Can you post that exact language again. Thanks.wifeisafurd said:
There was a direct finding of no collusion by Mueller Report and I posted that exact language.
American Vermin
Calling all lawyers: Mueller question
7,551 Views |
74 Replies |
Last: 5 yr ago by Yogi58
I listened to the whole NPR podcast and no one said anything about collusion. They talked about conspiracy and coordination, exactly as I originally said. I'm not sure how it was supposed to refute or disprove anything I wrote?wifeisafurd said:Some legal concepts are getting mixed by Dajo, which are leading to confusion, and I suggest you read the Report more carefully.sycasey said:I'm pretty sure Mueller said he was making no determination on collusion.wifeisafurd said:sure I can. Collusion and conspiracy were what Mueller found there was insufficient evidence to actually charge,dajo9 said:
You don't seem to be able to differentiate between collusion and conspiracy. Or between evidence and indictment. SAD.
https://washingtonmonthly.com/2019/04/22/the-mueller-report-didnt-absolve-trump-of-collusion/Quote:
In evaluating whether evidence about collective action of multiple individuals constituted a crime, we applied the framework of conspiracy law, not the concept of "collusion." In so doing, the Office recognized that the word "collud[e]"has frequently been invoked in public reporting about the investigation. But collusion is not a specific offense or theory of liability found in the United States Code, nor is it a term of art in federal criminal law. For those reasons, the Office's focus in analyzing questions of joint criminal liability was on conspiracy as defined in federal law.
His report did say there was insufficient evidence to charge the Trump campaign with conspiracy.
So no, you can't lump both of those words together and say that Mueller provided results on both.
Collusion: There is an underlying crime of collusion (as opposed to the word collude). This is repetitive from an early post, but the federal crime of collusion is a secret agreement between two or more parties to limit open competition by deceiving, misleading, or defrauding others of their legal rights, or to obtain an objective forbidden by law typically by defrauding or gaining an unfair market advantage. This is not Fox News as '71 rants, but a statute. in fact, federal prosecutors periodically bring charges against companies who rig federal bids for collusion for example. There was a direct finding of no collusion by Mueller Report and I posted that exact language. Again this was not Fox News as '71 rants, but Mueller's actual finding. This has nothing to do with the word collude, which is a general term.
Conspiracy: There are basically 5 elements for the crime of federal Conspiracy. Those elements are: 1. You must have 2 or more persons who 2. Intentionally 3. make an agreement (emphasis added) 4. to violate federal law or defraud the United states, and then 5. Commit some overt act in furtherance of the agreement. This also is statue, and not Fox News. So the example here would be that the Trump campaign, consisting of the President (who would be an un-indicted conspirator) and others in his campaign, had an agreement with the Russians to to rig the election (which would violate federal law - the Mueller Report did find the Russians violated federal law). The Mueller Report found no agreement with the Russians and the Trump campaign (again I quoted directly from the Mueller Report); thus no conspiracy. Again, I quoted directly from the Report, not Fox News.
These are two different federal statues and crimes.
Here is the best discussion I have heard by actual knowledgeable lawyers (note this is NPR, not Fox News for those who like to rant):
Ken White on the Mueller report with Left, Right & Center https://kcrw.co/2W2LdGw
You may recall the OP asked for an explanation of why Mueller found what he found. I provided a summary by someone else who is CNN's legal expert (and actually was the guy who launched on Schiff for gun jumping) and was called a partisan. I'm not sure what else needs to be said. Some people simply can't accept the findings of the Report and attack those who try to explain the Report. You can Google Ken to see his qualifications, but he is the guy on federal criminal stuff in SoCal, and certainly no partisan Trump reporter.
I strongly recommend listening to the NPR link, it suggests the most relevant matters with the the Mueller Report are not the criminal findings, but the Report's report of Trump's erratic behavior. Hopefully, this makes Anti's posts (which I tend to agree with) make even more sense.
Sorry if this is too long for some to be able to follow.
Maybe wifeisafurd isn't Rudy G, but William Barr? Nah, there is more to it...
The twisting of facts, motivated reasoning, condescension, and near gish-galloping of this thread and others with his long-winded/lying through obfuscation screeds are just bizarre. But at the same time, they aren't. They fit into a recognizable boiler plate style of conservative pseudo-intellectualism. He sounds like a mix of Fox News talking head obeying and wielding their talking point marching orders in lock step, Ben Shapiro using rhetorical tricks and thinking being verbose and speaking quickly means you win arguments which is of course all that matters as learned in law school, and bit of Bill Krystol being aloof condescending and above and detached from his party's and his own actions, all dipped in some corporate lawyerly slime and then baked a few decades past his prime.
Aren't we lucky to be subjected to his insights into the evil Clintons, the secretly unsuccesful Obama presidency, his totally genuine and well-meaning thoughts on Democratic political strategy, how bettering the tax code and bolsetring regulations and labor rights for 90% of the population would be bad for his pocketbook and how everybody else is also morally bankrupt like him and only votes on that one issue and only in their own narrow self interest on that matter, and now his finest insight: "NO COLLUSION!"
What's the next advice? Democrats should just ignore the President tip-toeing the line between corrupt and criminal on a daily basis for decades before and years into his term, and focus on what, health care? Health care, an issue that people like him and in his party would do anything to avoid amending, and instead, like education, would love nothing more than to further privatize and profit off of. Someone who's political family would stack courts, rig elections, create PAC after PAC, lobby endlessly, fillibuster, obstruct, ANYTHING, to avoid letting the Democrats move the country into the 21st century with real universal health care legislation. Yeah, I'm sure that is totally what he wants and he is again being genuine in his concern for these people that he thinks shouldn't be paid a living wage etc. I'm sure he isn't just continuing to trot out the newest goalpost-moving talking point from Fox and Friends to try to move the crosshairs off of his man Trump.
The twisting of facts, motivated reasoning, condescension, and near gish-galloping of this thread and others with his long-winded/lying through obfuscation screeds are just bizarre. But at the same time, they aren't. They fit into a recognizable boiler plate style of conservative pseudo-intellectualism. He sounds like a mix of Fox News talking head obeying and wielding their talking point marching orders in lock step, Ben Shapiro using rhetorical tricks and thinking being verbose and speaking quickly means you win arguments which is of course all that matters as learned in law school, and bit of Bill Krystol being aloof condescending and above and detached from his party's and his own actions, all dipped in some corporate lawyerly slime and then baked a few decades past his prime.
Aren't we lucky to be subjected to his insights into the evil Clintons, the secretly unsuccesful Obama presidency, his totally genuine and well-meaning thoughts on Democratic political strategy, how bettering the tax code and bolsetring regulations and labor rights for 90% of the population would be bad for his pocketbook and how everybody else is also morally bankrupt like him and only votes on that one issue and only in their own narrow self interest on that matter, and now his finest insight: "NO COLLUSION!"
What's the next advice? Democrats should just ignore the President tip-toeing the line between corrupt and criminal on a daily basis for decades before and years into his term, and focus on what, health care? Health care, an issue that people like him and in his party would do anything to avoid amending, and instead, like education, would love nothing more than to further privatize and profit off of. Someone who's political family would stack courts, rig elections, create PAC after PAC, lobby endlessly, fillibuster, obstruct, ANYTHING, to avoid letting the Democrats move the country into the 21st century with real universal health care legislation. Yeah, I'm sure that is totally what he wants and he is again being genuine in his concern for these people that he thinks shouldn't be paid a living wage etc. I'm sure he isn't just continuing to trot out the newest goalpost-moving talking point from Fox and Friends to try to move the crosshairs off of his man Trump.
Get the wax out of your ears. Richard Lawrey's first several sentences discussed collusion and the lack of a finding. You may recall your commentary about Adam Shiff limiting his narrative to legal collusion, which is inconsistent with many Schiff comments, as detailed in other posts. The recommendation to listen or even the post itself was not for your benefit, nor intended to refute and disprove any thing you posted, etc. check you ego, it's not about you, other than to point out once again you posted something not true.sycasey said:I listened to the whole NPR podcast and no one said anything about collusion. They talked about conspiracy and coordination, exactly as I originally said. I'm not sure how it was supposed to refute or disprove anything I wrote?wifeisafurd said:Some legal concepts are getting mixed by Dajo, which are leading to confusion, and I suggest you read the Report more carefully.sycasey said:I'm pretty sure Mueller said he was making no determination on collusion.wifeisafurd said:sure I can. Collusion and conspiracy were what Mueller found there was insufficient evidence to actually charge,dajo9 said:
You don't seem to be able to differentiate between collusion and conspiracy. Or between evidence and indictment. SAD.
https://washingtonmonthly.com/2019/04/22/the-mueller-report-didnt-absolve-trump-of-collusion/Quote:
In evaluating whether evidence about collective action of multiple individuals constituted a crime, we applied the framework of conspiracy law, not the concept of "collusion." In so doing, the Office recognized that the word "collud[e]"has frequently been invoked in public reporting about the investigation. But collusion is not a specific offense or theory of liability found in the United States Code, nor is it a term of art in federal criminal law. For those reasons, the Office's focus in analyzing questions of joint criminal liability was on conspiracy as defined in federal law.
His report did say there was insufficient evidence to charge the Trump campaign with conspiracy.
So no, you can't lump both of those words together and say that Mueller provided results on both.
Collusion: There is an underlying crime of collusion (as opposed to the word collude). This is repetitive from an early post, but the federal crime of collusion is a secret agreement between two or more parties to limit open competition by deceiving, misleading, or defrauding others of their legal rights, or to obtain an objective forbidden by law typically by defrauding or gaining an unfair market advantage. This is not Fox News as '71 rants, but a statute. in fact, federal prosecutors periodically bring charges against companies who rig federal bids for collusion for example. There was a direct finding of no collusion by Mueller Report and I posted that exact language. Again this was not Fox News as '71 rants, but Mueller's actual finding. This has nothing to do with the word collude, which is a general term.
Conspiracy: There are basically 5 elements for the crime of federal Conspiracy. Those elements are: 1. You must have 2 or more persons who 2. Intentionally 3. make an agreement (emphasis added) 4. to violate federal law or defraud the United states, and then 5. Commit some overt act in furtherance of the agreement. This also is statue, and not Fox News. So the example here would be that the Trump campaign, consisting of the President (who would be an un-indicted conspirator) and others in his campaign, had an agreement with the Russians to to rig the election (which would violate federal law - the Mueller Report did find the Russians violated federal law). The Mueller Report found no agreement with the Russians and the Trump campaign (again I quoted directly from the Mueller Report); thus no conspiracy. Again, I quoted directly from the Report, not Fox News.
These are two different federal statues and crimes.
Here is the best discussion I have heard by actual knowledgeable lawyers (note this is NPR, not Fox News for those who like to rant):
Ken White on the Mueller report with Left, Right & Center https://kcrw.co/2W2LdGw
You may recall the OP asked for an explanation of why Mueller found what he found. I provided a summary by someone else who is CNN's legal expert (and actually was the guy who launched on Schiff for gun jumping) and was called a partisan. I'm not sure what else needs to be said. Some people simply can't accept the findings of the Report and attack those who try to explain the Report. You can Google Ken to see his qualifications, but he is the guy on federal criminal stuff in SoCal, and certainly no partisan Trump reporter.
I strongly recommend listening to the NPR link, it suggests the most relevant matters with the the Mueller Report are not the criminal findings, but the Report's report of Trump's erratic behavior. Hopefully, this makes Anti's posts (which I tend to agree with) make even more sense.
Sorry if this is too long for some to be able to follow.
wifeisafurd said:Get the wax out of your ears. Richard Lawrey's first several sentences discussed collusion and the lack of a finding. You may recall your commentary about Adam Shiff limiting his narrative to legal collusion, which is inconsistent with many Schiff comments, as detailed in other posts. The recommendation to listen or even the post itself was not for your benefit, nor intended to refute and disprove any thing you posted, etc. check you ego, it's not about you, other than to point out once again you posted something not true.sycasey said:I listened to the whole NPR podcast and no one said anything about collusion. They talked about conspiracy and coordination, exactly as I originally said. I'm not sure how it was supposed to refute or disprove anything I wrote?wifeisafurd said:Some legal concepts are getting mixed by Dajo, which are leading to confusion, and I suggest you read the Report more carefully.sycasey said:I'm pretty sure Mueller said he was making no determination on collusion.wifeisafurd said:sure I can. Collusion and conspiracy were what Mueller found there was insufficient evidence to actually charge,dajo9 said:
You don't seem to be able to differentiate between collusion and conspiracy. Or between evidence and indictment. SAD.
https://washingtonmonthly.com/2019/04/22/the-mueller-report-didnt-absolve-trump-of-collusion/Quote:
In evaluating whether evidence about collective action of multiple individuals constituted a crime, we applied the framework of conspiracy law, not the concept of "collusion." In so doing, the Office recognized that the word "collud[e]"has frequently been invoked in public reporting about the investigation. But collusion is not a specific offense or theory of liability found in the United States Code, nor is it a term of art in federal criminal law. For those reasons, the Office's focus in analyzing questions of joint criminal liability was on conspiracy as defined in federal law.
His report did say there was insufficient evidence to charge the Trump campaign with conspiracy.
So no, you can't lump both of those words together and say that Mueller provided results on both.
Collusion: There is an underlying crime of collusion (as opposed to the word collude). This is repetitive from an early post, but the federal crime of collusion is a secret agreement between two or more parties to limit open competition by deceiving, misleading, or defrauding others of their legal rights, or to obtain an objective forbidden by law typically by defrauding or gaining an unfair market advantage. This is not Fox News as '71 rants, but a statute. in fact, federal prosecutors periodically bring charges against companies who rig federal bids for collusion for example. There was a direct finding of no collusion by Mueller Report and I posted that exact language. Again this was not Fox News as '71 rants, but Mueller's actual finding. This has nothing to do with the word collude, which is a general term.
Conspiracy: There are basically 5 elements for the crime of federal Conspiracy. Those elements are: 1. You must have 2 or more persons who 2. Intentionally 3. make an agreement (emphasis added) 4. to violate federal law or defraud the United states, and then 5. Commit some overt act in furtherance of the agreement. This also is statue, and not Fox News. So the example here would be that the Trump campaign, consisting of the President (who would be an un-indicted conspirator) and others in his campaign, had an agreement with the Russians to to rig the election (which would violate federal law - the Mueller Report did find the Russians violated federal law). The Mueller Report found no agreement with the Russians and the Trump campaign (again I quoted directly from the Mueller Report); thus no conspiracy. Again, I quoted directly from the Report, not Fox News.
These are two different federal statues and crimes.
Here is the best discussion I have heard by actual knowledgeable lawyers (note this is NPR, not Fox News for those who like to rant):
Ken White on the Mueller report with Left, Right & Center https://kcrw.co/2W2LdGw
You may recall the OP asked for an explanation of why Mueller found what he found. I provided a summary by someone else who is CNN's legal expert (and actually was the guy who launched on Schiff for gun jumping) and was called a partisan. I'm not sure what else needs to be said. Some people simply can't accept the findings of the Report and attack those who try to explain the Report. You can Google Ken to see his qualifications, but he is the guy on federal criminal stuff in SoCal, and certainly no partisan Trump reporter.
I strongly recommend listening to the NPR link, it suggests the most relevant matters with the the Mueller Report are not the criminal findings, but the Report's report of Trump's erratic behavior. Hopefully, this makes Anti's posts (which I tend to agree with) make even more sense.
Sorry if this is too long for some to be able to follow.
You sure you're not trying to talk to Dajo here?
sorry got your posts mixed-up. The langue about collusion in the NPR tape is: "Now Volume 1 on Russian Collusion is a vindication for the President. The underlying offense is not there. It's just not that there isn't a criminal collusion offense, there is not coordination either. It's also not...." My apologies for the wax comment. It is 20 minutes of mostly lawyer stuff and you just missed this. Dajo has a pattern of ignoring stuff that is inconsistent with his agenda, so with him I tend to exercise little patience.sycasey said:wifeisafurd said:Get the wax out of your ears. Richard Lawrey's first several sentences discussed collusion and the lack of a finding. You may recall your commentary about Adam Shiff limiting his narrative to legal collusion, which is inconsistent with many Schiff comments, as detailed in other posts. The recommendation to listen or even the post itself was not for your benefit, nor intended to refute and disprove any thing you posted, etc. check you ego, it's not about you, other than to point out once again you posted something not true.sycasey said:I listened to the whole NPR podcast and no one said anything about collusion. They talked about conspiracy and coordination, exactly as I originally said. I'm not sure how it was supposed to refute or disprove anything I wrote?wifeisafurd said:Some legal concepts are getting mixed by Dajo, which are leading to confusion, and I suggest you read the Report more carefully.sycasey said:I'm pretty sure Mueller said he was making no determination on collusion.wifeisafurd said:sure I can. Collusion and conspiracy were what Mueller found there was insufficient evidence to actually charge,dajo9 said:
You don't seem to be able to differentiate between collusion and conspiracy. Or between evidence and indictment. SAD.
https://washingtonmonthly.com/2019/04/22/the-mueller-report-didnt-absolve-trump-of-collusion/Quote:
In evaluating whether evidence about collective action of multiple individuals constituted a crime, we applied the framework of conspiracy law, not the concept of "collusion." In so doing, the Office recognized that the word "collud[e]"has frequently been invoked in public reporting about the investigation. But collusion is not a specific offense or theory of liability found in the United States Code, nor is it a term of art in federal criminal law. For those reasons, the Office's focus in analyzing questions of joint criminal liability was on conspiracy as defined in federal law.
His report did say there was insufficient evidence to charge the Trump campaign with conspiracy.
So no, you can't lump both of those words together and say that Mueller provided results on both.
Collusion: There is an underlying crime of collusion (as opposed to the word collude). This is repetitive from an early post, but the federal crime of collusion is a secret agreement between two or more parties to limit open competition by deceiving, misleading, or defrauding others of their legal rights, or to obtain an objective forbidden by law typically by defrauding or gaining an unfair market advantage. This is not Fox News as '71 rants, but a statute. in fact, federal prosecutors periodically bring charges against companies who rig federal bids for collusion for example. There was a direct finding of no collusion by Mueller Report and I posted that exact language. Again this was not Fox News as '71 rants, but Mueller's actual finding. This has nothing to do with the word collude, which is a general term.
Conspiracy: There are basically 5 elements for the crime of federal Conspiracy. Those elements are: 1. You must have 2 or more persons who 2. Intentionally 3. make an agreement (emphasis added) 4. to violate federal law or defraud the United states, and then 5. Commit some overt act in furtherance of the agreement. This also is statue, and not Fox News. So the example here would be that the Trump campaign, consisting of the President (who would be an un-indicted conspirator) and others in his campaign, had an agreement with the Russians to to rig the election (which would violate federal law - the Mueller Report did find the Russians violated federal law). The Mueller Report found no agreement with the Russians and the Trump campaign (again I quoted directly from the Mueller Report); thus no conspiracy. Again, I quoted directly from the Report, not Fox News.
These are two different federal statues and crimes.
Here is the best discussion I have heard by actual knowledgeable lawyers (note this is NPR, not Fox News for those who like to rant):
Ken White on the Mueller report with Left, Right & Center https://kcrw.co/2W2LdGw
You may recall the OP asked for an explanation of why Mueller found what he found. I provided a summary by someone else who is CNN's legal expert (and actually was the guy who launched on Schiff for gun jumping) and was called a partisan. I'm not sure what else needs to be said. Some people simply can't accept the findings of the Report and attack those who try to explain the Report. You can Google Ken to see his qualifications, but he is the guy on federal criminal stuff in SoCal, and certainly no partisan Trump reporter.
I strongly recommend listening to the NPR link, it suggests the most relevant matters with the the Mueller Report are not the criminal findings, but the Report's report of Trump's erratic behavior. Hopefully, this makes Anti's posts (which I tend to agree with) make even more sense.
Sorry if this is too long for some to be able to follow.
You sure you're not trying to talk to Dajo here?
At what time signature does this happen? I went through the whole thing once and am now skipping around trying to find a mention of "collusion." All I hear is "conspiracy" and "coordination" language.wifeisafurd said:sorry got your posts mixed-up. The langue about collusion in the NPR tape is: "Now Volume 1 on Russian Collusion is a vindication for the President. The underlying offense is not there. It's just not that there isn't a criminal collusion offense, there is not coordination either. It's also not...." My apologies for the wax comment. It is 20 minutes of mostly lawyer stuff and you just missed this. Dajo has a pattern of ignoring stuff that is inconsistent with his agenda, so with him I tend to exercise little patience.sycasey said:wifeisafurd said:Get the wax out of your ears. Richard Lawrey's first several sentences discussed collusion and the lack of a finding. You may recall your commentary about Adam Shiff limiting his narrative to legal collusion, which is inconsistent with many Schiff comments, as detailed in other posts. The recommendation to listen or even the post itself was not for your benefit, nor intended to refute and disprove any thing you posted, etc. check you ego, it's not about you, other than to point out once again you posted something not true.sycasey said:I listened to the whole NPR podcast and no one said anything about collusion. They talked about conspiracy and coordination, exactly as I originally said. I'm not sure how it was supposed to refute or disprove anything I wrote?wifeisafurd said:Some legal concepts are getting mixed by Dajo, which are leading to confusion, and I suggest you read the Report more carefully.sycasey said:I'm pretty sure Mueller said he was making no determination on collusion.wifeisafurd said:sure I can. Collusion and conspiracy were what Mueller found there was insufficient evidence to actually charge,dajo9 said:
You don't seem to be able to differentiate between collusion and conspiracy. Or between evidence and indictment. SAD.
https://washingtonmonthly.com/2019/04/22/the-mueller-report-didnt-absolve-trump-of-collusion/Quote:
In evaluating whether evidence about collective action of multiple individuals constituted a crime, we applied the framework of conspiracy law, not the concept of "collusion." In so doing, the Office recognized that the word "collud[e]"has frequently been invoked in public reporting about the investigation. But collusion is not a specific offense or theory of liability found in the United States Code, nor is it a term of art in federal criminal law. For those reasons, the Office's focus in analyzing questions of joint criminal liability was on conspiracy as defined in federal law.
His report did say there was insufficient evidence to charge the Trump campaign with conspiracy.
So no, you can't lump both of those words together and say that Mueller provided results on both.
Collusion: There is an underlying crime of collusion (as opposed to the word collude). This is repetitive from an early post, but the federal crime of collusion is a secret agreement between two or more parties to limit open competition by deceiving, misleading, or defrauding others of their legal rights, or to obtain an objective forbidden by law typically by defrauding or gaining an unfair market advantage. This is not Fox News as '71 rants, but a statute. in fact, federal prosecutors periodically bring charges against companies who rig federal bids for collusion for example. There was a direct finding of no collusion by Mueller Report and I posted that exact language. Again this was not Fox News as '71 rants, but Mueller's actual finding. This has nothing to do with the word collude, which is a general term.
Conspiracy: There are basically 5 elements for the crime of federal Conspiracy. Those elements are: 1. You must have 2 or more persons who 2. Intentionally 3. make an agreement (emphasis added) 4. to violate federal law or defraud the United states, and then 5. Commit some overt act in furtherance of the agreement. This also is statue, and not Fox News. So the example here would be that the Trump campaign, consisting of the President (who would be an un-indicted conspirator) and others in his campaign, had an agreement with the Russians to to rig the election (which would violate federal law - the Mueller Report did find the Russians violated federal law). The Mueller Report found no agreement with the Russians and the Trump campaign (again I quoted directly from the Mueller Report); thus no conspiracy. Again, I quoted directly from the Report, not Fox News.
These are two different federal statues and crimes.
Here is the best discussion I have heard by actual knowledgeable lawyers (note this is NPR, not Fox News for those who like to rant):
Ken White on the Mueller report with Left, Right & Center https://kcrw.co/2W2LdGw
You may recall the OP asked for an explanation of why Mueller found what he found. I provided a summary by someone else who is CNN's legal expert (and actually was the guy who launched on Schiff for gun jumping) and was called a partisan. I'm not sure what else needs to be said. Some people simply can't accept the findings of the Report and attack those who try to explain the Report. You can Google Ken to see his qualifications, but he is the guy on federal criminal stuff in SoCal, and certainly no partisan Trump reporter.
I strongly recommend listening to the NPR link, it suggests the most relevant matters with the the Mueller Report are not the criminal findings, but the Report's report of Trump's erratic behavior. Hopefully, this makes Anti's posts (which I tend to agree with) make even more sense.
Sorry if this is too long for some to be able to follow.
You sure you're not trying to talk to Dajo here?
EDIT: Okay, I found it. One sentence where one of them mentions that. I'm not sure that's enough to "prove" to me that Mueller actually rules on collusion. It could easily just be a slip of the tongue, given that the entire rest of the show just talks about conspiracy and coordination. Where in the actual report does Mueller mention "collusion," except in the segment where he says he's not making any recommendation on that, because for his purposes it's not a thing?
dajo9 said:Can you post that exact language again. Thanks.wifeisafurd said:
There was a direct finding of no collusion by Mueller Report and I posted that exact language.
Still waiting. Trying to be patient.
American Vermin
As wifeisafurd continues to try to obscure the truth, let's try to do the opposite. These are Mueller's actual written words in the report:
"Collusion is not a specific offense or theory of liability found in the United States Code, nor is it a term of art in federal criminal law. For those reasons, the Office's focus in analyzing questions of joint criminal liability was on conspiracy as defined in federal law."
Mueller was working with a very narrow interpretation of the laws concerning conspiracy and how the term coordination relates. Here he writes about his interpretation:
"We understood coordination to require an agreement tacit or express between the Trump Campaign and the Russian government on election interference. That requires more than the two parties taking actions that were informed by or responsive to the other's actions or interests. We applied the term coordination in that sense when stating in the report that the investigation did not establish that the Trump Campaign coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities."
So, on from the facts to my understanding:
Mueller did not make any finding regarding collusion and avoided the topic altogether.
Mueller found that Trump and his staff/family narrowly avoided conspiracy with Russians based on the fact that their acts did not meet their definition of coordination because they were not ongoing and back and forth on specifics that led to interference, which is a bit too high of a hurdle imo and makes the interpretation of the conspiracy law too narrow. For example, if there were evidence that Trump met with Putin himself, there were taped recordings of him asking for Putin to outright rig the election for him, then Putin rigged the election, and they had no further interaction on the subject, this would not meet Meuller's standard for coordination and thus conspiracy. And this is essentially the picture that is painted by the findings in the Meuller report - Trump(et al.) consistently showed intent to conspire with Russia and its agents to at least gain information to help him in his election efforts. In exchange, at a minimum, there were quid pro quo's offered and followed through on by Trump in terms foreign policy actions that were beneficial to Russia/Ukraine.
Basically, Meuller didn't find or look for anything regarding collusion because it isn't a legal term relevant to his investigation, and Meuller had a VERY narrow definition of conspiracy based on his understanding of the definition of coordination, that still was very close to being filled by Trumps actions. Personally, I think it is accurate to say Trump did collude with Russia, but was let off on a technicality for conspiracy.
Remember, members of his own campaign and staff were charged and plead guilty to conspiracy against the US for their specific parts in this fiasco, amongst other crimes. Other members of his staff were charged and plead guilty to making false statements to the FBI in regards to their relation and communication with Russian agents. More have been charged with obstructing investigations into Russian collusion. And those Russians that Trump even publicly implored to help collude with him to interfere in the election have also been charged with similar crimes against the US.
"Collusion is not a specific offense or theory of liability found in the United States Code, nor is it a term of art in federal criminal law. For those reasons, the Office's focus in analyzing questions of joint criminal liability was on conspiracy as defined in federal law."
Mueller was working with a very narrow interpretation of the laws concerning conspiracy and how the term coordination relates. Here he writes about his interpretation:
"We understood coordination to require an agreement tacit or express between the Trump Campaign and the Russian government on election interference. That requires more than the two parties taking actions that were informed by or responsive to the other's actions or interests. We applied the term coordination in that sense when stating in the report that the investigation did not establish that the Trump Campaign coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities."
So, on from the facts to my understanding:
Mueller did not make any finding regarding collusion and avoided the topic altogether.
Mueller found that Trump and his staff/family narrowly avoided conspiracy with Russians based on the fact that their acts did not meet their definition of coordination because they were not ongoing and back and forth on specifics that led to interference, which is a bit too high of a hurdle imo and makes the interpretation of the conspiracy law too narrow. For example, if there were evidence that Trump met with Putin himself, there were taped recordings of him asking for Putin to outright rig the election for him, then Putin rigged the election, and they had no further interaction on the subject, this would not meet Meuller's standard for coordination and thus conspiracy. And this is essentially the picture that is painted by the findings in the Meuller report - Trump(et al.) consistently showed intent to conspire with Russia and its agents to at least gain information to help him in his election efforts. In exchange, at a minimum, there were quid pro quo's offered and followed through on by Trump in terms foreign policy actions that were beneficial to Russia/Ukraine.
Basically, Meuller didn't find or look for anything regarding collusion because it isn't a legal term relevant to his investigation, and Meuller had a VERY narrow definition of conspiracy based on his understanding of the definition of coordination, that still was very close to being filled by Trumps actions. Personally, I think it is accurate to say Trump did collude with Russia, but was let off on a technicality for conspiracy.
Remember, members of his own campaign and staff were charged and plead guilty to conspiracy against the US for their specific parts in this fiasco, amongst other crimes. Other members of his staff were charged and plead guilty to making false statements to the FBI in regards to their relation and communication with Russian agents. More have been charged with obstructing investigations into Russian collusion. And those Russians that Trump even publicly implored to help collude with him to interfere in the election have also been charged with similar crimes against the US.
That sums it up very nicelyoffshorebear said:
As wifeisafurd continues to try to obscure the truth, let's try to do the opposite. These are Mueller's actual written words in the report:
"Collusion is not a specific offense or theory of liability found in the United States Code, nor is it a term of art in federal criminal law. For those reasons, the Office's focus in analyzing questions of joint criminal liability was on conspiracy as defined in federal law."
Mueller was working with a very narrow interpretation of the laws concerning conspiracy and how the term coordination relates. Here he writes about his interpretation:
"We understood coordination to require an agreement tacit or express between the Trump Campaign and the Russian government on election interference. That requires more than the two parties taking actions that were informed by or responsive to the other's actions or interests. We applied the term coordination in that sense when stating in the report that the investigation did not establish that the Trump Campaign coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities."
So, on from the facts to my understanding:
Mueller did not make any finding regarding collusion and avoided the topic altogether.
Mueller found that Trump and his staff/family narrowly avoided conspiracy with Russians based on the fact that their acts did not meet their definition of coordination because they were not ongoing and back and forth on specifics that led to interference, which is a bit too high of a hurdle imo and makes the interpretation of the conspiracy law too narrow. For example, if there were evidence that Trump met with Putin himself, there were taped recordings of him asking for Putin to outright rig the election for him, then Putin rigged the election, and they had no further interaction on the subject, this would not meet Meuller's standard for coordination and thus conspiracy. And this is essentially the picture that is painted by the findings in the Meuller report - Trump(et al.) consistently showed intent to conspire with Russia and its agents to at least gain information to help him in his election efforts. In exchange, at a minimum, there were quid pro quo's offered and followed through on by Trump in terms foreign policy actions that were beneficial to Russia/Ukraine.
Basically, Meuller didn't find or look for anything regarding collusion because it isn't a legal term relevant to his investigation, and Meuller had a VERY narrow definition of conspiracy based on his understanding of the definition of coordination, that still was very close to being filled by Trumps actions. Personally, I think it is accurate to say Trump did collude with Russia, but was let off on a technicality for conspiracy.
Remember, members of his own campaign and staff were charged and plead guilty to conspiracy against the US for their specific parts in this fiasco, amongst other crimes. Other members of his staff were charged and plead guilty to making false statements to the FBI in regards to their relation and communication with Russian agents. More have been charged with obstructing investigations into Russian collusion. And those Russians that Trump even publicly implored to help collude with him to interfere in the election have also been charged with similar crimes against the US.
American Vermin
Wife, you are a great "conservative" voice on the board and someone whose opinion I respect, but I think your analysis is off here. I think it is you who is misusing the word collusion as it applies to the report, and that the term has no relevance as outlined by the report itself. The only purpose that term serves is the PR spin of the president (and Barr).wifeisafurd said:
Get the wax out of your ears...
There is also nuance to the conclusion and the narrow way in which the report defined its own investigation that you seem to be passing over, and that is in fact giving strong indication of what the report "believes" were crimes it could not/would not prosecute/indict but concluded nonetheless, and therefore only listed evidence and distributed to other ongoing investigations. You seem to be overemphasizing a "vindication" narrative and not seeing the forest through the trees which is not like you. Or perhaps I am misunderstanding your analysis.
Summarized better than I could. This seems pretty spot on to me and seems to be what Wife is missing or arguing against.offshorebear said:
As wifeisafurd continues to try to obscure the truth, let's try to do the opposite. These are Mueller's actual written words in the report...
The things I would add, is that
1) the other investigations are most likely about campaign finance, fraud, money laundering, etc, but I believe there will also be further evidence of coordination, conspiracy, and yes collusion. There will be more persons to be charged with non-financial or the so-called process crimes to fall. There was conspiracy, it's not really debatable. It's just tough to nail the guy at the top for it.
2) The bar for impeachment is so much lower than the coordination bar that Mueller sets. He basically proves an impeachment case and that's why any spin about this being vindication is not only suspect, but propaganda. To not move forward with impeachment with the case made here would be dereliction of duty by Congress (republican and Democrat).
We can argue about the politics and intelligence of moving forward with impeachment, but not the evidence for and duty to perform it.
Wiaf has been caught up in these situations numerous times and yet people still feel the need to say how they respect his opinion.blungld said:Wife, you are a great "conservative" voice on the board and someone whose opinion I respect, but I think your analysis is off here. I think it is you who is misusing the word collusion as it applies to the report, and that the term has no relevance as outlined by the report itself. The only purpose that term serves is the PR spin of the president (and Barr).wifeisafurd said:
Get the wax out of your ears...
There is also nuance to the conclusion and the narrow way in which the report defined its own investigation that you seem to be passing over, and that is in fact giving strong indication of what the report "believes" were crimes it could not/would not prosecute/indict but concluded nonetheless, and therefore only listed evidence and distributed to other ongoing investigations. You seem to be overemphasizing a "vindication" narrative and not seeing the forest through the trees which is not like you. Or perhaps I am misunderstanding your analysis.
I appreciate his donations to Cal athletics. That's about it.
American Vermin
I respect him because he actually makes a case and lays out his points and thinking. I think he tries to be "fair and balanced" and to take a look at his own bias. There are other conservative voices on the board who never seem to self-evaluate and whose "arguments" are either poorly laid out or are tantamount to insults/attacks without statement of fact or belief.dajo9 said:
Wiaf has been caught up in these situations numerous times and yet people still feel the need to say how they respect his opinion.
I appreciate his donations to Cal athletics. That's about it.
I get that you two are in a bit of spat, but he is one of the sane ones and there has to be a way to keep the conversation alive with people who are trying to be reasonable even if you disagree.
This thread has really departed from my initial question that never got addressed: There is so much analysis about the Mueller Report and potential crimes of the WH but I never here the term Accessory mentioned as a possible convictable offense. Why is that? Described throughout the report are incidents of the WH aiding the execution of crime through passive acceptance, spreading misinformation, and inhibiting investigation or counter security measures. Does Accessory not apply here or do I not understand how it is applied?
Accessory and obstruction are the two crimes that jump out at me when reading the report as a layperson, would love a legal explanation.
Accessory and obstruction are the two crimes that jump out at me when reading the report as a layperson, would love a legal explanation.
The problem with the Mueller report is that it really brought very little to the table that hadn't been previously unearthed by WaPo, NYT or Rudy. There was talk that part of Rudy's idiot lawyer strategy was to help dribble out the bad news so that the Mueller report wouldn't be a bombshell.
I'm quite confident that if nothing had been known about Trump's misdeeds and the Mueller report was all new information, we would already have seen impeachment proceedings under way. I guess in a sense the media ended up being the enemy of the people but not in the way Trump understands.
I'm quite confident that if nothing had been known about Trump's misdeeds and the Mueller report was all new information, we would already have seen impeachment proceedings under way. I guess in a sense the media ended up being the enemy of the people but not in the way Trump understands.
I agree with this. WIAF will sometimes get caught up in a spat with another poster (dajo, frequently) and IMO start to lose track of the argument, but if it remains civil then I think you can have a productive discussion with him.blungld said:I respect him because he actually makes a case and lays out his points and thinking. I think he tries to be "fair and balanced" and to take a look at his own bias. There are other conservative voices on the board who never seem to self-evaluate and whose "arguments" are either poorly laid out or are tantamount to insults/attacks without statement of fact or belief.dajo9 said:
Wiaf has been caught up in these situations numerous times and yet people still feel the need to say how they respect his opinion.
I appreciate his donations to Cal athletics. That's about it.
I get that you two are in a bit of spat, but he is one of the sane ones and there has to be a way to keep the conversation alive with people who are trying to be reasonable even if you disagree.
Thus far, I still don't see where Mueller himself actually rendered an opinion on "collusion." One guy on a podcast mentioning that word in one sentence doesn't really prove that to me. When WIAF linked me to that show, I expected them to discuss the idea of "collusion" in detail throughout, not just a passing reference that I completely missed my first time through. The whole rest of the time they are talking about conspiracy, coordination, and obstruction of justice, the things that (as I understand it) are actually in the Mueller Report.
I'm not confident about that. The Right Wing Noise Machine is good at what it does. They would have polarized and politicized this thing within a few days.Unit2Sucks said:
I'm quite confident that if nothing had been known about Trump's misdeeds and the Mueller report was all new information, we would already have seen impeachment proceedings under way. I guess in a sense the media ended up being the enemy of the people but not in the way Trump understands.
it determines "collusion" does exist legally in this situation. Not a slip of the tongue at all. People were claiming collusion and Mueller said there is no such thing a legal collusion in this situation. I'm not sure I would have used the word vindication. It just means those shouting about convicting the President for collusion didn't know what they were talking about, and I guess that is where the commentator was going.sycasey said:At what time signature does this happen? I went through the whole thing once and am now skipping around trying to find a mention of "collusion." All I hear is "conspiracy" and "coordination" language.wifeisafurd said:sorry got your posts mixed-up. The langue about collusion in the NPR tape is: "Now Volume 1 on Russian Collusion is a vindication for the President. The underlying offense is not there. It's just not that there isn't a criminal collusion offense, there is not coordination either. It's also not...." My apologies for the wax comment. It is 20 minutes of mostly lawyer stuff and you just missed this. Dajo has a pattern of ignoring stuff that is inconsistent with his agenda, so with him I tend to exercise little patience.sycasey said:wifeisafurd said:Get the wax out of your ears. Richard Lawrey's first several sentences discussed collusion and the lack of a finding. You may recall your commentary about Adam Shiff limiting his narrative to legal collusion, which is inconsistent with many Schiff comments, as detailed in other posts. The recommendation to listen or even the post itself was not for your benefit, nor intended to refute and disprove any thing you posted, etc. check you ego, it's not about you, other than to point out once again you posted something not true.sycasey said:I listened to the whole NPR podcast and no one said anything about collusion. They talked about conspiracy and coordination, exactly as I originally said. I'm not sure how it was supposed to refute or disprove anything I wrote?wifeisafurd said:Some legal concepts are getting mixed by Dajo, which are leading to confusion, and I suggest you read the Report more carefully.sycasey said:I'm pretty sure Mueller said he was making no determination on collusion.wifeisafurd said:sure I can. Collusion and conspiracy were what Mueller found there was insufficient evidence to actually charge,dajo9 said:
You don't seem to be able to differentiate between collusion and conspiracy. Or between evidence and indictment. SAD.
https://washingtonmonthly.com/2019/04/22/the-mueller-report-didnt-absolve-trump-of-collusion/Quote:
In evaluating whether evidence about collective action of multiple individuals constituted a crime, we applied the framework of conspiracy law, not the concept of "collusion." In so doing, the Office recognized that the word "collud[e]"has frequently been invoked in public reporting about the investigation. But collusion is not a specific offense or theory of liability found in the United States Code, nor is it a term of art in federal criminal law. For those reasons, the Office's focus in analyzing questions of joint criminal liability was on conspiracy as defined in federal law.
His report did say there was insufficient evidence to charge the Trump campaign with conspiracy.
So no, you can't lump both of those words together and say that Mueller provided results on both.
Collusion: There is an underlying crime of collusion (as opposed to the word collude). This is repetitive from an early post, but the federal crime of collusion is a secret agreement between two or more parties to limit open competition by deceiving, misleading, or defrauding others of their legal rights, or to obtain an objective forbidden by law typically by defrauding or gaining an unfair market advantage. This is not Fox News as '71 rants, but a statute. in fact, federal prosecutors periodically bring charges against companies who rig federal bids for collusion for example. There was a direct finding of no collusion by Mueller Report and I posted that exact language. Again this was not Fox News as '71 rants, but Mueller's actual finding. This has nothing to do with the word collude, which is a general term.
Conspiracy: There are basically 5 elements for the crime of federal Conspiracy. Those elements are: 1. You must have 2 or more persons who 2. Intentionally 3. make an agreement (emphasis added) 4. to violate federal law or defraud the United states, and then 5. Commit some overt act in furtherance of the agreement. This also is statue, and not Fox News. So the example here would be that the Trump campaign, consisting of the President (who would be an un-indicted conspirator) and others in his campaign, had an agreement with the Russians to to rig the election (which would violate federal law - the Mueller Report did find the Russians violated federal law). The Mueller Report found no agreement with the Russians and the Trump campaign (again I quoted directly from the Mueller Report); thus no conspiracy. Again, I quoted directly from the Report, not Fox News.
These are two different federal statues and crimes.
Here is the best discussion I have heard by actual knowledgeable lawyers (note this is NPR, not Fox News for those who like to rant):
Ken White on the Mueller report with Left, Right & Center https://kcrw.co/2W2LdGw
You may recall the OP asked for an explanation of why Mueller found what he found. I provided a summary by someone else who is CNN's legal expert (and actually was the guy who launched on Schiff for gun jumping) and was called a partisan. I'm not sure what else needs to be said. Some people simply can't accept the findings of the Report and attack those who try to explain the Report. You can Google Ken to see his qualifications, but he is the guy on federal criminal stuff in SoCal, and certainly no partisan Trump reporter.
I strongly recommend listening to the NPR link, it suggests the most relevant matters with the the Mueller Report are not the criminal findings, but the Report's report of Trump's erratic behavior. Hopefully, this makes Anti's posts (which I tend to agree with) make even more sense.
Sorry if this is too long for some to be able to follow.
You sure you're not trying to talk to Dajo here?
EDIT: Okay, I found it. One sentence where one of them mentions that. I'm not sure that's enough to "prove" to me that Mueller actually rules on collusion. It could easily just be a slip of the tongue, given that the entire rest of the show just talks about conspiracy and coordination. Where in the actual report does Mueller mention "collusion," except in the segment where he says he's not making any recommendation on that, because for his purposes it's not a thing?
More to come in another post.
I searched the report and the only mentions of collusion (24 times) I see are the two places he says he is not investigating collusion and quotes from Trump/others using the word collusion. This is pretty clear.sycasey said:
... I still don't see where Mueller himself actually rendered an opinion on "collusion"...
Okay, I'll have to see the further explanation on it. For now I'm not seeing where Mueller renders any judgment on collusion. It seems to me there is room where one can agree with Mueller that Trump and his team did not meet the legal standard for "conspiracy" but still think they "colluded" (using a layman's term) in some form, and they are not necessarily being inconsistent about that.wifeisafurd said:it determines "collusion" does exist legally in this situation. Not a slip of the tongue at all. People were claiming collusion and Mueller said there is no such thing a legal collusion in this situation. I'm not sure I would have used the word vindication. It just means those shouting about convicting the President for collusion didn't know what they were talking about, and I guess that is where the commentator was going.sycasey said:At what time signature does this happen? I went through the whole thing once and am now skipping around trying to find a mention of "collusion." All I hear is "conspiracy" and "coordination" language.wifeisafurd said:sorry got your posts mixed-up. The langue about collusion in the NPR tape is: "Now Volume 1 on Russian Collusion is a vindication for the President. The underlying offense is not there. It's just not that there isn't a criminal collusion offense, there is not coordination either. It's also not...." My apologies for the wax comment. It is 20 minutes of mostly lawyer stuff and you just missed this. Dajo has a pattern of ignoring stuff that is inconsistent with his agenda, so with him I tend to exercise little patience.sycasey said:wifeisafurd said:Get the wax out of your ears. Richard Lawrey's first several sentences discussed collusion and the lack of a finding. You may recall your commentary about Adam Shiff limiting his narrative to legal collusion, which is inconsistent with many Schiff comments, as detailed in other posts. The recommendation to listen or even the post itself was not for your benefit, nor intended to refute and disprove any thing you posted, etc. check you ego, it's not about you, other than to point out once again you posted something not true.sycasey said:I listened to the whole NPR podcast and no one said anything about collusion. They talked about conspiracy and coordination, exactly as I originally said. I'm not sure how it was supposed to refute or disprove anything I wrote?wifeisafurd said:Some legal concepts are getting mixed by Dajo, which are leading to confusion, and I suggest you read the Report more carefully.sycasey said:I'm pretty sure Mueller said he was making no determination on collusion.wifeisafurd said:sure I can. Collusion and conspiracy were what Mueller found there was insufficient evidence to actually charge,dajo9 said:
You don't seem to be able to differentiate between collusion and conspiracy. Or between evidence and indictment. SAD.
https://washingtonmonthly.com/2019/04/22/the-mueller-report-didnt-absolve-trump-of-collusion/Quote:
In evaluating whether evidence about collective action of multiple individuals constituted a crime, we applied the framework of conspiracy law, not the concept of "collusion." In so doing, the Office recognized that the word "collud[e]"has frequently been invoked in public reporting about the investigation. But collusion is not a specific offense or theory of liability found in the United States Code, nor is it a term of art in federal criminal law. For those reasons, the Office's focus in analyzing questions of joint criminal liability was on conspiracy as defined in federal law.
His report did say there was insufficient evidence to charge the Trump campaign with conspiracy.
So no, you can't lump both of those words together and say that Mueller provided results on both.
Collusion: There is an underlying crime of collusion (as opposed to the word collude). This is repetitive from an early post, but the federal crime of collusion is a secret agreement between two or more parties to limit open competition by deceiving, misleading, or defrauding others of their legal rights, or to obtain an objective forbidden by law typically by defrauding or gaining an unfair market advantage. This is not Fox News as '71 rants, but a statute. in fact, federal prosecutors periodically bring charges against companies who rig federal bids for collusion for example. There was a direct finding of no collusion by Mueller Report and I posted that exact language. Again this was not Fox News as '71 rants, but Mueller's actual finding. This has nothing to do with the word collude, which is a general term.
Conspiracy: There are basically 5 elements for the crime of federal Conspiracy. Those elements are: 1. You must have 2 or more persons who 2. Intentionally 3. make an agreement (emphasis added) 4. to violate federal law or defraud the United states, and then 5. Commit some overt act in furtherance of the agreement. This also is statue, and not Fox News. So the example here would be that the Trump campaign, consisting of the President (who would be an un-indicted conspirator) and others in his campaign, had an agreement with the Russians to to rig the election (which would violate federal law - the Mueller Report did find the Russians violated federal law). The Mueller Report found no agreement with the Russians and the Trump campaign (again I quoted directly from the Mueller Report); thus no conspiracy. Again, I quoted directly from the Report, not Fox News.
These are two different federal statues and crimes.
Here is the best discussion I have heard by actual knowledgeable lawyers (note this is NPR, not Fox News for those who like to rant):
Ken White on the Mueller report with Left, Right & Center https://kcrw.co/2W2LdGw
You may recall the OP asked for an explanation of why Mueller found what he found. I provided a summary by someone else who is CNN's legal expert (and actually was the guy who launched on Schiff for gun jumping) and was called a partisan. I'm not sure what else needs to be said. Some people simply can't accept the findings of the Report and attack those who try to explain the Report. You can Google Ken to see his qualifications, but he is the guy on federal criminal stuff in SoCal, and certainly no partisan Trump reporter.
I strongly recommend listening to the NPR link, it suggests the most relevant matters with the the Mueller Report are not the criminal findings, but the Report's report of Trump's erratic behavior. Hopefully, this makes Anti's posts (which I tend to agree with) make even more sense.
Sorry if this is too long for some to be able to follow.
You sure you're not trying to talk to Dajo here?
EDIT: Okay, I found it. One sentence where one of them mentions that. I'm not sure that's enough to "prove" to me that Mueller actually rules on collusion. It could easily just be a slip of the tongue, given that the entire rest of the show just talks about conspiracy and coordination. Where in the actual report does Mueller mention "collusion," except in the segment where he says he's not making any recommendation on that, because for his purposes it's not a thing?
More to come in another post.
There is no legal standard to impeach a President it's a political solution. If Democrats believe Mueller is grounds to impeach that is sufficient but it's not necessary and they needn't wait for anything. But we all know what's really at work here and it is political calculation :
"Only 34 percent of voters believe Congress should begin impeachment proceedings to remove the president from office, down from 39 percent in January. Nearly half, 48 percent, say Congress should not begin impeachment proceedings. "
The public- imo- accepts two truths of the Mueller report. 1.) He did not conspire with the Russians 2) He probably obstructed. The first would be "impeachable"; the second is Trump being Trump. It's a sensible view.
The Democrats- sore losers of the 2016 election- don't want to risk being sore losers of the 2019 Mueller report.
"Only 34 percent of voters believe Congress should begin impeachment proceedings to remove the president from office, down from 39 percent in January. Nearly half, 48 percent, say Congress should not begin impeachment proceedings. "
The public- imo- accepts two truths of the Mueller report. 1.) He did not conspire with the Russians 2) He probably obstructed. The first would be "impeachable"; the second is Trump being Trump. It's a sensible view.
The Democrats- sore losers of the 2016 election- don't want to risk being sore losers of the 2019 Mueller report.
He is not a great conservative voice. He presents a fake image of himself as being an independent voter when really all he is is a GBear4Life clone with a nicer tone. At least until you call him out on his hypocrisy, at which point he goes into Hulk WIAF mode.blungld said:Wife, you are a great "conservative" voice on the board and someone whose opinion I respectwifeisafurd said:
Get the wax out of your ears...
People suck off so-called program insiders for athletics. That's how this board runs.dajo9 said:
Wiaf has been caught up in these situations numerous times and yet people still feel the need to say how they respect his opinion.
sycasey said:Okay, I'll have to see the further explanation on it. For now I'm not seeing where Mueller renders any judgment on collusion. It seems to me there is room where one can agree with Mueller that Trump and his team did not meet the legal standard for "conspiracy" but still think they "colluded" (using a layman's term) in some form, and they are not necessarily being inconsistent about that.wifeisafurd said:it determines "collusion" does exist legally in this situation. Not a slip of the tongue at all. People were claiming collusion and Mueller said there is no such thing a legal collusion in this situation. I'm not sure I would have used the word vindication. It just means those shouting about convicting the President for collusion didn't know what they were talking about, and I guess that is where the commentator was going.sycasey said:At what time signature does this happen? I went through the whole thing once and am now skipping around trying to find a mention of "collusion." All I hear is "conspiracy" and "coordination" language.wifeisafurd said:sorry got your posts mixed-up. The langue about collusion in the NPR tape is: "Now Volume 1 on Russian Collusion is a vindication for the President. The underlying offense is not there. It's just not that there isn't a criminal collusion offense, there is not coordination either. It's also not...." My apologies for the wax comment. It is 20 minutes of mostly lawyer stuff and you just missed this. Dajo has a pattern of ignoring stuff that is inconsistent with his agenda, so with him I tend to exercise little patience.sycasey said:wifeisafurd said:Get the wax out of your ears. Richard Lawrey's first several sentences discussed collusion and the lack of a finding. You may recall your commentary about Adam Shiff limiting his narrative to legal collusion, which is inconsistent with many Schiff comments, as detailed in other posts. The recommendation to listen or even the post itself was not for your benefit, nor intended to refute and disprove any thing you posted, etc. check you ego, it's not about you, other than to point out once again you posted something not true.sycasey said:I listened to the whole NPR podcast and no one said anything about collusion. They talked about conspiracy and coordination, exactly as I originally said. I'm not sure how it was supposed to refute or disprove anything I wrote?wifeisafurd said:Some legal concepts are getting mixed by Dajo, which are leading to confusion, and I suggest you read the Report more carefully.sycasey said:I'm pretty sure Mueller said he was making no determination on collusion.wifeisafurd said:sure I can. Collusion and conspiracy were what Mueller found there was insufficient evidence to actually charge,dajo9 said:
You don't seem to be able to differentiate between collusion and conspiracy. Or between evidence and indictment. SAD.
https://washingtonmonthly.com/2019/04/22/the-mueller-report-didnt-absolve-trump-of-collusion/Quote:
In evaluating whether evidence about collective action of multiple individuals constituted a crime, we applied the framework of conspiracy law, not the concept of "collusion." In so doing, the Office recognized that the word "collud[e]"has frequently been invoked in public reporting about the investigation. But collusion is not a specific offense or theory of liability found in the United States Code, nor is it a term of art in federal criminal law. For those reasons, the Office's focus in analyzing questions of joint criminal liability was on conspiracy as defined in federal law.
His report did say there was insufficient evidence to charge the Trump campaign with conspiracy.
So no, you can't lump both of those words together and say that Mueller provided results on both.
Collusion: There is an underlying crime of collusion (as opposed to the word collude). This is repetitive from an early post, but the federal crime of collusion is a secret agreement between two or more parties to limit open competition by deceiving, misleading, or defrauding others of their legal rights, or to obtain an objective forbidden by law typically by defrauding or gaining an unfair market advantage. This is not Fox News as '71 rants, but a statute. in fact, federal prosecutors periodically bring charges against companies who rig federal bids for collusion for example. There was a direct finding of no collusion by Mueller Report and I posted that exact language. Again this was not Fox News as '71 rants, but Mueller's actual finding. This has nothing to do with the word collude, which is a general term.
Conspiracy: There are basically 5 elements for the crime of federal Conspiracy. Those elements are: 1. You must have 2 or more persons who 2. Intentionally 3. make an agreement (emphasis added) 4. to violate federal law or defraud the United states, and then 5. Commit some overt act in furtherance of the agreement. This also is statue, and not Fox News. So the example here would be that the Trump campaign, consisting of the President (who would be an un-indicted conspirator) and others in his campaign, had an agreement with the Russians to to rig the election (which would violate federal law - the Mueller Report did find the Russians violated federal law). The Mueller Report found no agreement with the Russians and the Trump campaign (again I quoted directly from the Mueller Report); thus no conspiracy. Again, I quoted directly from the Report, not Fox News.
These are two different federal statues and crimes.
Here is the best discussion I have heard by actual knowledgeable lawyers (note this is NPR, not Fox News for those who like to rant):
Ken White on the Mueller report with Left, Right & Center https://kcrw.co/2W2LdGw
You may recall the OP asked for an explanation of why Mueller found what he found. I provided a summary by someone else who is CNN's legal expert (and actually was the guy who launched on Schiff for gun jumping) and was called a partisan. I'm not sure what else needs to be said. Some people simply can't accept the findings of the Report and attack those who try to explain the Report. You can Google Ken to see his qualifications, but he is the guy on federal criminal stuff in SoCal, and certainly no partisan Trump reporter.
I strongly recommend listening to the NPR link, it suggests the most relevant matters with the the Mueller Report are not the criminal findings, but the Report's report of Trump's erratic behavior. Hopefully, this makes Anti's posts (which I tend to agree with) make even more sense.
Sorry if this is too long for some to be able to follow.
You sure you're not trying to talk to Dajo here?
EDIT: Okay, I found it. One sentence where one of them mentions that. I'm not sure that's enough to "prove" to me that Mueller actually rules on collusion. It could easily just be a slip of the tongue, given that the entire rest of the show just talks about conspiracy and coordination. Where in the actual report does Mueller mention "collusion," except in the segment where he says he's not making any recommendation on that, because for his purposes it's not a thing?
More to come in another post.
Can we agree that "collusion" was used colloquially as "conspiracy" the last two years? Just read the Russian thread and listen to MSM.
But as Mueller points out collusion is not a crime. Collusion is association but not necessarily with criminal cause and effect. So, yes Trump has colluded with Russians and Israelis seeking to advance their interests - that's undeniable. But nobody - Trump or his merry band of grifters/ has been charged with any crime relating to the pfishing of DNC or the click bait internet ads.
No, I think there is a continuing misunderstanding at to what I am saying.blungld said:Wife, you are a great "conservative" voice on the board and someone whose opinion I respect, but I think your analysis is off here. I think it is you who is misusing the word collusion as it applies to the report, and that the term has no relevance as outlined by the report itself. The only purpose that term serves is the PR spin of the president (and Barr).wifeisafurd said:
Get the wax out of your ears...
There is also nuance to the conclusion and the narrow way in which the report defined its own investigation that you seem to be passing over, and that is in fact giving strong indication of what the report "believes" were crimes it could not/would not prosecute/indict but concluded nonetheless, and therefore only listed evidence and distributed to other ongoing investigations. You seem to be overemphasizing a "vindication" narrative and not seeing the forest through the trees which is not like you. Or perhaps I am misunderstanding your analysis.
My original comment didn't discuss the analysis regarding collusion, other than to quote the CNN guy say that Schiff toting "collusion" was a mistake. I then got into definitions and things got confusing. I said there was a direct finding of no collusion, which I believe in consistent with the report saying "collusion" did not apply to this situation, but I guess my wording is being interpreted as saying something like vindication, so I should have been verbatim from the report.
I have to disagree with the comment ["But collusion is not a specific offense or theory of liability found in the U.S. Code'}. There is in fact specific federal crime for collusion, and I'm happy to cite articles saying otherwise (and I think the Mueller report's verbiage is misleading). Having had a client who was charged with collision by the federal government anti-trust division, for rigging federal bids, under a very specific Code section dealing with collusion (and to the extent the report says there are no collusion statues, it it wrong, as there are specific sections in RICO, and for bribery, and anti-trust law for collusion (set forth below is the statute my client got hit with). Hence my prior discussion of what the elements of collusion are.
Moreover, the Report admits Mueller's scope as defined in AG orders and correspondence used the term collude and that the term collusion "was popularly invoked" (thank you Adam Schiff). To that extent, and presumably to dispel the common perspective that Trump was being investigated for collusion, the Report made clear under the heading about collusion that "collusion" did not legally exist for the circumstances of this investigation, and they moved on to an analysis under conspiracy.
Federal collusion statue my client was accused of violating (note my client was a California public agency) from the Fed's brief:
The federal bribery statute -- 18 U.S.C. 201(b)(2)(B) -- makes it a federal crime for a public official to "collude" in a fraud on the United States. More specifically, the federal bribery statute expressly states that a crime is committed when a public official "directly or indirectly, corruptly demands, seeks, receives, accepts, or agrees to receive or accept anything of value ... in return for ... being influenced to ... collude in ... any fraud ... on the United States." My emphasis added.
Yes, Mueller seems to agree with such: that media stories often used a word like "collusion" that had little meaning from a legal standpoint (or at least was not meaningful to his particular investigation).Anarchistbear said:sycasey said:Okay, I'll have to see the further explanation on it. For now I'm not seeing where Mueller renders any judgment on collusion. It seems to me there is room where one can agree with Mueller that Trump and his team did not meet the legal standard for "conspiracy" but still think they "colluded" (using a layman's term) in some form, and they are not necessarily being inconsistent about that.wifeisafurd said:it determines "collusion" does exist legally in this situation. Not a slip of the tongue at all. People were claiming collusion and Mueller said there is no such thing a legal collusion in this situation. I'm not sure I would have used the word vindication. It just means those shouting about convicting the President for collusion didn't know what they were talking about, and I guess that is where the commentator was going.sycasey said:At what time signature does this happen? I went through the whole thing once and am now skipping around trying to find a mention of "collusion." All I hear is "conspiracy" and "coordination" language.wifeisafurd said:sorry got your posts mixed-up. The langue about collusion in the NPR tape is: "Now Volume 1 on Russian Collusion is a vindication for the President. The underlying offense is not there. It's just not that there isn't a criminal collusion offense, there is not coordination either. It's also not...." My apologies for the wax comment. It is 20 minutes of mostly lawyer stuff and you just missed this. Dajo has a pattern of ignoring stuff that is inconsistent with his agenda, so with him I tend to exercise little patience.sycasey said:wifeisafurd said:Get the wax out of your ears. Richard Lawrey's first several sentences discussed collusion and the lack of a finding. You may recall your commentary about Adam Shiff limiting his narrative to legal collusion, which is inconsistent with many Schiff comments, as detailed in other posts. The recommendation to listen or even the post itself was not for your benefit, nor intended to refute and disprove any thing you posted, etc. check you ego, it's not about you, other than to point out once again you posted something not true.sycasey said:I listened to the whole NPR podcast and no one said anything about collusion. They talked about conspiracy and coordination, exactly as I originally said. I'm not sure how it was supposed to refute or disprove anything I wrote?wifeisafurd said:Some legal concepts are getting mixed by Dajo, which are leading to confusion, and I suggest you read the Report more carefully.sycasey said:I'm pretty sure Mueller said he was making no determination on collusion.wifeisafurd said:sure I can. Collusion and conspiracy were what Mueller found there was insufficient evidence to actually charge,dajo9 said:
You don't seem to be able to differentiate between collusion and conspiracy. Or between evidence and indictment. SAD.
https://washingtonmonthly.com/2019/04/22/the-mueller-report-didnt-absolve-trump-of-collusion/Quote:
In evaluating whether evidence about collective action of multiple individuals constituted a crime, we applied the framework of conspiracy law, not the concept of "collusion." In so doing, the Office recognized that the word "collud[e]"has frequently been invoked in public reporting about the investigation. But collusion is not a specific offense or theory of liability found in the United States Code, nor is it a term of art in federal criminal law. For those reasons, the Office's focus in analyzing questions of joint criminal liability was on conspiracy as defined in federal law.
His report did say there was insufficient evidence to charge the Trump campaign with conspiracy.
So no, you can't lump both of those words together and say that Mueller provided results on both.
Collusion: There is an underlying crime of collusion (as opposed to the word collude). This is repetitive from an early post, but the federal crime of collusion is a secret agreement between two or more parties to limit open competition by deceiving, misleading, or defrauding others of their legal rights, or to obtain an objective forbidden by law typically by defrauding or gaining an unfair market advantage. This is not Fox News as '71 rants, but a statute. in fact, federal prosecutors periodically bring charges against companies who rig federal bids for collusion for example. There was a direct finding of no collusion by Mueller Report and I posted that exact language. Again this was not Fox News as '71 rants, but Mueller's actual finding. This has nothing to do with the word collude, which is a general term.
Conspiracy: There are basically 5 elements for the crime of federal Conspiracy. Those elements are: 1. You must have 2 or more persons who 2. Intentionally 3. make an agreement (emphasis added) 4. to violate federal law or defraud the United states, and then 5. Commit some overt act in furtherance of the agreement. This also is statue, and not Fox News. So the example here would be that the Trump campaign, consisting of the President (who would be an un-indicted conspirator) and others in his campaign, had an agreement with the Russians to to rig the election (which would violate federal law - the Mueller Report did find the Russians violated federal law). The Mueller Report found no agreement with the Russians and the Trump campaign (again I quoted directly from the Mueller Report); thus no conspiracy. Again, I quoted directly from the Report, not Fox News.
These are two different federal statues and crimes.
Here is the best discussion I have heard by actual knowledgeable lawyers (note this is NPR, not Fox News for those who like to rant):
Ken White on the Mueller report with Left, Right & Center https://kcrw.co/2W2LdGw
You may recall the OP asked for an explanation of why Mueller found what he found. I provided a summary by someone else who is CNN's legal expert (and actually was the guy who launched on Schiff for gun jumping) and was called a partisan. I'm not sure what else needs to be said. Some people simply can't accept the findings of the Report and attack those who try to explain the Report. You can Google Ken to see his qualifications, but he is the guy on federal criminal stuff in SoCal, and certainly no partisan Trump reporter.
I strongly recommend listening to the NPR link, it suggests the most relevant matters with the the Mueller Report are not the criminal findings, but the Report's report of Trump's erratic behavior. Hopefully, this makes Anti's posts (which I tend to agree with) make even more sense.
Sorry if this is too long for some to be able to follow.
You sure you're not trying to talk to Dajo here?
EDIT: Okay, I found it. One sentence where one of them mentions that. I'm not sure that's enough to "prove" to me that Mueller actually rules on collusion. It could easily just be a slip of the tongue, given that the entire rest of the show just talks about conspiracy and coordination. Where in the actual report does Mueller mention "collusion," except in the segment where he says he's not making any recommendation on that, because for his purposes it's not a thing?
More to come in another post.
Can we agree that "collusion" was used colloquially as "conspiracy" the last two years? Just read the Russian thread and listen to MSM.
But as Mueller points out collusion is not a crime. Collusion is association but not necessarily with criminal cause and effect. So, yes Trump has colluded with Russians and Israelis seeking to advance their interests - that's undeniable. But nobody - Trump or his merry band of grifters/ has been charged with any crime relating to the pfishing of DNC or the click bait internet ads.
As usual, some media outlets overreached, and also some were overly skeptical. That part of the story isn't particularly interesting to me, except to the extent that they impact actual investigations or legal processes (not very much in this case, it seems). Also, if you were reading the right outlets and critically analyzing information along the way, I think the most reasonable expectation would have been about what Mueller reached: the Trump team was perfectly fine with getting illegal help from a foreign government, but were not organized enough to actually meet the standard for conspiracy.
You shockingly lack any semblance of self-awareness. You seem like a bad parody of the orange clown if he spent most of his time on an obscure internet forum instead of on twitter while cheering on the muppets on Fox News.Yogi Bear said:He is not a great conservative voice. He presents a fake image of himself as being an independent voter when really all he is is a GBear4Life clone with a nicer tone. At least until you call him out on his hypocrisy, at which point he goes into Hulk WIAF mode.blungld said:Wife, you are a great "conservative" voice on the board and someone whose opinion I respectwifeisafurd said:
Get the wax out of your ears...
Well I think the term collusion was used incorrectly (and perhaps purposely) by certain politicians (Schiff and Rudy G. come mind) and by the media in general, and therefore the public believed that Trump was being investigated for colluding with the Russians. Legal types were saying don't use collusion, its conspiracy (I can cite articles if you like). I certainly acknowledge that the terminology was used for the same alleged conduct, and thus whether there was finding of no collusion using the colloquial or no conspiracy usage the legal really doesn't matter to the pubic. Siting in the Dems shoes I would focus on the amazing long detail of Trump's erratic behavior in Part 2 and more Trump conduct that was referred out to other prosecutors.Anarchistbear said:sycasey said:Okay, I'll have to see the further explanation on it. For now I'm not seeing where Mueller renders any judgment on collusion. It seems to me there is room where one can agree with Mueller that Trump and his team did not meet the legal standard for "conspiracy" but still think they "colluded" (using a layman's term) in some form, and they are not necessarily being inconsistent about that.wifeisafurd said:it determines "collusion" does exist legally in this situation. Not a slip of the tongue at all. People were claiming collusion and Mueller said there is no such thing a legal collusion in this situation. I'm not sure I would have used the word vindication. It just means those shouting about convicting the President for collusion didn't know what they were talking about, and I guess that is where the commentator was going.sycasey said:At what time signature does this happen? I went through the whole thing once and am now skipping around trying to find a mention of "collusion." All I hear is "conspiracy" and "coordination" language.wifeisafurd said:sorry got your posts mixed-up. The langue about collusion in the NPR tape is: "Now Volume 1 on Russian Collusion is a vindication for the President. The underlying offense is not there. It's just not that there isn't a criminal collusion offense, there is not coordination either. It's also not...." My apologies for the wax comment. It is 20 minutes of mostly lawyer stuff and you just missed this. Dajo has a pattern of ignoring stuff that is inconsistent with his agenda, so with him I tend to exercise little patience.sycasey said:wifeisafurd said:Get the wax out of your ears. Richard Lawrey's first several sentences discussed collusion and the lack of a finding. You may recall your commentary about Adam Shiff limiting his narrative to legal collusion, which is inconsistent with many Schiff comments, as detailed in other posts. The recommendation to listen or even the post itself was not for your benefit, nor intended to refute and disprove any thing you posted, etc. check you ego, it's not about you, other than to point out once again you posted something not true.sycasey said:I listened to the whole NPR podcast and no one said anything about collusion. They talked about conspiracy and coordination, exactly as I originally said. I'm not sure how it was supposed to refute or disprove anything I wrote?wifeisafurd said:Some legal concepts are getting mixed by Dajo, which are leading to confusion, and I suggest you read the Report more carefully.sycasey said:I'm pretty sure Mueller said he was making no determination on collusion.wifeisafurd said:sure I can. Collusion and conspiracy were what Mueller found there was insufficient evidence to actually charge,dajo9 said:
You don't seem to be able to differentiate between collusion and conspiracy. Or between evidence and indictment. SAD.
https://washingtonmonthly.com/2019/04/22/the-mueller-report-didnt-absolve-trump-of-collusion/Quote:
In evaluating whether evidence about collective action of multiple individuals constituted a crime, we applied the framework of conspiracy law, not the concept of "collusion." In so doing, the Office recognized that the word "collud[e]"has frequently been invoked in public reporting about the investigation. But collusion is not a specific offense or theory of liability found in the United States Code, nor is it a term of art in federal criminal law. For those reasons, the Office's focus in analyzing questions of joint criminal liability was on conspiracy as defined in federal law.
His report did say there was insufficient evidence to charge the Trump campaign with conspiracy.
So no, you can't lump both of those words together and say that Mueller provided results on both.
Collusion: There is an underlying crime of collusion (as opposed to the word collude). This is repetitive from an early post, but the federal crime of collusion is a secret agreement between two or more parties to limit open competition by deceiving, misleading, or defrauding others of their legal rights, or to obtain an objective forbidden by law typically by defrauding or gaining an unfair market advantage. This is not Fox News as '71 rants, but a statute. in fact, federal prosecutors periodically bring charges against companies who rig federal bids for collusion for example. There was a direct finding of no collusion by Mueller Report and I posted that exact language. Again this was not Fox News as '71 rants, but Mueller's actual finding. This has nothing to do with the word collude, which is a general term.
Conspiracy: There are basically 5 elements for the crime of federal Conspiracy. Those elements are: 1. You must have 2 or more persons who 2. Intentionally 3. make an agreement (emphasis added) 4. to violate federal law or defraud the United states, and then 5. Commit some overt act in furtherance of the agreement. This also is statue, and not Fox News. So the example here would be that the Trump campaign, consisting of the President (who would be an un-indicted conspirator) and others in his campaign, had an agreement with the Russians to to rig the election (which would violate federal law - the Mueller Report did find the Russians violated federal law). The Mueller Report found no agreement with the Russians and the Trump campaign (again I quoted directly from the Mueller Report); thus no conspiracy. Again, I quoted directly from the Report, not Fox News.
These are two different federal statues and crimes.
Here is the best discussion I have heard by actual knowledgeable lawyers (note this is NPR, not Fox News for those who like to rant):
Ken White on the Mueller report with Left, Right & Center https://kcrw.co/2W2LdGw
You may recall the OP asked for an explanation of why Mueller found what he found. I provided a summary by someone else who is CNN's legal expert (and actually was the guy who launched on Schiff for gun jumping) and was called a partisan. I'm not sure what else needs to be said. Some people simply can't accept the findings of the Report and attack those who try to explain the Report. You can Google Ken to see his qualifications, but he is the guy on federal criminal stuff in SoCal, and certainly no partisan Trump reporter.
I strongly recommend listening to the NPR link, it suggests the most relevant matters with the the Mueller Report are not the criminal findings, but the Report's report of Trump's erratic behavior. Hopefully, this makes Anti's posts (which I tend to agree with) make even more sense.
Sorry if this is too long for some to be able to follow.
You sure you're not trying to talk to Dajo here?
EDIT: Okay, I found it. One sentence where one of them mentions that. I'm not sure that's enough to "prove" to me that Mueller actually rules on collusion. It could easily just be a slip of the tongue, given that the entire rest of the show just talks about conspiracy and coordination. Where in the actual report does Mueller mention "collusion," except in the segment where he says he's not making any recommendation on that, because for his purposes it's not a thing?
More to come in another post.
Can we agree that "collusion" was used colloquially as "conspiracy" the last two years? Just read the Russian thread and listen to MSM.
But as Mueller points out collusion is not a crime. Collusion is association but not necessarily with criminal cause and effect. So, yes Trump has colluded with Russians and Israelis seeking to advance their interests - that's undeniable. But nobody - Trump or his merry band of grifters/ has been charged with any crime relating to the pfishing of DNC or the click bait internet ads.
I disagree with the Report's statement that collusion is not a crime, and I can cite RICO, fraud and federal anti-trust statues that say certain forms off collusion (and they use the word collusion or collude) is a felony. See my other post for an example that ensnared a client.
You sound like a lawyer. If you are, why wouldn't Congress focus on obstruction of justice? The report specifically did not clear Trump of that allegation but instead implied that the Congress should investigate further. Conspiracy seems like a clear loser other than having a sexy Russia story tied to it.wifeisafurd said:Well I think the term collusion was used incorrectly (and perhaps purposely) by certain politicians (Schiff and Rudy G. come mind) and by the media in general, and therefore the public believed that Trump was being investigated for colluding with the Russians. Legal types were saying don't use collusion, its conspiracy (I can cite articles if you like). I certainly acknowledge that the terminology was used for the same alleged conduct, and thus whether there was finding of no collusion using the colloquial or no conspiracy usage the legal really doesn't matter to the pubic. Siting in the Dems shoes I would focus on the amazing long detail of Trump's erratic behavior in Part 2 and more Trump conduct that was referred out to other prosecutors.Anarchistbear said:sycasey said:Okay, I'll have to see the further explanation on it. For now I'm not seeing where Mueller renders any judgment on collusion. It seems to me there is room where one can agree with Mueller that Trump and his team did not meet the legal standard for "conspiracy" but still think they "colluded" (using a layman's term) in some form, and they are not necessarily being inconsistent about that.wifeisafurd said:it determines "collusion" does exist legally in this situation. Not a slip of the tongue at all. People were claiming collusion and Mueller said there is no such thing a legal collusion in this situation. I'm not sure I would have used the word vindication. It just means those shouting about convicting the President for collusion didn't know what they were talking about, and I guess that is where the commentator was going.sycasey said:At what time signature does this happen? I went through the whole thing once and am now skipping around trying to find a mention of "collusion." All I hear is "conspiracy" and "coordination" language.wifeisafurd said:sorry got your posts mixed-up. The langue about collusion in the NPR tape is: "Now Volume 1 on Russian Collusion is a vindication for the President. The underlying offense is not there. It's just not that there isn't a criminal collusion offense, there is not coordination either. It's also not...." My apologies for the wax comment. It is 20 minutes of mostly lawyer stuff and you just missed this. Dajo has a pattern of ignoring stuff that is inconsistent with his agenda, so with him I tend to exercise little patience.sycasey said:wifeisafurd said:Get the wax out of your ears. Richard Lawrey's first several sentences discussed collusion and the lack of a finding. You may recall your commentary about Adam Shiff limiting his narrative to legal collusion, which is inconsistent with many Schiff comments, as detailed in other posts. The recommendation to listen or even the post itself was not for your benefit, nor intended to refute and disprove any thing you posted, etc. check you ego, it's not about you, other than to point out once again you posted something not true.sycasey said:I listened to the whole NPR podcast and no one said anything about collusion. They talked about conspiracy and coordination, exactly as I originally said. I'm not sure how it was supposed to refute or disprove anything I wrote?wifeisafurd said:Some legal concepts are getting mixed by Dajo, which are leading to confusion, and I suggest you read the Report more carefully.sycasey said:I'm pretty sure Mueller said he was making no determination on collusion.wifeisafurd said:sure I can. Collusion and conspiracy were what Mueller found there was insufficient evidence to actually charge,dajo9 said:
You don't seem to be able to differentiate between collusion and conspiracy. Or between evidence and indictment. SAD.
https://washingtonmonthly.com/2019/04/22/the-mueller-report-didnt-absolve-trump-of-collusion/Quote:
In evaluating whether evidence about collective action of multiple individuals constituted a crime, we applied the framework of conspiracy law, not the concept of "collusion." In so doing, the Office recognized that the word "collud[e]"has frequently been invoked in public reporting about the investigation. But collusion is not a specific offense or theory of liability found in the United States Code, nor is it a term of art in federal criminal law. For those reasons, the Office's focus in analyzing questions of joint criminal liability was on conspiracy as defined in federal law.
His report did say there was insufficient evidence to charge the Trump campaign with conspiracy.
So no, you can't lump both of those words together and say that Mueller provided results on both.
Collusion: There is an underlying crime of collusion (as opposed to the word collude). This is repetitive from an early post, but the federal crime of collusion is a secret agreement between two or more parties to limit open competition by deceiving, misleading, or defrauding others of their legal rights, or to obtain an objective forbidden by law typically by defrauding or gaining an unfair market advantage. This is not Fox News as '71 rants, but a statute. in fact, federal prosecutors periodically bring charges against companies who rig federal bids for collusion for example. There was a direct finding of no collusion by Mueller Report and I posted that exact language. Again this was not Fox News as '71 rants, but Mueller's actual finding. This has nothing to do with the word collude, which is a general term.
Conspiracy: There are basically 5 elements for the crime of federal Conspiracy. Those elements are: 1. You must have 2 or more persons who 2. Intentionally 3. make an agreement (emphasis added) 4. to violate federal law or defraud the United states, and then 5. Commit some overt act in furtherance of the agreement. This also is statue, and not Fox News. So the example here would be that the Trump campaign, consisting of the President (who would be an un-indicted conspirator) and others in his campaign, had an agreement with the Russians to to rig the election (which would violate federal law - the Mueller Report did find the Russians violated federal law). The Mueller Report found no agreement with the Russians and the Trump campaign (again I quoted directly from the Mueller Report); thus no conspiracy. Again, I quoted directly from the Report, not Fox News.
These are two different federal statues and crimes.
Here is the best discussion I have heard by actual knowledgeable lawyers (note this is NPR, not Fox News for those who like to rant):
Ken White on the Mueller report with Left, Right & Center https://kcrw.co/2W2LdGw
You may recall the OP asked for an explanation of why Mueller found what he found. I provided a summary by someone else who is CNN's legal expert (and actually was the guy who launched on Schiff for gun jumping) and was called a partisan. I'm not sure what else needs to be said. Some people simply can't accept the findings of the Report and attack those who try to explain the Report. You can Google Ken to see his qualifications, but he is the guy on federal criminal stuff in SoCal, and certainly no partisan Trump reporter.
I strongly recommend listening to the NPR link, it suggests the most relevant matters with the the Mueller Report are not the criminal findings, but the Report's report of Trump's erratic behavior. Hopefully, this makes Anti's posts (which I tend to agree with) make even more sense.
Sorry if this is too long for some to be able to follow.
You sure you're not trying to talk to Dajo here?
EDIT: Okay, I found it. One sentence where one of them mentions that. I'm not sure that's enough to "prove" to me that Mueller actually rules on collusion. It could easily just be a slip of the tongue, given that the entire rest of the show just talks about conspiracy and coordination. Where in the actual report does Mueller mention "collusion," except in the segment where he says he's not making any recommendation on that, because for his purposes it's not a thing?
More to come in another post.
Can we agree that "collusion" was used colloquially as "conspiracy" the last two years? Just read the Russian thread and listen to MSM.
But as Mueller points out collusion is not a crime. Collusion is association but not necessarily with criminal cause and effect. So, yes Trump has colluded with Russians and Israelis seeking to advance their interests - that's undeniable. But nobody - Trump or his merry band of grifters/ has been charged with any crime relating to the pfishing of DNC or the click bait internet ads.
I disagree with the Report's statement that collusion is not a crime, and I can cite RICO, fraud and federal anti-trust statues that say certain forms off collusion (and they use the word collusion or collude) is a felony. See my other post for an example that ensnared a client.
Couldn't one be guilty of obstruction of justice even if there was no underlying crime?
Ultimately, impeachment is just a political show since the Senate will never convict. However, investigations seem to be fair game. We all know how much the Republicans like to investigate.
Blah blah blah. You are just another in a long litany of "And you are who exactly?"dbklalw said:You shockingly lack any semblance of self-awareness. You seem like a bad parody of the orange clown if he spent most of his time on an obscure internet forum instead of on twitter while cheering on the muppets on Fox News.Yogi Bear said:He is not a great conservative voice. He presents a fake image of himself as being an independent voter when really all he is is a GBear4Life clone with a nicer tone. At least until you call him out on his hypocrisy, at which point he goes into Hulk WIAF mode.blungld said:Wife, you are a great "conservative" voice on the board and someone whose opinion I respectwifeisafurd said:
Get the wax out of your ears...
Take a number, stand in line, and keep your thoughts on decorum to yourself.
Dbklalw, so you've been a member of BI for six years and you definitely don't post from another handle and you just posted your second through fifth posts ever just today -- does that sound correct?
Paragraph 1: Part 2 is obstruction of Justice. Investigating Trump's conduct is fair game. I also thing there Is more conduct that was referred out to other prosecutors that I would investigate if I was Pelosi. I doubt the public wants to hear anymore about Russian conspiracy/collusion.dbklalw said:You sound like a lawyer. If you are, why wouldn't Congress focus on obstruction of justice? The report specifically did not clear Trump of that allegation but instead implied that the Congress should investigate further. Conspiracy seems like a clear loser other than having a sexy Russia story tied to it.wifeisafurd said:Well I think the term collusion was used incorrectly (and perhaps purposely) by certain politicians (Schiff and Rudy G. come mind) and by the media in general, and therefore the public believed that Trump was being investigated for colluding with the Russians. Legal types were saying don't use collusion, its conspiracy (I can cite articles if you like). I certainly acknowledge that the terminology was used for the same alleged conduct, and thus whether there was finding of no collusion using the colloquial or no conspiracy usage the legal really doesn't matter to the pubic. Siting in the Dems shoes I would focus on the amazing long detail of Trump's erratic behavior in Part 2 and more Trump conduct that was referred out to other prosecutors.Anarchistbear said:sycasey said:Okay, I'll have to see the further explanation on it. For now I'm not seeing where Mueller renders any judgment on collusion. It seems to me there is room where one can agree with Mueller that Trump and his team did not meet the legal standard for "conspiracy" but still think they "colluded" (using a layman's term) in some form, and they are not necessarily being inconsistent about that.wifeisafurd said:it determines "collusion" does exist legally in this situation. Not a slip of the tongue at all. People were claiming collusion and Mueller said there is no such thing a legal collusion in this situation. I'm not sure I would have used the word vindication. It just means those shouting about convicting the President for collusion didn't know what they were talking about, and I guess that is where the commentator was going.sycasey said:At what time signature does this happen? I went through the whole thing once and am now skipping around trying to find a mention of "collusion." All I hear is "conspiracy" and "coordination" language.wifeisafurd said:sorry got your posts mixed-up. The langue about collusion in the NPR tape is: "Now Volume 1 on Russian Collusion is a vindication for the President. The underlying offense is not there. It's just not that there isn't a criminal collusion offense, there is not coordination either. It's also not...." My apologies for the wax comment. It is 20 minutes of mostly lawyer stuff and you just missed this. Dajo has a pattern of ignoring stuff that is inconsistent with his agenda, so with him I tend to exercise little patience.sycasey said:wifeisafurd said:Get the wax out of your ears. Richard Lawrey's first several sentences discussed collusion and the lack of a finding. You may recall your commentary about Adam Shiff limiting his narrative to legal collusion, which is inconsistent with many Schiff comments, as detailed in other posts. The recommendation to listen or even the post itself was not for your benefit, nor intended to refute and disprove any thing you posted, etc. check you ego, it's not about you, other than to point out once again you posted something not true.sycasey said:I listened to the whole NPR podcast and no one said anything about collusion. They talked about conspiracy and coordination, exactly as I originally said. I'm not sure how it was supposed to refute or disprove anything I wrote?wifeisafurd said:Some legal concepts are getting mixed by Dajo, which are leading to confusion, and I suggest you read the Report more carefully.sycasey said:I'm pretty sure Mueller said he was making no determination on collusion.wifeisafurd said:sure I can. Collusion and conspiracy were what Mueller found there was insufficient evidence to actually charge,dajo9 said:
You don't seem to be able to differentiate between collusion and conspiracy. Or between evidence and indictment. SAD.
https://washingtonmonthly.com/2019/04/22/the-mueller-report-didnt-absolve-trump-of-collusion/Quote:
In evaluating whether evidence about collective action of multiple individuals constituted a crime, we applied the framework of conspiracy law, not the concept of "collusion." In so doing, the Office recognized that the word "collud[e]"has frequently been invoked in public reporting about the investigation. But collusion is not a specific offense or theory of liability found in the United States Code, nor is it a term of art in federal criminal law. For those reasons, the Office's focus in analyzing questions of joint criminal liability was on conspiracy as defined in federal law.
His report did say there was insufficient evidence to charge the Trump campaign with conspiracy.
So no, you can't lump both of those words together and say that Mueller provided results on both.
Collusion: There is an underlying crime of collusion (as opposed to the word collude). This is repetitive from an early post, but the federal crime of collusion is a secret agreement between two or more parties to limit open competition by deceiving, misleading, or defrauding others of their legal rights, or to obtain an objective forbidden by law typically by defrauding or gaining an unfair market advantage. This is not Fox News as '71 rants, but a statute. in fact, federal prosecutors periodically bring charges against companies who rig federal bids for collusion for example. There was a direct finding of no collusion by Mueller Report and I posted that exact language. Again this was not Fox News as '71 rants, but Mueller's actual finding. This has nothing to do with the word collude, which is a general term.
Conspiracy: There are basically 5 elements for the crime of federal Conspiracy. Those elements are: 1. You must have 2 or more persons who 2. Intentionally 3. make an agreement (emphasis added) 4. to violate federal law or defraud the United states, and then 5. Commit some overt act in furtherance of the agreement. This also is statue, and not Fox News. So the example here would be that the Trump campaign, consisting of the President (who would be an un-indicted conspirator) and others in his campaign, had an agreement with the Russians to to rig the election (which would violate federal law - the Mueller Report did find the Russians violated federal law). The Mueller Report found no agreement with the Russians and the Trump campaign (again I quoted directly from the Mueller Report); thus no conspiracy. Again, I quoted directly from the Report, not Fox News.
These are two different federal statues and crimes.
Here is the best discussion I have heard by actual knowledgeable lawyers (note this is NPR, not Fox News for those who like to rant):
Ken White on the Mueller report with Left, Right & Center https://kcrw.co/2W2LdGw
You may recall the OP asked for an explanation of why Mueller found what he found. I provided a summary by someone else who is CNN's legal expert (and actually was the guy who launched on Schiff for gun jumping) and was called a partisan. I'm not sure what else needs to be said. Some people simply can't accept the findings of the Report and attack those who try to explain the Report. You can Google Ken to see his qualifications, but he is the guy on federal criminal stuff in SoCal, and certainly no partisan Trump reporter.
I strongly recommend listening to the NPR link, it suggests the most relevant matters with the the Mueller Report are not the criminal findings, but the Report's report of Trump's erratic behavior. Hopefully, this makes Anti's posts (which I tend to agree with) make even more sense.
Sorry if this is too long for some to be able to follow.
You sure you're not trying to talk to Dajo here?
EDIT: Okay, I found it. One sentence where one of them mentions that. I'm not sure that's enough to "prove" to me that Mueller actually rules on collusion. It could easily just be a slip of the tongue, given that the entire rest of the show just talks about conspiracy and coordination. Where in the actual report does Mueller mention "collusion," except in the segment where he says he's not making any recommendation on that, because for his purposes it's not a thing?
More to come in another post.
Can we agree that "collusion" was used colloquially as "conspiracy" the last two years? Just read the Russian thread and listen to MSM.
But as Mueller points out collusion is not a crime. Collusion is association but not necessarily with criminal cause and effect. So, yes Trump has colluded with Russians and Israelis seeking to advance their interests - that's undeniable. But nobody - Trump or his merry band of grifters/ has been charged with any crime relating to the pfishing of DNC or the click bait internet ads.
I disagree with the Report's statement that collusion is not a crime, and I can cite RICO, fraud and federal anti-trust statues that say certain forms off collusion (and they use the word collusion or collude) is a felony. See my other post for an example that ensnared a client.
Couldn't one be guilty of obstruction of justice even if there was no underlying crime?
Ultimately, impeachment is just a political show since the Senate will never convict. However, investigations seem to be fair game. We all know how much the Republicans like to investigate.
Paragraph 2: yes.
Paragraph 3: true, though there are political advantages and disadvantages to impeachment, and how it Is done. Raising the whole collusion/conspiracy thing would be a mistake IMO.
Yogi and ego want an echo chamber of his views or you are a nobody.Yogi Bear said:Blah blah blah. You are just another in a long litany of "And you are who exactly?"dbklalw said:You shockingly lack any semblance of self-awareness. You seem like a bad parody of the orange clown if he spent most of his time on an obscure internet forum instead of on twitter while cheering on the muppets on Fox News.Yogi Bear said:He is not a great conservative voice. He presents a fake image of himself as being an independent voter when really all he is is a GBear4Life clone with a nicer tone. At least until you call him out on his hypocrisy, at which point he goes into Hulk WIAF mode.blungld said:Wife, you are a great "conservative" voice on the board and someone whose opinion I respectwifeisafurd said:
Get the wax out of your ears...
Take a number, stand in line, and keep your thoughts on decorum to yourself.
Your belligerence is blowing your cover.Yogi Bear said:Blah blah blah. You are just another in a long litany of "And you are who exactly?"dbklalw said:
You shockingly lack any semblance of self-awareness. You seem like a bad parody of the orange clown if he spent most of his time on an obscure internet forum instead of on twitter while cheering on the muppets on Fox News.
Take a number, stand in line, and keep your thoughts on decorum to yourself.
Virtue signaling: empty gestures intended to show in public a socially approved attitude without any associated risk or actual sacrifice, often used to silence debate
Another way to virtue signal is to employ narcissism masquerading as virtue by proclaiming those who reject your axiomatic moral-political ideology as inherently lacking in virtue, thus morally justified in dismissing them and, more importantly, their points of view out of hand.
Featured Stories
See All