Collusion with Russia

[Ten oz]

10 minutes ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

You seem to think it is a foregone conclusion that Trump is guilty. (correct me if I'm wrong)

It is a fact that Trump's campaign broke the law. That is beyond dispute.

11 minutes ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

Based on what you are so sure you know.

Base on it being proved already in court. Individuals have already been sentenced to prison. 

12 minutes ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

Why does the investigation continue, if it already has all the information it needs confirmed to prove Trump is guilty of enough crimes to expel him from office?

Why would they allow him any more time leading your Country?

Impeachment is a political process and not a legal process. Impeachment would require passing votes in the House and then Senate. Regardless of the facts no Senator is legally obligated to vote for impeachment.

 

 

[J.C.MacSwell]

11 minutes ago, Ten oz said:

It is a fact that Trump's campaign broke the law. That is beyond dispute.

Base on it being proved already in court. Individuals have already been sentenced to prison. 

Impeachment is a political process and not a legal process. Impeachment would require passing votes in the House and then Senate. Regardless of the facts no Senator is legally obligated to vote for impeachment.

 

 

I thought Swansont's "police officer taking the bribe" was supposed to represent Trump. It didn't seem like it was referring to Cohen or Manafort.

17 minutes ago, StringJunky said:

I think Mueller is building as water-tight a case as possible. Another little nugget out today:

 

I think we are all a little impatient. Hopefully it is clear one way or the other.

What if it was bad enough that Trump did get impeached? After all the Democrat Presidential candidates for 2020 finished tripping over themselves getting to the Left?

[Ten oz]

4 minutes ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

I thought Swansont's "police officer taking the bribe" was supposed to represent Trump. It didn't seem like it was referring to Cohen or Manafort.

You are drawing a hard distinction between Trump himself and his campaign. The beneficiary of the crimes committed and the person in charge of those who committed the crimes was Trump himself. That is not not in question. It is a fact. I think, though it is unclear, you are attempting to say Trump's campaign just happened to be full of criminals breaking the law on Trump's behalf but Trump himself wasn't involved. A fairly pitiful defense which would require total incompetence from Trump and obscure motives from all involved. Trump was the boss. Papadopoulos, Flynn, Manafort, and etc worked for Trump. It is Trump who created his campaign and it is Trump who his campaign benefited. I do not see a distinction between the two.

Moreover Trump has publicly supported those convicted. Trump personal asked Comey to stop investigating Flynn and fired him (Comey) after he didn't. Trump has also tosses support Manafort's way. So as their boss Trump has been supportive of the crimes they committed for him. 

 

[J.C.MacSwell]

8 minutes ago, Ten oz said:

You are drawing a hard distinction between Trump himself and his campaign. The beneficiary of the crimes committed and the person in charge of those who committed the crimes was Trump himself. That is not not in question. It is a fact. I think, though it is unclear, you are attempting to say Trump's campaign just happened to be full of criminals breaking the law on Trump's behalf but Trump himself wasn't involved. A fairly pitiful defense which would require total incompetence from Trump and obscure motives from all involved. Trump was the boss. Papadopoulos, Flynn, Manafort, and etc worked for Trump. It is Trump who created his campaign and it is Trump who his campaign benefited. I do not see a distinction between the two.

Moreover Trump has publicly supported those convicted. Trump personal asked Comey to stop investigating Flynn and fired him (Comey) after he didn't. Trump has also tosses support Manafort's way. So as their boss Trump has been supportive of the crimes they committed for him. 

 

You finally figured it out...I'm Rudy Giuliani...

[swansont]

1 hour ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

You seem to think it is a foregone conclusion that Trump is guilty. (correct me if I'm wrong)

And you don’t? That there was no contact between his campaign and Russia, with the goal of influencing the election? And Trump didn’t know?

Quote

Based on what you are so sure you know.

Why does the investigation continue, if it already has all the information it needs confirmed to prove Trump is guilty of enough crimes to expel him from office?

There is more evidence to gather, and because collusion is not a crime. The investigation is gathering evidence of prosecutable crimes. 

Quote

Why would they allow him any more time leading your Country?

That is a good question. Why, indeed?

[J.C.MacSwell]

46 minutes ago, swansont said:

And you don’t? That there was no contact between his campaign and Russia, with the goal of influencing the election? And Trump didn’t know?

There is more evidence to gather, and because collusion is not a crime. The investigation is gathering evidence of prosecutable crimes. 

That is a good question. Why, indeed?

With the Russian government?

I certainly haven't concluded that. Naive, right?

So you're saying he's guilty of collusion, but not as a crime? I guess that explains why they need more?

[rangerx]

Collusion is just a term for communications  in secret, illegal cooperation or conspiracy, especially in order to cheat or deceive others.

Hanging on the term is a deflection and little else, for the most part. As plausible deniability decays with every new revelation, moving the goal posts is all they've got.
 

[Huckleberry of Yore]

Collusion is not a crime.  By discussing this topic we are in fact colluding.  Show me in the criminal code where "collusion" is illegal.  AFAIK paying foreign spies for propaganda and submitting it to a FISA judge as evidence is most likely a very serious crime.

(Added)

Here is collusion:

• “This is my last election ... After my election I have more flexibility,” Obama said, expressing confidence that he would win a second term. 
• “I will transmit this information to Vladimir,” said Medvedev, Putin’s protégé and long considered number two in Moscow’s power structure. 

Many on the right decried this as despicable, but I don't recall anyone saying it was illegal.

Edited January 17, 2019 by Huckleberry of Yore

[swansont]

56 minutes ago, Huckleberry of Yore said:

Collusion is not a crime.  By discussing this topic we are in fact colluding.  Show me in the criminal code where "collusion" is illegal.  AFAIK paying foreign spies for propaganda and submitting it to a FISA judge as evidence is most likely a very serious crime.

Show me the relevant criminal code, and to which incident are you referring? I’m not aware of any foreign spy (i.e. an employee of a foreign intelligence agency) being paid for propaganda.

[StringJunky]

1 hour ago, Huckleberry of Yore said:

Collusion is not a crime.  By discussing this topic we are in fact colluding.  Show me in the criminal code where "collusion" is illegal.  AFAIK paying foreign spies for propaganda and submitting it to a FISA judge as evidence is most likely a very serious crime.

(Added)

Here is collusion:

• “This is my last election ... After my election I have more flexibility,” Obama said, expressing confidence that he would win a second term. 
• “I will transmit this information to Vladimir,” said Medvedev, Putin’s protégé and long considered number two in Moscow’s power structure. 

Many on the right decried this as despicable, but I don't recall anyone saying it was illegal.

Collusion is conspiracy, and conspiracy is covered under 923. 18 U.S.C. § 371—CONSPIRACY TO DEFRAUD THE UNITED STATES

Quote

The general conspiracy statute, 18 U.S.C. § 371, creates an offense "f two or more persons conspire either to commit any offense against the United States, or to defraud the United States, or any agency thereof in any manner or for any purpose. (emphasis added). See Project, Tenth Annual Survey of White Collar Crime, 32 Am. Crim. L. Rev. 137, 379-406 (1995)(generally discussing § 371).

The operative language is the so-called "defraud clause," that prohibits conspiracies to defraud the United States. This clause creates a separate offense from the "offense clause" in Section 371. Both offenses require the traditional elements of Section 371 conspiracy, including an illegal agreement, criminal intent, and proof of an overt act.

<snip>

Hass, 216 U.S. at 479-480. In Hammerschmidt, Chief Justice Taft, defined "defraud" as follows:

To conspire to defraud the United States means primarily to cheat the Government out of property or money, but it also means to interfere with or obstruct one of its lawful governmental functions by deceit, craft or trickery, or at least by means that are dishonest. It is not necessary that the Government shall be subjected to property or pecuniary loss by the fraud, but only that its legitimate official action and purpose shall be defeated by misrepresentation, chicane or the overreaching of those charged with carrying out the governmental intention.

 

[MigL]

Seems to me that, if hiding the truth about whether a stain on a blue dress was due to sex or not, is enough cause to start impeachment proceedings, after all of D Trump's lies and unlawful dealings, there must be enough also. If only for the fact that he surrounded himself with people who have been shown to be involved in criminal activities.

I say start rolling out the findings of the investigation, while continuing with it.
It may sway some Senator's minds, especially the ones who realize the ship is sinking, and may want to jump off.

[Huckleberry of Yore]

The term collusion is not found in the statute.  Furthermore, conspiracy is not the same as collusion, and even more importantly conspiracy itself is not illegal.  Strictly speaking, it must be conspiracy to defraud or obstruct.  The conspiracy is not what makes it illegal.  The act that is conspired must be illegal.  If the act is illegal then conspiring to do it is also illegal.

5 minutes ago, MigL said:

I say start rolling out the findings of the investigation, while continuing with it.

Trump has indicated he will declassify the FISA applications.  I think he has put it off since the left will go apoplectic and scream obstruction.  But maybe we agree: declassify everything...without redactions.

[StringJunky]

7 minutes ago, Huckleberry of Yore said:

The term collusion is not found in the statute.  Furthermore, conspiracy is not the same as collusion, and even more importantly conspiracy itself is not illegal.  Strictly speaking, it must be conspiracy to defraud or obstruct.  The conspiracy is not what makes it illegal.  The act that is conspired must be illegal.  If the act is illegal then conspiring to do it is also illegal.

Everybody's using "collusion" because it's the buzzword. As for it not being a synonym, just Google  'collusion synonym'. If two people collude, they conspire, and vice versa.

Edited January 17, 2019 by StringJunky

[Ten oz]

8 minutes ago, Huckleberry of Yore said:

Trump has indicated he will declassify the FISA applications.  I think he has put it off since the left will go apoplectic and scream obstruction.  But maybe we agree: declassify everything...without redactions.

Papadopoulos, Flynn, Manafort, and Cohen have all either pled guilty or been found guilty by a jury. It is a fact that Trump's campaign broke the law. The suggestion that we need more information before we can know if a crime was committed is inaccurate. Crimes were committed. People have already been sentenced to prison. 

Further findings will simply determine how many more will go to prison. Exoneration for Trump's campaign is no longer possible. 

[Huckleberry of Yore]

8 minutes ago, StringJunky said:

Everybody's using "collusion" because it's the buzzword. As for it not being a synonym, just Google  'collusion synonym'. If two people collude, they conspire, and vice versa. 

I collude with my coworkers on a daily basis.  I've never conspired.

 

9 minutes ago, Ten oz said:

Papadopoulos, Flynn, Manafort, and Cohen have all either pled guilty or been found guilty by a jury. It is a fact that Trump's campaign broke the law. The suggestion that we need more information before we can know if a crime was committed is inaccurate. Crimes were committed. People have already been sentenced to prison. 

Further findings will simply determine how many more will go to prison. Exoneration for Trump's campaign is no longer possible. 

Crimes committed before the campaign.  If all Muller has is the payment to Stormy then out with it.  Experts I've heard say it is absolutely not illegal; but if it is, get on with it.

And remember, Bill Clinton was impeached because he lied under oath.  Flynn has pled guilty to lying to investigators, despite not being under oath, and even though the investigators encouraged him to not have an attorney present.

[StringJunky]

8 minutes ago, Huckleberry of Yore said:

I collude with my coworkers on a daily basis.  I've never conspired.

Then that means you are behaving mischievously with them.

Quote

Collude Has Latin Roots
Our English "lude" words (allude, collude, delude, elude, and prelude) are based on the Latin verb ludere, meaning "to play." Collude dates back to 1525 and combines ludere and the prefix col-, meaning "with" or "together." The verb is younger than the related noun collusion, which appeared sometime in the 14th century with the specific meaning "secret agreement or cooperation." Despite their playful history, collude and collusion have always suggested deceit or trickery rather than good-natured fun. - MW

 

[Huckleberry of Yore]

5 minutes ago, StringJunky said:

Then that means you are behaving mischievously with them.

 

My ancestors conspired against yours (I presume).  But, yes, I do behave mischievously on occasion.  Don't expect to be convicted any time soon.

[Ten oz]

1 hour ago, Huckleberry of Yore said:

Crimes committed before the campaign.  If all Muller has is the payment to Stormy then out with it.  Experts I've heard say it is absolutely not illegal; but if it is, get on with it.

No, crimes committed during the campaign. Both Papadopoulos and Flynn pled guilty to lying to Federal Investigators about their contacts with Russia for example. Cohen's crimes include Unlawful corporate contributions, Excessive campaign contributions, and tax fraud during the Campaign.

The "experts" you've heard are wrong. People have already been proved guilty of crimes and sentenced. Too late to claim crimes weren't committed. 

Edited January 17, 2019 by Ten oz

[Huckleberry of Yore]

Pleading guilty to a crime is not proof that a crime occurred.

[StringJunky]

11 minutes ago, Huckleberry of Yore said:

Pleading guilty to a crime is not proof that a crime occurred.

Yeah, like they are going to plead guilty for crimes they didn't commit! 

[Huckleberry of Yore]

3 minutes ago, StringJunky said:

Yeah, like they are going to plead guilty for crimes they didn't commit! 

It happens all the time.  Just like companies settle lawsuits when they aren't at fault.  Because it's cheaper.  Prosecutors extort guilty pleas by threatening expensive litigation and other ways.  It's suspected that Flynn did this; he simply didn't have the money for lawyers, and the prosecutors were threatening to charge his son.  Just imagine what kind of dirt they have on Cohen.  He pled guilty, but my earlier point is that his plea cannot be used in court as proof that Trump is guilty.  It will need to be litigated, if it gets that far.  Technically, I believe Trump cannot be indicted until out of office.  But the House can impeach him, like Clinton was.  Then it is up to the Senate to convict and remove him.  At this point it seems very unlikely, and if the other side proceeds, there may be a heavy political price. 

[Ten oz]

34 minutes ago, Huckleberry of Yore said:

Pleading guilty to a crime is not proof that a crime occurred.

What about pleading guilty and then providing evidence to Investigators? Cohen, Flynn, and Papadopoulos all cooperated with investigators providing information regarding their crimes. 

[Huckleberry of Yore]

8 minutes ago, Ten oz said:

What about pleading guilty and then providing evidence to Investigators? Cohen, Flynn, and Papadopoulos all cooperated with investigators providing information regarding their crimes. 

Of course, if that evidence pans out, and it is sufficient to convict/impeach, then do it.  So far, there hasn't been anything of substance leaked, and certainly nothing at all related to Russian collusion.

[Ten oz]

15 minutes ago, Huckleberry of Yore said:

At this point it seems very unlikely, and if the other side proceeds, there may be a heavy political price. 

This is often stated but in practice doesn't appear to be the case. Nixon was forced out of Office and in the next Presidental election the opposing party to Nixon's won. Clinton was impeached in the House, conviction failed in the Senate, and in the following Presidental election the opposing party to Clinton won. So in the two most recent examples the opposition party to the embattled POTUS successful won the White House. 

The argument seems more of an intimidation tactic some use in hopes of discouraging those who may want impeachment to proceed.

4 minutes ago, Huckleberry of Yore said:

So far, there hasn't been anything of substance leaked, and certainly nothing at all related to Russian collusion

Quote

President Donald Trump's former campaign chairman Paul Manafort shared campaign polling data with a Russian associate linked to Russian intelligence services — and then lied about it to federal investigators, according to court papers filed Tuesday. Link

 

[Huckleberry of Yore]

2 minutes ago, Ten oz said:

This is often stated but in practice doesn't appear to be the case. Nixon was forced out of Office and in the next Presidental election the opposing party to Nixon's won. Clinton was impeached in the House, conviction failed in the Senate, and in the following Presidental election the opposing party to Clinton won. So in the two most recent examples the opposition party to the embattled POTUS successful won the White House. 

The argument seems more of an intimidation tactic some use in hopes of discouraging those who may want impeachment to proceed.

Perhaps.  But the consensus I've observed is that the Clinton impeachment was a net loser for the opposition; Clinton didn't seem to be hurt by it.  Whether or not impeaching Trump would help or hurt the Democrats is unknown for sure, I'd say.  But I guarantee you the power brokers will consider the threat of backlash as they make their decisions.