• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Collusion is not a crime. (1 Viewer)

tecoyah

tecoyah

Illusionary
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 30, 2005
Messages
10,453
Reaction score
3,844
Location
Louisville, KY
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Conservative
"[h=1]What is COLLUSION?[/h]A deceitful agreement or compact between two or more persons, for the one party to bring an action against the other for some evil purpose, as to defraud a third party of his right Cowell. A secret arrangement between two or more persons, whose interests are apparently conflicting, to make use of the forms and proceedings of law in order to defraud a third person, or to obtain that which justice would not give them, by deceiving a court or it officers. Baldwin v. New York, 45 Barb. (N. Y.) 359; Belt v. Blackburn, 28 Md. 235; Railroad Co. v. Gay. 8G Tex. 571, 26 S. W. 599, 25 L. R. A. 52; Balch v. Beach, 119 Wis. 77, 95 N. W. 132. In divorce proceedings, collusion is an agreement between husband and wife that one of them shall commit, or appear to have committed, or be represented in court as having committed, acts constituting a cause of divorce, for the purpose of enabling the other to obtain a divorce. Civil Code Cal"

However CONSPIRACY IS.

"
[h=1]What is CONSPIRACY?[/h]In criminal law. A combination or confederacy between two or more persons formed for the purpose of committing, by their joint efforts, some unlawful or criminal act, or some act which is innocent in itself, but becomes unlawful when done by the concerted action of the conspirators, or for the purpose of using criminal or unlawful means to the commission of an act not in itself unlawful. Pettibone v. U. S., 148 U. S. 197, 13 Sup. Ct. 542, 37 L. Ed. 419; State v. Slutz, 106 La. 182, 30 South. 298; Wright v. U. S., 108 Fed. 805, 48 C. C. A. 37; U. S. v. Benson, 70 Fed. 591, 17 C. C. A. 293; Girdner v. Walker, 1 Heisk. (Tenn.) 186; Boutwell v. Marr, 71 Vt. 1, 42 Atl. 607, 43 L. It. A. 803, 76 Am. St. Rep. 746; U. S. v. Weber (C. C.) 114 Fed. 950; Comm. v. Hunt, 4 Mete. (Mass.) Ill, 3S Am. Dec. 340; Erdman v. Mitchell, 207 Pa. 79, 56 Atl. 327, 63 L. R. A. 534, 99 Am. St. Rep. 7S3; Standard Oil Co. v. Doyle, US Ky. 602, 82 S. W. 271, 111 Am. St. Rep. 331. Conspiracy is a consultation or agreement between two or more persons, either falsely to accuse another of a crime punishable by law; or wrongfully to injure or prejudice a third person, or any body of men, in any manner; or to commit any offense punishable by law; or to do any act with intent to prevent the course of justice; or to effect a legal purpose with a corrupt intent, or by improper means. Hawk. P. "
https://www.esquire.com/news-politics/news/a56338/trump-collusion-conspiracy/

​Perhaps TrupHumpers should begin considering this.



 
tecoyah said:
"[h=1]What is COLLUSION?[/h]A deceitful agreement or compact between two or more persons, for the one party to bring an action against the other for some evil purpose, as to defraud a third party of his right Cowell. A secret arrangement between two or more persons, whose interests are apparently conflicting, to make use of the forms and proceedings of law in order to defraud a third person, or to obtain that which justice would not give them, by deceiving a court or it officers. Baldwin v. New York, 45 Barb. (N. Y.) 359; Belt v. Blackburn, 28 Md. 235; Railroad Co. v. Gay. 8G Tex. 571, 26 S. W. 599, 25 L. R. A. 52; Balch v. Beach, 119 Wis. 77, 95 N. W. 132. In divorce proceedings, collusion is an agreement between husband and wife that one of them shall commit, or appear to have committed, or be represented in court as having committed, acts constituting a cause of divorce, for the purpose of enabling the other to obtain a divorce. Civil Code Cal"

However CONSPIRACY IS.

"
[h=1]What is CONSPIRACY?[/h]In criminal law. A combination or confederacy between two or more persons formed for the purpose of committing, by their joint efforts, some unlawful or criminal act, or some act which is innocent in itself, but becomes unlawful when done by the concerted action of the conspirators, or for the purpose of using criminal or unlawful means to the commission of an act not in itself unlawful. Pettibone v. U. S., 148 U. S. 197, 13 Sup. Ct. 542, 37 L. Ed. 419; State v. Slutz, 106 La. 182, 30 South. 298; Wright v. U. S., 108 Fed. 805, 48 C. C. A. 37; U. S. v. Benson, 70 Fed. 591, 17 C. C. A. 293; Girdner v. Walker, 1 Heisk. (Tenn.) 186; Boutwell v. Marr, 71 Vt. 1, 42 Atl. 607, 43 L. It. A. 803, 76 Am. St. Rep. 746; U. S. v. Weber (C. C.) 114 Fed. 950; Comm. v. Hunt, 4 Mete. (Mass.) Ill, 3S Am. Dec. 340; Erdman v. Mitchell, 207 Pa. 79, 56 Atl. 327, 63 L. R. A. 534, 99 Am. St. Rep. 7S3; Standard Oil Co. v. Doyle, US Ky. 602, 82 S. W. 271, 111 Am. St. Rep. 331. Conspiracy is a consultation or agreement between two or more persons, either falsely to accuse another of a crime punishable by law; or wrongfully to injure or prejudice a third person, or any body of men, in any manner; or to commit any offense punishable by law; or to do any act with intent to prevent the course of justice; or to effect a legal purpose with a corrupt intent, or by improper means. Hawk. P. "
https://www.esquire.com/news-politics/news/a56338/trump-collusion-conspiracy/

​Perhaps TrupHumpers should begin considering this.
Click to expand...

Yeah, they don't care if their guys commit crimes, they only care that he gets away with it.:roll:
 
Remember when Republicans used to pretend to be the law and order party? Pepperidge Farm remembers.
 
STOP IT with "collusion". The investigation is not into "collusion".





(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



Stop playing their stupid ****ing game.
 
To "falsely accuse" another of a crime... Hmm. Sounds like there is a lot of both sides to pick from the "conspiracy" definition.
 
RabidAlpaca said:
Remember when Republicans used to pretend to be the law and order party? Pepperidge Farm remembers.
Click to expand...

When the Republican base is dealing with a radio broadcast with only a single person speaking -- is making a ideology statements without being challenged -- you have a deep void to build a lack of a honest understanding of a civic lifestyle
 
tecoyah said:
"[h=1]What is COLLUSION?[/h]A deceitful agreement or compact between two or more persons, for the one party to bring an action against the other for some evil purpose, as to defraud a third party of his right Cowell. A secret arrangement between two or more persons, whose interests are apparently conflicting, to make use of the forms and proceedings of law in order to defraud a third person, or to obtain that which justice would not give them, by deceiving a court or it officers. Baldwin v. New York, 45 Barb. (N. Y.) 359; Belt v. Blackburn, 28 Md. 235; Railroad Co. v. Gay. 8G Tex. 571, 26 S. W. 599, 25 L. R. A. 52; Balch v. Beach, 119 Wis. 77, 95 N. W. 132. In divorce proceedings, collusion is an agreement between husband and wife that one of them shall commit, or appear to have committed, or be represented in court as having committed, acts constituting a cause of divorce, for the purpose of enabling the other to obtain a divorce. Civil Code Cal"

However CONSPIRACY IS.

"
[h=1]What is CONSPIRACY?[/h]In criminal law. A combination or confederacy between two or more persons formed for the purpose of committing, by their joint efforts, some unlawful or criminal act, or some act which is innocent in itself, but becomes unlawful when done by the concerted action of the conspirators, or for the purpose of using criminal or unlawful means to the commission of an act not in itself unlawful. Pettibone v. U. S., 148 U. S. 197, 13 Sup. Ct. 542, 37 L. Ed. 419; State v. Slutz, 106 La. 182, 30 South. 298; Wright v. U. S., 108 Fed. 805, 48 C. C. A. 37; U. S. v. Benson, 70 Fed. 591, 17 C. C. A. 293; Girdner v. Walker, 1 Heisk. (Tenn.) 186; Boutwell v. Marr, 71 Vt. 1, 42 Atl. 607, 43 L. It. A. 803, 76 Am. St. Rep. 746; U. S. v. Weber (C. C.) 114 Fed. 950; Comm. v. Hunt, 4 Mete. (Mass.) Ill, 3S Am. Dec. 340; Erdman v. Mitchell, 207 Pa. 79, 56 Atl. 327, 63 L. R. A. 534, 99 Am. St. Rep. 7S3; Standard Oil Co. v. Doyle, US Ky. 602, 82 S. W. 271, 111 Am. St. Rep. 331. Conspiracy is a consultation or agreement between two or more persons, either falsely to accuse another of a crime punishable by law; or wrongfully to injure or prejudice a third person, or any body of men, in any manner; or to commit any offense punishable by law; or to do any act with intent to prevent the course of justice; or to effect a legal purpose with a corrupt intent, or by improper means. Hawk. P. "
https://www.esquire.com/news-politics/news/a56338/trump-collusion-conspiracy/

​Perhaps TrupHumpers should begin considering this.
Click to expand...

Conspiracy is indeed a crime.

/thread
 
tecoyah said:
"[h=1]What is COLLUSION?[/h]A deceitful agreement or compact between two or more persons, for the one party to bring an action against the other for some evil purpose, as to defraud a third party of his right Cowell. A secret arrangement between two or more persons, whose interests are apparently conflicting, to make use of the forms and proceedings of law in order to defraud a third person, or to obtain that which justice would not give them, by deceiving a court or it officers. Baldwin v. New York, 45 Barb. (N. Y.) 359; Belt v. Blackburn, 28 Md. 235; Railroad Co. v. Gay. 8G Tex. 571, 26 S. W. 599, 25 L. R. A. 52; Balch v. Beach, 119 Wis. 77, 95 N. W. 132. In divorce proceedings, collusion is an agreement between husband and wife that one of them shall commit, or appear to have committed, or be represented in court as having committed, acts constituting a cause of divorce, for the purpose of enabling the other to obtain a divorce. Civil Code Cal"

However CONSPIRACY IS.

"
[h=1]What is CONSPIRACY?[/h]In criminal law. A combination or confederacy between two or more persons formed for the purpose of committing, by their joint efforts, some unlawful or criminal act, or some act which is innocent in itself, but becomes unlawful when done by the concerted action of the conspirators, or for the purpose of using criminal or unlawful means to the commission of an act not in itself unlawful. Pettibone v. U. S., 148 U. S. 197, 13 Sup. Ct. 542, 37 L. Ed. 419; State v. Slutz, 106 La. 182, 30 South. 298; Wright v. U. S., 108 Fed. 805, 48 C. C. A. 37; U. S. v. Benson, 70 Fed. 591, 17 C. C. A. 293; Girdner v. Walker, 1 Heisk. (Tenn.) 186; Boutwell v. Marr, 71 Vt. 1, 42 Atl. 607, 43 L. It. A. 803, 76 Am. St. Rep. 746; U. S. v. Weber (C. C.) 114 Fed. 950; Comm. v. Hunt, 4 Mete. (Mass.) Ill, 3S Am. Dec. 340; Erdman v. Mitchell, 207 Pa. 79, 56 Atl. 327, 63 L. R. A. 534, 99 Am. St. Rep. 7S3; Standard Oil Co. v. Doyle, US Ky. 602, 82 S. W. 271, 111 Am. St. Rep. 331. Conspiracy is a consultation or agreement between two or more persons, either falsely to accuse another of a crime punishable by law; or wrongfully to injure or prejudice a third person, or any body of men, in any manner; or to commit any offense punishable by law; or to do any act with intent to prevent the course of justice; or to effect a




Click to expand...


This investigation might have started as an investigation into Collusion and/or obstruction of Justice but the reality is that it is (and should be) and investigation into crimes committed by Trump and those is power. Aren't we all on the same page regarding wanting our President and/or our Representatives to be lawful citizens that represent us and our needs and not their own?

For the longest time, this kind of thread has been pushed around and further supported by Trump saying a million times that there was no Collusion. To me, I want a President and a governing body that has our interests at heart and not their own. Already 3 people have been fired by Trump for clear cut abuses of power for their own benefit and there are more (including Trump) that are doing it. Those 3 that were fired, were fired because they were doing it out in the open and Trump had no other choice but to fire them. That doesn't mean that Trump and many others in his administration are not doing it as we speak but doing it covertly.

The FBI is supposed to seek and find wrong doers in every possible way. Whether it is Collusion, Obstruction of Justice, or simply stealing or abusing their power, they need to be prosecuted.

As far as Trump and his Collusion with Russia, I am now in the camp that he did not Collude with Russia as he never "colludes" with anyone. He was simply following Putin's orders as Putin has him by the balls.
 
tecoyah said:
"[h=1]What is COLLUSION?[/h]A deceitful agreement or compact between two or more persons, for the one party to bring an action against the other for some evil purpose, as to defraud a third party of his right Cowell. A secret arrangement between two or more persons, whose interests are apparently conflicting, to make use of the forms and proceedings of law in order to defraud a third person, or to obtain that which justice would not give them, by deceiving a court or it officers. Baldwin v. New York, 45 Barb. (N. Y.) 359; Belt v. Blackburn, 28 Md. 235; Railroad Co. v. Gay. 8G Tex. 571, 26 S. W. 599, 25 L. R. A. 52; Balch v. Beach, 119 Wis. 77, 95 N. W. 132. In divorce proceedings, collusion is an agreement between husband and wife that one of them shall commit, or appear to have committed, or be represented in court as having committed, acts constituting a cause of divorce, for the purpose of enabling the other to obtain a divorce. Civil Code Cal"

However CONSPIRACY IS.

"
[h=1]What is CONSPIRACY?[/h]In criminal law. A combination or confederacy between two or more persons formed for the purpose of committing, by their joint efforts, some unlawful or criminal act, or some act which is innocent in itself, but becomes unlawful when done by the concerted action of the conspirators, or for the purpose of using criminal or unlawful means to the commission of an act not in itself unlawful. Pettibone v. U. S., 148 U. S. 197, 13 Sup. Ct. 542, 37 L. Ed. 419; State v. Slutz, 106 La. 182, 30 South. 298; Wright v. U. S., 108 Fed. 805, 48 C. C. A. 37; U. S. v. Benson, 70 Fed. 591, 17 C. C. A. 293; Girdner v. Walker, 1 Heisk. (Tenn.) 186; Boutwell v. Marr, 71 Vt. 1, 42 Atl. 607, 43 L. It. A. 803, 76 Am. St. Rep. 746; U. S. v. Weber (C. C.) 114 Fed. 950; Comm. v. Hunt, 4 Mete. (Mass.) Ill, 3S Am. Dec. 340; Erdman v. Mitchell, 207 Pa. 79, 56 Atl. 327, 63 L. R. A. 534, 99 Am. St. Rep. 7S3; Standard Oil Co. v. Doyle, US Ky. 602, 82 S. W. 271, 111 Am. St. Rep. 331. Conspiracy is a consultation or agreement between two or more persons, either falsely to accuse another of a crime punishable by law; or wrongfully to injure or prejudice a third person, or any body of men, in any manner; or to commit any offense punishable by law; or to do any act with intent to prevent the course of justice; or to effect a legal purpose with a corrupt intent, or by improper means. Hawk. P. "
https://www.esquire.com/news-politics/news/a56338/trump-collusion-conspiracy/

​Perhaps TrupHumpers should begin considering this.
Click to expand...

I have no problem with charging and trying a person for a crime. I do have a problem with a group of people conducting an unending investigations in the hope of eventually finding something that can be used to against someone. That in itself is collusion. Now if every person working for the government was subject to the same unending investigation then I would be OK with it. But to single a person out and his staff is criminal in itself.
 
PIPEWRENCH said:
I have no problem with charging and trying a person for a crime. I do have a problem with a group of people conducting an unending investigations in the hope of eventually finding something that can be used to against someone. That in itself is collusion.
Click to expand...


"Locker her up!" was one of Trump's main campaign slogans.

But to single a person out and his staff is criminal in itself.
Click to expand...

Yet you support Trump, someone who you believe is acting in a criminal manner. Why?
 
JustHanging said:
"Locker her up!" was one of Trump's main campaign slogans.



Yet you support Trump, someone who you believe is acting in a criminal manner. Why?
Click to expand...

What crime has he been charged with?
 
PIPEWRENCH said:
I have no problem with charging and trying a person for a crime. I do have a problem with a group of people conducting an unending investigations in the hope of eventually finding something that can be used to against someone. That in itself is collusion. Now if every person working for the government was subject to the same unending investigation then I would be OK with it. But to single a person out and his staff is criminal in itself.
Click to expand...

There cannot be a "Blanket" investigation of everyone....every investigation is done on an individual person or action. This one just happens to be on our President, but others are investigated when due cause indicates necessity.
 
PIPEWRENCH said:
What crime has he been charged with?
Click to expand...

In the SDNY memo for the Michael Cohen sentencing, Individual-1 (Donald Trump) is considered an unindicted co-conspirator.

That can change in 2020 or thereafter.
 
tecoyah said:
There cannot be a "Blanket" investigation of everyone....every investigation is done on an individual person or action. This one just happens to be on our President, but others are investigated when due cause indicates necessity.
Click to expand...

Doesn't seem that way to me. Watergate we had a crime committed and people were caught. The investigation led back to the president. This investigation has investigated almost anyone associated with Trump in order to find a crime.
 
tecoyah said:
We will not know until investigation is completed.
Click to expand...

That is the point we don't even know if a crime has been committed. It was one thing to investigate a crime. It is another to persecute a man and everyone around him with the hope of finding something to charge him with.
 
Rogue Valley said:
In the SDNY memo for the Michael Cohen sentencing, Individual-1 (Donald Trump) is considered an unindicted co-conspirator.

That can change in 2020 or thereafter.
Click to expand...

Of what? We will let you know if and when we find something to charge him with. That is persecution not justice.
 
PIPEWRENCH said:
Doesn't seem that way to me. Watergate we had a crime committed and people were caught. The investigation led back to the president. This investigation has investigated almost anyone associated with Trump in order to find a crime.
Click to expand...

As with every investigation, "We" did not KNOW a crime had been committed until the investigation was finished. There were individuals charged during the investigation for various crimes that came to light as the investigation took place (sound familiar) and upon completion impeachment was obvious so Nixon simply resigned before it was needed (this will likely also seem familiar before this ends).


This mess is almost a repeat at this point.
 
PIPEWRENCH said:
That is the point we don't even know if a crime has been committed. It was one thing to investigate a crime. It is another to persecute a man and everyone around him with the hope of finding something to charge him with.
Click to expand...

You clearly do not understand what an investigation is:
"Pre-arrest Investigation: Pre-arrest investigation is the stage of criminal procedure that takes place after a report of suspected criminal activity or law enforcement otherwise becomes aware of such activity, but before an arrest is made. Law enforcement investigates whether a crime has occurred and whether an arrest should be made. If law enforcement determines that the evidence uncovered during pre-arrest investigation reveals that a crime was committed and a suspect is identified, law enforcement may arrest the suspect or, depending upon the jurisdiction, present the investigation results to the prosecuting attorney. If the jurisdiction is one in which the prosecuting attorney becomes involved pre-arrest, the prosecuting attorney generally decides whether and what charges to file; only after such determination does an arrest take place. Alternatively, after an investigation, law enforcement may determine that there is insufficient evidence to pursue the matter, and no arrest is made. "
https://law.lclark.edu/live/news/5498-what-are-some-common-steps-of-a-criminal
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 2 (members: 0, guests: 2)
Back
Top Bottom