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
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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...
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...
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 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 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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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...
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.
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.