call was primarily about the Ukraine's involvement in helping Hillary win back in 2016 and that's what Trump was asking about, not Biden. AND then Adam Schiff completely made up what Trump said, for which he should be convicted of treason according to people I've been hearing, especially since what he made up was designed to make Trump look as bad as possible, as all the Left's conjurings are designed to do.
The Biden thing came up later in the conversation, had NOTHING to do with the upcoming election, and if you hear Biden on the audio where he brags about withholding aid to Ukraine unless they fire this prosecutor within the next six hours, you ought to recognize that HE was the one strongarming a foreign leader, not Trump, whatever the reason for wanting the prosecutor gone might turn out to be.
quote:Why are you all carrying on about the Biden comments when the phone call was primarily about the Ukraine's involvement in helping Hillary win back in 2016 and that's what Trump was asking about, not Biden
In the phone call Trump definitely asked that Biden’s son should be investigated as a favour to him. Even if there wasn’t the issue of military aid, a President should not be using his position to make trouble for political rivals.
As for the rest, Trump’s fantasy about a server with DNC emails being somewhere in the Ukraine came up, but that’s going nowhere.
quote:AND then Adam Schiff completely made up what Trump said, for which he should be convicted of treason according to people I've been hearing, especially since what he made up was designed to make Trump look as bad as possible, as all the Left's conjurings are designed to do.
From what I’ve heard Schiff simply paraphrased the transcript. Which already made Trump look very bad. But Trump wants him arrested for treason over that which just proves that Trump really wants to be a tinpot dictator,
quote:The Biden thing came up later in the conversation, had NOTHING to do with the upcoming election, and if you hear Biden on the audio where he brags about withholding aid to Ukraine unless they fire this prosecutor within the next six hours, you ought to recognize that HE was the one strongarming a foreign leader, not Trump, whatever the reason for wanting the prosecutor gone might turn out to be.
Where is this audio? Though I have to point out that it still wouldn’t make Biden as bad as Trump. For that you’d need to prove personal advantage, not campaigning against corruption.
In the phone call Trump definitely asked that Biden’s son should be investigated as a favour to him.
He did not. Biden didn't come up in the conversation until much later, and not in the context of asking a favor. The favor was asked about the Ukraine's part in supporting Hillary in the2016 election and what they knew about the Democrats' efforts to sabotage Trump. Nothing to do with Biden.
And yes I'm ignoring the rest of your post for now since that's the important part and maybe I'll come back to the rest but as usual I'm getting swamped by too many opponents.
quote:He did not. Biden didn't come up in the conversation until much later, and not in the context of asking a favor. The favor was asked about the Ukraine's part in supporting Hillary in the2016 election and what they knew about the Democrats' efforts to sabotage Trump. Nothing to do with Biden.
The first part is just about correct, but it is clear that Trump wanted Biden’s son investigated.
The rest is laughably wrong. In reality Trump thinks that the American company that investigated the DNC hack have a server in the Ukraine that he wants to get his hands on. Why he thinks that, I have no idea.
I note that you offer no evidence of this supposedly incriminating audio, and since even the Fox News report cited by Percy clearly has no knowledge of such a thing, it looks like another invention of yours.
™ Version 4.2
(1)
