BREAKING: Donald Trump Jr.’s Russia emails shake the presidency ***UPDATE: Gowdy Excoriates Trump***

Status
Not open for further replies.
Collusion is not a crime. Treason is crime. Obstruction of justice is not a crime. There is no crime called "collusion."
Nonsense semantics. "Collusion" describes activity that absolutely can be a crime (it depends on the nature of it):
Fox News host wrong that no law forbids Russia-Trump collusion
Politifact said:
Fox News host Gregg Jarrett has a distinctive take on the investigation into possible links between Russia and the Trump campaign. Jarrett, a former defense attorney, said that even if the two worked together, it wasn’t illegal.

"Collusion is not a crime, only an antitrust law," he said on May 30. "You can collude all you want with a foreign government in an election. There's no such statute."

Jarrett made the same point in an article on the Fox News website. He wrote that special counsel Robert Mueller had been given the "futile" task of investigating a crime that doesn’t exist.

"As special counsel, Mueller can engage in all manner of spectacular jurisprudential gymnastics," Jarrett wrote. "However, it will not change the fact that colluding with Russia is not, under America’s criminal codes, a crime."

Really?

We thought we’d look into the legal landscape. We wanted to know what election law does or doesn’t say; this is a separate question from what did or did not occur.

By way of brief recap, the U.S. Justice Department appointed Mueller to investigate Russian interference with the 2016 presidential election. His first task was to explore "any links and/or coordination between the Russian government and individuals associated with the campaign of President Donald Trump."

Jarrett said the only real trouble for the Trump campaign would be if it committed some other crime, such as helping the Russians hack into Democratic emails. He dismissed that as implausible and unsupported by any public evidence.

We ran Jarrett’s argument by three election law professors, and they all said that while the word "collusion" might not appear in key statutes (they couldn’t say for sure that it was totally absent), working with the Russians could violate criminal laws.

Nathaniel Persily at Stanford University Law School said one relevant statute is the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002.

"A foreign national spending money to influence a federal election can be a crime," Persily said. "And if a U.S. citizen coordinates, conspires or assists in that spending, then it could be a crime."

Persily pointed to a 2011 U.S. District Court ruling based on the 2002 law. The judges said that the law bans foreign nationals "from making expenditures to expressly advocate the election or defeat of a political candidate."

Another election law specialist, John Coates at Harvard University Law School, said if Russians aimed to shape the outcome of the presidential election, that would meet the definition of an expenditure.

"The related funds could also be viewed as an illegal contribution to any candidate who coordinates (colludes) with the foreign speaker," Coates said.

To be sure, no one is saying that coordination took place. What’s in doubt is whether the word "collusion" is as pivotal as Jarrett makes it out to be.

Coates said discussions between a campaign and a foreigner could violate the law against fraud.

"Under that statute, it is a federal crime to conspire with anyone, including a foreign government, to ‘deprive another of the intangible right of honest services,’ " Coates said. "That would include fixing a fraudulent election, in my view, within the plain meaning of the statute."

Josh Douglas at the University of Kentucky Law School offered two other possible relevant statutes.

"Collusion in a federal election with a foreign entity could potentially fall under other crimes, such as against public corruption," Douglas said. "There's also a general anti-coercion federal election law."

In sum, legal experts mentioned four criminal laws that might have been broken. The key is not whether those statutes use the word collusion, but whether the activities of the Russians and Trump associates went beyond permissible acts.


Our ruling
Jarrett said that "you can collude all you want with a foreign government in an election," because there’s no law that says collusion is a crime.

Three prominent election law scholars said there are at least four laws that would prohibit the sort of activities under investigation, whether those laws mention collusion or not. Jarrett’s focus on a single word fails to reflect the reach of the criminal code.

We rate this claim False.

Obstruction of justice is always a crime.
 
Madmick are you willing to say difinitiviely at this point if a crime has been made or not?

Is it illegal to be curious about receiving information now?
 
Madmick are you willing to say difinitiviely at this point if a crime has been made or not?

Is it illegal to be curious about receiving information now?
I don't know what this word means.
 
Nonsense semantics. "Collusion" describes activity that absolutely can be a crime (it depends on the nature of it):

"A foreign national spending money to influence a federal election can be a crime," Persily said. "And if a U.S. citizen coordinates, conspires or assists in that spending, then it could be a crime."

Persily pointed to a 2011 U.S. District Court ruling based on the 2002 law. The judges said that the law bans foreign nationals "from making expenditures to expressly advocate the election or defeat of a political candidate."
.


How does all that jive with Citizens United?
 
Can you ever get full if all you eat are nothing burgers?
 
C'mon man don't be a dick, I'm on my phone and autocorrect isn't helping me out. I'm not Interested in that kinda discussion.
Your phone auto-corrected to "difinitiviely"?

Do you understand how auto-correct works?
 
Maybe I just thought it warranted another iteration in this thread...

Just for you good sir.


What are some examples of things not of "value".

Criminalizing the simple receipt of information is a clear violation of the right to free speech. Hard to believe any honest person thinks that statute was meant to prevent someone from hearing something.
 
Just for you good sir.

What are some examples of things not of "value".

Criminalizing the simple receipt of information is a clear violation of the right to free speech. Hard to believe any honest person thinks that statute was meant to prevent someone from hearing something.

Hey, that does sound a lot like the revised option of Vox' lead legal expert - the one upon whose quote all these posts about collusion and criminality are based.
 
How does all that jive with Citizens United?
Sqg1mdf.gif


Ask the Supreme Court.
 
Nonsense semantics. "Collusion" describes activity that absolutely can be a crime (it depends on the nature of it):
Fox News host wrong that no law forbids Russia-Trump collusion


Obstruction of justice is always a crime.

He has a point tho. For accuracy you should stop claiming "collusion" - which is not necessarily a crime. Or you can just be honest and accept that "collusion" is a legal nothingburger.

Instead be specific as to which criminal laws were broken.

In the article you posted there's a lot of of blatant speculation as to which laws were possibly broken. It's funny how that one "legal specialist" expands the definition of "expenditures". Then another speculates about fraud. They are reallllly stretching it and none are saying anything definitive.
 
He has a point tho. For accuracy you should stop claiming "collusion" - which is not necessarily a crime. Or you can just accept that "collusion" is a legal nothing burger.

Instead be specific as to which criminal laws were broken.

In the article you posted there's a lot of of blatant speculation as to which laws were possibly broken. It's funny how that one legal scholar expands the definition of "expenditures". Then another speculates about fraud.
I think an umbrella term that allows for all possibilities (including the most likely-- criminal as they may be) is more appropriate than misguided speculative specificity.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Forum statistics

Threads
1,275,083
Messages
57,967,468
Members
175,884
Latest member
cloudfair
Back
Top