Summations Only

No, I used the definition provided by the Esquire article (The Word of the Summer Is 'Collusion.' What You Need to Focus on Is 'Conspiracy.'). The Esquire article, and the other articles I cited, made strong arguments for why collusion in this case is not illegal while conspiracy is. I've tried to bring some of those arguments into this thread. You haven't offered any counter-arguments other than declarative statements that collusion in this case is too a crime. The Esquire article says:

quote:

---

There is no federal crime of collusion. No one is sitting in a dank prison cell whining to his cellmate that he is innocent of collusion.

---

The Washington Post (Collusion is not a crime by itself. Here are the charges Mueller could be exploring.) article says:

quote:

---

Collusion the word Trump often uses to describe Mueller’s case, even as he asserts such a thing never happened is not itself a crime, and Mueller’s team will probably have to sort through unseemly political dealings to determine whether a law was broken, legal analysts said.

---

From The New Yorker article (Michael Flynn’s Guilty Plea Sends Donald Trump’s Lawyers Scrambling):

quote:

---

With regard to Mueller’s broader investigation, the White House lawyers’ position continues to be that President Trump didn’t commit a crime because no one didor couldbecause there is no federal crime called collusion, and Rosenstein’s order did not refer to any criminal statutes that may have been violated. In several conversations with me, Sekulow emphasized that collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia, even if it did take place, wouldn’t be illegal. For something to be a crime, there has to be a statute that you claim is being violated, Sekulow told me. There is not a statute that refers to criminal collusion. There is no crime of collusion.

---

From Politico Magazine (What Is Collusion? Is It Even a Crime?):

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.

---

From the National Paralegal College (Is Collusion a Crime?):

quote:

---

The term collusion is defined as concerted activity toward a common purpose. The colloquial connotation of the word indicates that people who collude have worked together, usually in secret, to do something illegal. Still, other than in an antitrust context, collusion is not the name of a crime. (In antitrust law, two product sellers who conspire to set the price for goods may be guilty of collusion, but that is obviously not relevant here.) Former federal prosecutor Andrew McCarthy recently wrote that collusion is a hopelessly vague term. 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. As a result, Trump Jr, Manafort, and Kushner could not be prosecuted under a charge called collusion.

---

How many quotes saying you're wrong do you need? Well, yes, of course, the articles have said the same thing, that in some contexts collusion can be illegal, but not in the case of the Russia scandal. I am, as I have said all along, just passing along what I've read in the press, and none of it backs you up.--PercyEdited by Percy, : Grammar.

I don't really care if what you post backs me up. I expect that your choices are made with that in mind. But what you post cuts in ways you won't acknowledge.Nonetheless, there is no question that the definition of collusion that you posted supports my position that collusion can be criminal and not the one you've latched onto that says the opposite. So your summary is just incorrect.I'll also note that your inability to make sense out of what you post when I ask you about it is also very telling.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

Trump continues to tweet attempts to support former White House staff secretary Rob Porter even after Porter's resignation. Here are some excerpts from CNN's article on the subject.

quote:

---

Peoples lives are being shattered and destroyed by a mere allegation," the President tweeted. "Some are true and some are false. Some are old and some are new. There is no recovery for someone falsely accused - life and career are gone. Is there no such thing any longer as Due Process?

---

quote:

---

Trump told reporters on Friday that Porter's departure was "very sad" and that "he did a very good job while he was in the White House." The President did not express any sympathy for the women Porter allegedly abused, instead focusing on Porter's claim of innocence.

---

Now contrast that attitude to the huge discussion we've had regarding Al Franken and others over sexual harassment. Also, consider that the 'mere allegations' include pictures of Porter's ex-wife with her face beat up, that the allegations included an investigation by the FBI who refused to grant him a security clearance. Also, consider that the White House knew about the allegations for months -- possibly as long as 13 months.Trump's formal statements are that he wishes Porter well and reminds us that Porter denies everything. The president expressed not a single word of consideration at all for the women involved. We might remember similar reactions considering Bill Oreilly's sexual harassment and Roy Moore's rape allegations.Trump's a keeper. Ask any Republican in Congress.

And that you apparently can't explain. Yes, of course, but not in the context of the Russia scandal. You mean the one that everyone but you agrees with? Again, in ways you apparently can't explain. Again, in ways you apparently can't explain.Here's the short form of excerpts disagreeing with you in the context of collusion in the Russia scandal being a crime:

• There is no federal crime of collusion.
• Collusion...is not itself a crime,...
• ...because there is no federal crime called collusion,...
• Collusion is not a federal crime...
• Still, other than in an antitrust context, collusion is not the name of a crime.

--Percy

I would suggest that the record shows where I have explained my position. Of course, false denials of such things from you are commonplace. We can find them in this very thread.

Gee, another great explanation! --Percy

If Donald Trump received something of value from the Russians (say, hacked emails) this could contravene campaign financing rules. Especially if a quid pro quo arrangement was struck (for instance, something surrounding sanctions). Naturally, but if Donald Trump had done the above with Putin then they have acted together through a secret understanding, especially with evil or harmful intent. That is to say, they have colluded. Collusion isn't the name of the crime, but the the two parties have colluded in doing something illegal. Collusion is just a short form umbrella term because the investigation is ongoing and the exact crime, if any, is not known (at least, publicly). What is known is that it centres around the possibility that Trump or his campaign came to a secret arrangement to act in partnership in the commission of some act which is ultimately illegal for Trump or his campaign to have done.As you can see 'collusion' is much easier to say.If Trump's campaign worked Russian nationals in the placing, wording etc., of adverts on social media platforms, this would be a campaign financing breach - if Trump so much as asked a Russian how he should spend some campaign money - even money raised in the US, this would be a breach. If there was agreement to launder money, this is obviously illegal and doesn't even require foreign agents to be so. In each case the English word collusion could be applied to describe the acts, although it would not be the legal term for them.

Exactly.I am reminded here of ICANT's recent arguments that Moses did not have nouns; just ancient words that Moses applied to a person, place or thing. Saying there is no federal crime called collusion is decidedly different from saying that the collusion being investigated is not a federal crime.There is also no federal crime called "coldcocking a federal officer during a legal arrest", but is there any doubt that federal charges could result from such an action? Would it be reasonable to write that coldcocking is not a federal offense? I think not.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

RAZD writes:

quote:

---

I expect that the results of the investigation will show ... Treason

---

Only in a civilian context. Legally, treason requires us to be at war.We are not at war with Russia, so no treason charges can be filed as such. They are hostile to our interests, certainly, but we have not declared war against them, so actions that aid them cannot be legally considered "treason."

Percy responds to me:

quote:

---

Isn't whether anything Trump does or did regarding Russian sanctions only a conspiracy if there was a quid pro quo?

---

"Help me get elected and I will ease if not eliminate the sanctions."That's what Trump was doing with the Russians as evidenced by his own statements regarding the sanctions, the meeting Kushner had with the Russians, and his recent actions not to impose the sanctions he is legally obligated to carry out. The Russians then proceeded to meddle in the election to help Trump win.This is a direct violation of the FEC regulations.

quote:

---

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.

---

They could impeach him. But, Trump is the GOP. The GOP is Trump. There's no way in hell they'll turn against him. Even the Republicans who are complaining about him don't actually do anything that would stand in his way. McCain and Flake are all talk, no action.

quote:

---

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?

---

Since he's a prosecutor, it wouldn't be up to Congress but the DOJ to do something about it. That is, Mueller will release a report that may recommend charges being filed against Trump, but it is up to the Department of Justice to follow through on it.The DOJ that Trump is claiming is rigged against him despite being populated with conservatives and headed by his appointees who would never turn on him.

quote:

---

And if they do and the Democrats take over Congress in the fall, can they take up the report's findings then?

---

Congress can impeach on a whim. They don't need any report from anybody.

quote:

---

But if true, did Trump or the Trump campaign know about this?

---

Again, US conspiracy law does not require the parties know about each other. That's why you buying stolen goods puts you on the hook, even if you don't know that the goods were stolen.

quote:

---

He only worked with the Trump campaign for a month, the connection dissolving as news about his Russian connections became public.

---

We only conspired for a moment?Considering that he had been under investigation since 2013, why did Trump engage with him at all? Since he bragged about being a Kremlin operative, why did Trump engage with him at all?

quote:

---

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?

---

Since they have lied about every aspect of this meeting, do you honestly think that "nothing came out of it"? Especially since Trump then immediately started crowing about the sanctions? And has now refused to carry out his mandated duty to impose sanctions? On the surface, it would appear that something did, indeed, come out of it.

quote:

---

But that came before Manafort's association with the Trump campaign

---

And thus why did Trump engage in the first place? We only conspired a little?

quote:

---

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.

---

Right...so it can easily be seen as a request for the Russians to then release anything related to any attempts to hack Clinton's server: "You hacked the DNC...did you hack Clinton, too? If so, show us what you got!" You don't really think the Russians didn't try to spy on the Secretary of State, do you? Especially one that they considered hostile? Ignoring any suspicion that Trump had information from Russia regarding their attempts to hack Clinton, it was a transparent attempt to tell Russia to go after Clinton.And that's a violation of FEC regulations and seems like an obvious attempt at conspiracy.

quote:

---

quote:

---

But there's also the fact that he's been in debt to Russians for many, many years...

---

Isn't this speculation, not fact?

---

Nope. It's how Trump managed to come back from his previous bankruptcies. Nobody would do business with him (how does one lose money running a casino?) Trump, Jr. even admitted so in an interview: Eric Trump is quoted as saying: Eric denies having made this quote, but he is hardly a trustworthy source.The specifics of it haven't been revealed (thus the subpoena of Deutsche Bank...which has a history of money laundering. Trump was involved in a lawsuit they filed against him due to his failure to repay a loan on his Chicago property and he settled it...by getting Deutsche Banks private wealth division to loan him money which he then used to pay the real estate division as well as another $25-50M in credit. At the time Trump was elected, he owed about $300M to DB. And at time Trump was doing his shenanigans with DB, they were busted for money laundering from Russia) but Trump's claim that "I have nothing to do with Russia--no deals, no loans, no nothing," is clearly a lie.Now, it's conceivable that Trump's financial dealings with Russia were nothing more than big-money tomfooolery since this was long before he was trying to run for president. But it was not resolved before he got elected (again, he was in the hole to DB for about $300M when he was elected and his June 2017 financial disclosure claims he only owes them $130M.)And then add into it Kushner meeting with Kislyak given Kushner's disastrous 666 5th Avenue project, and there is still more connections to the Trump empire and Russian oligarchs.

quote:

---

But is there's anything illegal about financial dealings with Russia?

---

When it's money laundering? Yes. It certainly hasn't gone to trial and yeah, it is technically "speculation" at this point, but I'm going to call this one equivocation. When people try to use "speculation" as a way to deny a charge, it's because they're trying to characterize the evidence that leads to the speculation as flimsy at best.Instead, there is a mountain of circumstantial evidence that Trump is involved in money laundering with Russian oligarchs. His bank got caught doing it. His real estate transactions scream of it. He admits that Russia has financed him. He refuses to release his financials. This is more than "speculation." It's the direction that all the evidence points to. It hasn't risen to the level of "theory," yet, for we don't have the direct evidence. But it is more than a creationist-definition of "theory."

quote:

---

but this is certainly something within Mueller's mandate.

---

Agreed.

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

quote:

---

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

​

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

​

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

---

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

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

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