Collusion is not a crime

[lwf]

Did I write the original post in a confusing way? Or is my provocative thread title to blame for the weird confusion in this thread? Do people often read a provocative title and then ignore the actual post and respond only to the title?

 

[Gaius46]

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

Yes we agree.

 

[Gaius46]

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)

Then please reply to him cause this post confused the crap out of me for a couple of minutes.


For the record I don’t know that Trump or any of his underlings violated Federal election or committed other crimes. It seems likely to me that someone did but that’s just speculation until the investigation and any trials are completed.

 

[lwf]

Then please reply to him cause this post confused the crap out of me for a couple of minutes.


For the record I don’t know that Trump or any of his underlings violated Federal election or committed other crimes. It seems likely to me that someone did but that’s just speculation until the investigation and any trials are completed.

Sorry about the confusion. The post was intended for people who feel that because "collusion" is not a crime, the collusion investigation is a witch hunt. Would they feel the same way were the shoe on the other foot?

 

[Gaius46]

Did I write the original post in a confusing way? Or is my provocative thread title to blame for the weird confusion in this thread? Do people often read a provocative title and then ignore the actual post and respond only to the title?

FWIW I read your OP as an attempt to point out potential left wing hypocrisy by putting the show on the other foot so I assumed - incorrectly - that you were defending Trump.

 

[lwf]

FWIW I read your OP as an attempt to point out potential left wing hypocrisy by putting the show on the other foot so I assumed - incorrectly - that you were defending Trump.

No worries. I often play devil's advocate anyway and appreciate honest feedback.

 

[hanger4]

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.

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

The media not the right started the buzzword "collusion";

*On July 22, 2016, Wikileaks released more than 19,000 emails from top members of the Democratic National Committee. Two days after the release, Hillary Clinton’s campaign manager Robby Mook told CNN that, according to “experts,” Russian state actors had stolen the emails from the DNC and were releasing them through Wikileaks “for the purpose of actually helping Donald Trump.”

Mook did not use the word “collusion,” but the press, in reporting his comments, did. Within the hour, in an article timestamped at 9:55 a.m., the Washington Examiner reported that Paul Manafort and Donald Trump Jr, had responded to Mook’s allegations and “vigorously denied any kind of collusion between Trump Sr. and the Russian president.” (To be clear, Manafort denied “any ties” between Putin and the Trump campaign, and Donald Trump Jr. criticized Mook for “lie after lie.” Neither one of them mentioned “collusion.”) Ninety minutes later, at 11:27 a.m., ABC News repeated what it termed Mook’s “allegation of collusion between the campaign and Russia.” And three hours later, at approximately 12:35 p.m., Bernie Sanders’s campaign manager, Jeff Weaver, told CNN’s Jake Tapper, “If there was some kind of collusion between the Trump campaign and Russian intelligence or Russian hackers, that clearly has to be dealt with.”

From there it was off to the races. Over the next two weeks, the word “collusion” was used hundreds of times*

https://www.lawfareblog.com/where-heck-did-term-collusion-come

 

[hanger4]

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.

If that "thing of value" was paid for by the campaign then it's not a contribution or donation, therefore legal.

 

[Mr Person]

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?

Don't countenance this by even asking the question. The investigation is not into "collusion." The word "Collusion" does not even appear in the letter appointing Mueller. The letter appointing Mueller is also far broader. The CFR governing special counsel investigations makes Mueller's mandate broader yet.

In short, he is looking for "any links and/or coordination between the Russian government and individuals associated with the campaign of President Donald Trump" and anything else he finds in carrying out that duty, which includes far more than just obstruction and the like. He has the full power of a U.S. Attorney.

They use the word "collusion" to try to make it sound like this is far narrower than it was. They claim that's because someone on the left claimed Trump colluded. But what someone on the left said doesn't define the scope of the investigation. Do not countenance their dishonest diversions.




In short, as long as Mueller doesn't decide on his own that he wants to investigate whether Trump shot someone forty years ago - as long as everything he looks at traces back to the original and broad mandate - it's kosher. It doesn't matter if in looking into links and/or coordination he discovers that someone in the cabinet had a shady deal with someone in Kazakhstan 10 years ago, looks into that and finds that Hillary Clinton has a child sex ring, looks into that and finds she helped run it out of a Trump hotel in Moscow in a conspiracy with Trump and thus nails Trump.

What he can't do is go off on his own starting from nothing. He is under no duty to ignore evidence of criminality on the part of anyone the investigation touches.


Please do not even pretend to countenance their distractions, even if to discredit some other claim they make.

 

[Athanasius68]

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.

The FBI asked Mrs. Clinton to find Mrs. Clinton's emails. She was unable to do so, and the subsequent criminal investigation into her behavior determined that she broke the law in such an insignificant manner that no prosecutor would bother taking it to trial.

But the FBI was not the only people ooking for the emails. And that included Mr. Trump and guys like PapaD. The Clinton emails were never found. The DNC emails is what were released. That had nothing to do with what Trump & Co. were talking about in the spring and summer of '16.

 

[Athanasius68]

Don't countenance this by even asking the question. The investigation is not into "collusion." The word "Collusion" does not even appear in the letter appointing Mueller. The letter appointing Mueller is also far broader. The CFR governing special counsel investigations makes Mueller's mandate broader yet.

In short, he is looking for "any links and/or coordination between the Russian government and individuals associated with the campaign of President Donald Trump" and anything else he finds in carrying out that duty, which includes far more than just obstruction and the like. He has the full power of a U.S. Attorney.

They use the word "collusion" to try to make it sound like this is far narrower than it was. They claim that's because someone on the left claimed Trump colluded. But what someone on the left said doesn't define the scope of the investigation. Do not countenance their dishonest diversions.




In short, as long as Mueller doesn't decide on his own that he wants to investigate whether Trump shot someone forty years ago - as long as everything he looks at traces back to the original and broad mandate - it's kosher. It doesn't matter if in looking into links and/or coordination he discovers that someone in the cabinet had a shady deal with someone in Kazakhstan 10 years ago, looks into that and finds that Hillary Clinton has a child sex ring, looks into that and finds she helped run it out of a Trump hotel in Moscow in a conspiracy with Trump and thus nails Trump.

What he can't do is go off on his own starting from nothing. He is under no duty to ignore evidence of criminality on the part of anyone the investigation touches.


Please do not even pretend to countenance their distractions, even if to discredit some other claim they make.

No. Mueller was appointed to investigate Russian involvement in the 2016. To the extent that he has charged and won convictions for events that have NOTHING to do with this is a distraction from the problem that there continues to be no evidence, no proof, that collusion actually happened.. Instead, those charges are viewed as successes, when the reality remains there would be no reason why such investigation and prosecition could not have been through regular DOJ channels.

 

[lwf]

The FBI asked Mrs. Clinton to find Mrs. Clinton's emails. She was unable to do so, and the subsequent criminal investigation into her behavior determined that she broke the law in such an insignificant manner that no prosecutor would bother taking it to trial.

But the FBI was not the only people ooking for the emails. And that included Mr. Trump and guys like PapaD. The Clinton emails were never found. The DNC emails is what were released. That had nothing to do with what Trump & Co. were talking about in the spring and summer of '16.

You're right. My mistake. But the public request for Russia to hack Hillary's emails nonetheless coincided with hacking attempts by Russian actors on 76 email addresses on the domain used by the Clinton campaign. This, in conjunction with the other evidence, is more than enough to constitute probable cause to open an investigation. And once opened, everything related to it is fair game, including perjury and obstruction.

 

[JoanDavis]

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?

If Hillary colluded with another country to rig the 2016 election, the republicans would have had her in jail the minute after the inauguration.

 

[Mr Person]

No. Mueller was appointed to investigate Russian involvement in the 2016.

Everything after your stupid lie is omitted:

In part:

(b) The Special Counsel is authorized to conduct the investigation confirmed by then-FBI Director James B. Comey in testimony before the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence on March 20, 2017, including:

(i) any links and/or coordination between the Russian government and individuals associated with the campaign of President Donald Trump; and

(ii) any matters that arose or may arise directly from the investigation; and

(iii) any other matters within the scope of 28 C.F.R. s. 600.4(a).

(c) If the Special Counsel believes it is necessary and appropriate, the Special Counsel is authorized to prosecute federal crimes arising from the investigation of these matters.

(d) Sections 600.4 through 600.10 of Title 28 of the Code of Federal Regulations are applicable to the special counsel.

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive...nt-Robert-Mueller-Special-Counsel-Russia.html




28 C.F.R. s. 600.4(a) - only ONE of the regulations in question - then says:

(a) . . . The jurisdiction of a Special Counsel shall also include the authority to investigate and prosecute federal crimes committed in the course of, and with intent to interfere with, the Special Counsel's investigation, such as perjury, obstruction of justice, destruction of evidence, and intimidation of witnesses; and to conduct appeals arising out of the matter being investigated and/or prosecuted.

And yet other regulations grant the special counsel the full power of a U.S. Attorney.







Stop lying. Repeating those insulting lies helps destroy the democratic republic, one brick at a time.

 

[lwf]

Don't countenance this by even asking the question. The investigation is not into "collusion." The word "Collusion" does not even appear in the letter appointing Mueller. The letter appointing Mueller is also far broader. The CFR governing special counsel investigations makes Mueller's mandate broader yet.

In short, he is looking for "any links and/or coordination between the Russian government and individuals associated with the campaign of President Donald Trump" and anything else he finds in carrying out that duty, which includes far more than just obstruction and the like. He has the full power of a U.S. Attorney.

They use the word "collusion" to try to make it sound like this is far narrower than it was. They claim that's because someone on the left claimed Trump colluded. But what someone on the left said doesn't define the scope of the investigation. Do not countenance their dishonest diversions.




In short, as long as Mueller doesn't decide on his own that he wants to investigate whether Trump shot someone forty years ago - as long as everything he looks at traces back to the original and broad mandate - it's kosher. It doesn't matter if in looking into links and/or coordination he discovers that someone in the cabinet had a shady deal with someone in Kazakhstan 10 years ago, looks into that and finds that Hillary Clinton has a child sex ring, looks into that and finds she helped run it out of a Trump hotel in Moscow in a conspiracy with Trump and thus nails Trump.

What he can't do is go off on his own starting from nothing. He is under no duty to ignore evidence of criminality on the part of anyone the investigation touches.


Please do not even pretend to countenance their distractions, even if to discredit some other claim they make.

You make a valid point. However, I find it is sometimes useful to accept a faulty premise for the sake of argument and explore the implications of what conclusions should logically follow. If nothing else, it forces someone who tends to use that premise to think about whether or not they want to continue using it in the future.

 

[lwf]

If Hillary colluded with another country to rig the 2016 election, the republicans would have had her in jail the minute after the inauguration.

I agree they would have certainly appointed a special prosecutor to investigate the evidence, as they should. I wonder how many are willing to admit it, though?