Collusion is not a crime

[lwf]

For those who feel that, because "collusion" is not a crime, the investigation needs to end so that Trump can get back to running the country, consider:

What if in 2020 a socialist candidate running as a democrat colludes with the European Union to blanket social media with socialist propaganda in order to swing the election to the democrats and put the United States more in line with liberal Western European values?

Would your reaction be the same? Would you prefer there be no investigation, since collusion is not a crime anyway, and say "the voters have spoken, let the president do his job?" Would you think an investigation in that case would be a witch hunt?

 

[JustHanging]

For those who feel that, because "collusion" is not a crime, the investigation needs to end so that Trump can get back to running the country, consider:

What if in 2020 a socialist candidate running as a democrat colludes with the European Union to blanket social media with socialist propaganda in order to swing the election to the democrats and put the United States more in line with liberal Western European values?

Would your reaction be the same? Would you prefer there be no investigation, since collusion is not a crime anyway, and say "the voters have spoken, let the president do his job?" Would you think an investigation in that case would be a witch hunt?

You elected a common flimflam man as your leader. What the heck did expect to happen?

And why do you think Mueller isn't investigating criminal activities, if they exist? I know Trump can easily fool most of his base with this talk of collusion, but I'm willing to bet Mueller is a tad less gullible than the average Trump supporter.

 

[Mycroft]

For those who feel that, because "collusion" is not a crime, the investigation needs to end so that Trump can get back to running the country, consider:

What if in 2020 a socialist candidate running as a democrat colludes with the European Union to blanket social media with socialist propaganda in order to swing the election to the democrats and put the United States more in line with liberal Western European values?

Would your reaction be the same? Would you prefer there be no investigation, since collusion is not a crime anyway, and say "the voters have spoken, let the president do his job?" Would you think an investigation in that case would be a witch hunt?

1. There is no law that says the sort of "collusion" you describe is a crime.

2. That means, if a socialist candidate does the sort of thing you describe, it is not a crime.

3. Personally, I don't care what anyone does...no matter what country they come from...to blanket social media with their particular brand of propaganda. I am not swayed by propaganda, just as I'm not swayed by the propaganda that comes out of the mainstream media. I absorb information from a variety of sources, evaluate that information using my knowledge and powers of reason and logic and make my own decisions.

Tell me...do you think the Hillary campaign should be investigated for their collusion with the mainstream media in their attempts to swing the election towards her? I don't, even though there is direct evidence that such collusion happened.

 

[RaleBulgarian]

Collusion, i.e., conspiracy is a crime.

U.S. Code, 18 USC §371
“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.”
https://www.justice.gov/jm/criminal-resource-manual-923-18-usc-371-conspiracy-defraud-us

Hopefully Mueller’s report will be released to the public so that once and for all the American people will know the facts.

 

[Grand Mal]

For those who feel that, because "collusion" is not a crime, the investigation needs to end so that Trump can get back to running the country, consider:

What if in 2020 a socialist candidate running as a democrat colludes with the European Union to blanket social media with socialist propaganda in order to swing the election to the democrats and put the United States more in line with liberal Western European values?

Would your reaction be the same? Would you prefer there be no investigation, since collusion is not a crime anyway, and say "the voters have spoken, let the president do his job?" Would you think an investigation in that case would be a witch hunt?

Collusion is a red herring. Mueller's mandate is to look into Russian interference, plain and simple, and if his investigation uncovers other criminal activity he'll do with it what's needful. There's been umpteen indictments already, including some people formerly close to Trump, and all those people who are saying the investigation needs to end because there's no proof of collusion might as well be saying there's no proof of treason. They're clutching at slim, desperate straws, worried that its inevitable that Trump will be found guilty of something.

 

[Grand Mal]

1. There is no law that says the sort of "collusion" you describe is a crime.

2. That means, if a socialist candidate does the sort of thing you describe, it is not a crime.

3. Personally, I don't care what anyone does...no matter what country they come from...to blanket social media with their particular brand of propaganda. I am not swayed by propaganda, just as I'm not swayed by the propaganda that comes out of the mainstream media. I absorb information from a variety of sources, evaluate that information using my knowledge and powers of reason and logic and make my own decisions.

Tell me...do you think the Hillary campaign should be investigated for their collusion with the mainstream media in their attempts to swing the election towards her? I don't, even though there is direct evidence that such collusion happened.

Forget the word 'collusion'. Put it right out of your mind. Mueller is looking into Russian interference. It's beyond my understanding why any American would object to his investigation. Do you want Russian interference to be ignored for the sake of not taking the chance of stumbling on wrong-doing by the President?

 

[justabubba]

You elected a common flimflam man as your leader. What the heck did expect to happen?

And why do you think Mueller isn't investigating criminal activities, if they exist? I know Trump can easily fool most of his base with this talk of collusion, but I'm willing to bet Mueller is a tad less gullible than the average Trump supporter.

how would Mueller have attained so many convictions and secured so many indictments already if no crimes existed

 

[lwf]

1. There is no law that says the sort of "collusion" you describe is a crime.

2. That means, if a socialist candidate does the sort of thing you describe, it is not a crime.

3. Personally, I don't care what anyone does...no matter what country they come from...to blanket social media with their particular brand of propaganda. I am not swayed by propaganda, just as I'm not swayed by the propaganda that comes out of the mainstream media. I absorb information from a variety of sources, evaluate that information using my knowledge and powers of reason and logic and make my own decisions.

Tell me...do you think the Hillary campaign should be investigated for their collusion with the mainstream media in their attempts to swing the election towards her? I don't, even though there is direct evidence that such collusion happened.

I think you might be the only one so far who has read past the thread title. Thanks for your candor, and, not to suggest that you need my approval, but your feelings on the matter seem perfectly consistent.

 

[justabubba]

1. There is no law that says the sort of "collusion" you describe is a crime.

2. That means, if a socialist candidate does the sort of thing you describe, it is not a crime.

3. Personally, I don't care what anyone does...no matter what country they come from...to blanket social media with their particular brand of propaganda. I am not swayed by propaganda, just as I'm not swayed by the propaganda that comes out of the mainstream media. I absorb information from a variety of sources, evaluate that information using my knowledge and powers of reason and logic and make my own decisions.

Tell me...do you think the Hillary campaign should be investigated for their collusion with the mainstream media in their attempts to swing the election towards her? I don't, even though there is direct evidence that such collusion happened.

ah, but conspiracy to commit fraud is very much a crime
another expression for that is collusion
surprised you did not already know this

 

[azgreg]

I guess it's a good thing that Mueller isn't investigating collusion then.

Here's Rosenstein's order:

https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/3726385-Order-3915-2017-Special-Counsel.html#document/p1

Pay special attention to paragraph b (ii). Also, the word collusion doesn't appear anywhere in the order.

The order also points to 28 C.F.R. 600.4:

https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/28/600.4

Pay attention to paragraph (a). Also, no mention of collusion.

Collusion is just a buzzword the right likes to pass around since Benghazi flamed out on them.

 

[Gaius46]

For those who feel that, because "collusion" is not a crime, the investigation needs to end so that Trump can get back to running the country, consider:

What if in 2020 a socialist candidate running as a democrat colludes with the European Union to blanket social media with socialist propaganda in order to swing the election to the democrats and put the United States more in line with liberal Western European values?

Would your reaction be the same? Would you prefer there be no investigation, since collusion is not a crime anyway, and say "the voters have spoken, let the president do his job?" Would you think an investigation in that case would be a witch hunt?

Collusion - whatever that vague term actually means - is not a crime.

What you propose in your second sentence is a federal crime.

 

[Gaius46]

1. There is no law that says the sort of "collusion" you describe is a crime.

2. That means, if a socialist candidate does the sort of thing you describe, it is not a crime.

3. Personally, I don't care what anyone does...no matter what country they come from...to blanket social media with their particular brand of propaganda. I am not swayed by propaganda, just as I'm not swayed by the propaganda that comes out of the mainstream media. I absorb information from a variety of sources, evaluate that information using my knowledge and powers of reason and logic and make my own decisions.

Tell me...do you think the Hillary campaign should be investigated for their collusion with the mainstream media in their attempts to swing the election towards her? I don't, even though there is direct evidence that such collusion happened.

Your #2 is not correct.

52 U.S. Code § 30121 - Contributions and donations by foreign nationals

(a) Prohibition

It shall be unlawful for—
(1) a foreign national, directly or indirectly, to make—
(A) a contribution or donation of money or other thing of value, or to make an express or implied promise to make a contribution or donation, in connection with a Federal, State, or local election;
(B) a contribution or donation to a committee of a political party; or
(C) an expenditure, independent expenditure, or disbursement for an electioneering communication (within the meaning of section 30104(f)(3) of this title); or

(2) a person to solicit, accept, or receive a contribution or donation described in subparagraph (A) or (B) of paragraph (1) from a foreign national.
(b) “Foreign national” definedAs used in this section, the term “foreign national” means—
(1) a foreign principal, as such term is defined by section 611(b) of title 22, except that the term “foreign national” shall not include any individual who is a citizen of the United States; or
(2) an individual who is not a citizen of the United States or a national of the United States (as defined in section 1101(a)(22) of title 8) and who is not lawfully admitted for permanent residence, as defined by section 1101(a)(20) of title 8.


The US socialist in this case would have committed some flavor of conspiracy.

 

[Mycroft]

Forget the word 'collusion'. Put it right out of your mind. Mueller is looking into Russian interference. It's beyond my understanding why any American would object to his investigation. Do you want Russian interference to be ignored for the sake of not taking the chance of stumbling on wrong-doing by the President?

See my point #3.

 

[Mycroft]

ah, but conspiracy to commit fraud is very much a crime
another expression for that is collusion
surprised you did not already know this

What "fraud" has anyone conspired to commit?

 

[lwf]

Collusion - whatever that vague term actually means - is not a crime.

What you propose in your second sentence is a federal crime.

And if there is probable cause to believe it occurred, should be investigated, yes?

 

[Gaius46]

And if there is probable cause to believe it occurred, should be investigated, yes?

That’s a silly question. Of course.

 

[Mycroft]

Your #2 is not correct.

52 U.S. Code § 30121 - Contributions and donations by foreign nationals

(a) Prohibition

It shall be unlawful for—
(1) a foreign national, directly or indirectly, to make—
(A) a contribution or donation of money or other thing of value, or to make an express or implied promise to make a contribution or donation, in connection with a Federal, State, or local election;
(B) a contribution or donation to a committee of a political party; or
(C) an expenditure, independent expenditure, or disbursement for an electioneering communication (within the meaning of section 30104(f)(3) of this title); or

(2) a person to solicit, accept, or receive a contribution or donation described in subparagraph (A) or (B) of paragraph (1) from a foreign national.
(b) “Foreign national” definedAs used in this section, the term “foreign national” means—
(1) a foreign principal, as such term is defined by section 611(b) of title 22, except that the term “foreign national” shall not include any individual who is a citizen of the United States; or
(2) an individual who is not a citizen of the United States or a national of the United States (as defined in section 1101(a)(22) of title 8) and who is not lawfully admitted for permanent residence, as defined by section 1101(a)(20) of title 8.


The US socialist in this case would have committed some flavor of conspiracy.

Thank you. I stand corrected.

 

[JANFU]

For those who feel that, because "collusion" is not a crime, the investigation needs to end so that Trump can get back to running the country, consider:

What if in 2020 a socialist candidate running as a democrat colludes with the European Union to blanket social media with socialist propaganda in order to swing the election to the democrats and put the United States more in line with liberal Western European values?

Would your reaction be the same? Would you prefer there be no investigation, since collusion is not a crime anyway, and say "the voters have spoken, let the president do his job?" Would you think an investigation in that case would be a witch hunt?

Keep on reaching for excuses, & you will need longer arms

 

[lwf]

That’s a silly question. Of course.

Then we agree that the Trump investigation is not a witch hunt?

 

[lwf]

Keep on reaching for excuses, & you will need longer arms

Did you read the op or react to the title of the thread?

 

[markjs]

Your #2 is not correct.

52 U.S. Code § 30121 - Contributions and donations by foreign nationals

(a) Prohibition

It shall be unlawful for—
(1) a foreign national, directly or indirectly, to make—
(A) a contribution or donation of money or other thing of value, or to make an express or implied promise to make a contribution or donation, in connection with a Federal, State, or local election;
(B) a contribution or donation to a committee of a political party; or
(C) an expenditure, independent expenditure, or disbursement for an electioneering communication (within the meaning of section 30104(f)(3) of this title); or

(2) a person to solicit, accept, or receive a contribution or donation described in subparagraph (A) or (B) of paragraph (1) from a foreign national.
(b) “Foreign national” definedAs used in this section, the term “foreign national” means—
(1) a foreign principal, as such term is defined by section 611(b) of title 22, except that the term “foreign national” shall not include any individual who is a citizen of the United States; or
(2) an individual who is not a citizen of the United States or a national of the United States (as defined in section 1101(a)(22) of title 8) and who is not lawfully admitted for permanent residence, as defined by section 1101(a)(20) of title 8.


The US socialist in this case would have committed some flavor of conspiracy.

so·lic·it
/səˈlisit/Submit
verb
verb: solicit; 3rd person present: solicits; past tense: solicited; past participle: solicited; gerund or present participle: soliciting
ask for or try to obtain (something) from someone.
"he called a meeting to solicit their views"
synonyms: ask for, request, seek, apply for, put in for, call for, press for, beg, plead for More
ask (someone) for something.
"historians and critics are solicited for opinions by the auction houses"
accost someone and offer one's or someone else's services as a prostitute.
"although prostitution was not itself an offense, soliciting was"
Origin
late Middle English: from Old French solliciter, from Latin sollicitare ‘agitate,’ from sollicitus ‘anxious,’ from sollus ‘entire’ + citus (past participle of ciere ‘set in motion’).

So, then logically, by your understanding, we alrready know definitively that the "collusion" in question is actually, conspiracy with a hostile foreign power, and we know definitively that the Trump campaign is definitely guilty of it. Thank you for proving, you don't care about criminal activities by your potus as long as you agree with him, nor do you care about getting played on the world stag by Putin, or MBS. Such integrity and character you have!:roll: (Not you, but the guy you are replying to)

 

[Eriech]

For those who feel that, because "collusion" is not a crime, the investigation needs to end so that Trump can get back to running the country, consider:

What if in 2020 a socialist candidate running as a democrat colludes with the European Union to blanket social media with socialist propaganda in order to swing the election to the democrats and put the United States more in line with liberal Western European values?

Would your reaction be the same? Would you prefer there be no investigation, since collusion is not a crime anyway, and say "the voters have spoken, let the president do his job?" Would you think an investigation in that case would be a witch hunt?

Should every president in the future come with a special prosecutor? The Democrats have set a very, very low bar to justify our current one.

Sent from my SM-G892A using Tapatalk

 

[JANFU]

Did you read the op or react to the title of the thread?

Break the laws, regardless of political stripe, get charged, go to trial or make a plea deal

Now keep on reaching for reasons to justify in your mind why Republicans can break the laws, and they should not be investigated, and if the evidence is present, then charge the buggers.

Did you read the responses? Below sinks your OP, sends it to the proverbial dustbin.
Gauis46 shot

Your #2 is not correct.

52 U.S. Code § 30121 - Contributions and donations by foreign nationals

(a) Prohibition

It shall be unlawful for—
(1) a foreign national, directly or indirectly, to make—
(A) a contribution or donation of money or other thing of value, or to make an express or implied promise to make a contribution or donation, in connection with a Federal, State, or local election;
(B) a contribution or donation to a committee of a political party; or
(C) an expenditure, independent expenditure, or disbursement for an electioneering communication (within the meaning of section 30104(f)(3) of this title); or

(2) a person to solicit, accept, or receive a contribution or donation described in subparagraph (A) or (B) of paragraph (1) from a foreign national.
(b) “Foreign national” definedAs used in this section, the term “foreign national” means—
(1) a foreign principal, as such term is defined by section 611(b) of title 22, except that the term “foreign national” shall not include any individual who is a citizen of the United States; or
(2) an individual who is not a citizen of the United States or a national of the United States (as defined in section 1101(a)(22) of title 8) and who is not lawfully admitted for permanent residence, as defined by section 1101(a)(20) of title 8.


The US socialist in this case would have committed some flavor of conspiracy.

 

[lwf]

Should every president in the future come with a special prosecutor? The Democrats have set a very, very low bar to justify our current one.

Sent from my SM-G892A using Tapatalk

How so? You don't feel that the actions of the Trump campaign during his run for presidency rises to the level of probable cause?

According to the FBI: Donald Trump publicly asked Wikileaks to find Hillary's emails. A close Trump associate was in contact with Wikileaks during the campaign. Shortly thereafter, emails that were hacked by what are believed to be Russian operatives appeared on Wikileaks. Donald Trump allowed Junior to attend a secret meeting with a Russian lawyer with the intent on obtaining dirt on his opponent. His National Security Advisor had a secret meeting with the Russian ambassador before he even had the job to discuss incoming Russian sanctions. His son in law attempted to set up a secure line of communication with Russian officials that bypassed American intelligence agencies, and also met with the head of a Russian state-owned bank before Trump was even inaugurated.

This doesn't seem like a low bar. It seems like a proper bar to set for someone who wants to be President of the United States. It seems like more than enough justification to launch an investigation. I think every presidential candidate in the future whose campaign involves these kinds of activities should absolutely come with a special prosecutor.

 

[lwf]

Break the laws, regardless of political stripe, get charged, go to trial or make a plea deal

Now keep on reaching for reasons to justify in your mind why Republicans can break the laws, and they should not be investigated, and if the evidence is present, then charge the buggers.

Did you read the responses? Below sinks your OP, sends it to the proverbial dustbin.
Gauis46 shot

That answers my question.