Public opinion and indictments....

[usmbguest5318]

Robert Mueller has issued his initial salvo from the "Russia" investigation and we are now hearing responses from Trump, the WH and others sympathetic to or currently/formerly allied, in one way or another, with Trump. Those retorts are really all about managing public opinion; however, public opinion, not matter whether it favors or doesn't favor Trump, Manafort, et al, does not equate to the opinion of the twelve people who will, if the matter goes to trial, decide on the merit of the charges and supporting evidence. Insofar as the trial has not happened, the evidence is not part of the public record, so we don't really know what Mueller has that militated for grand jury to hand down the indictments.

Who does know what the evidence is? Well, the people who are involved in the matter. Manafort, who is an attorney, knew he played "fast and loose" with his taxes. He knew what was in whatever the FBI seized when it raided his home. The authors and recipients of emails know what they wrote and read.

It's quite telling that Manafort's lawyer yesterday in his sidewalk remarks stated that Manafort didn't collude with Russians. What's telling about it?

1. He knows, as do all attorneys, that collusion is neither a crime nor is it something Manafort is accused of having done; thus saying Manafort didn't collude with Russians is pointless. Strawman, red herring, take your pick...The remark doesn't at all address the charge.
2. He didn't say that Manafort did not conspire in any of the ways stated in the indictments against him.

So while those individuals can try to shape public by using a variety of deflective tactics, the fact remains that in a courtroom, if it goes that far, such tactics aren't going to "fly." Whereas in the public sphere, the only people who will "object" and point out the irrelevance of the litany of deflections are also people and groups whom Trump and his cronies have vilified to the point that Trump's most diehard supporters won't believe them, in a courtroom, those very same objections will be sustained by a judge and will thus be ineligible to be considered by the jury weighing the case on its merits. It's nice that Trump, Gates, Manafort, et al may, due to an assortment of circumstances, be able to shape public opinion, but doing so will not keep them out of jail, though it won't put them in jail either.

And that's the thing about indictments and responding to them. One cannot deflect one's way to a not guilty verdict. In a courtroom, unlike when commenting from a sidewalk, in a tweet, from a dais in a briefing room or auditorium, etc., one can't "spin" one's way out of the charges, has to address the charges and evidence head-on.

 

[Luddly Neddite]

There are basically two kinds of cases - People or Paper.

If its a people case, an attorney can do quite a lot to get their client off.

If its a paper case, the bad guy is pretty much sunk.

Sorry I don't remember who it was in the news who said ^^^ this. I'm thinking it was Ari Melber.

This is from a footnote is the Papadopalous indictment.

 

[Siete]

There are basically two kinds of cases - People or Paper.

If its a people case, an attorney can do quite a lot to get their client off.

If its a paper case, the bad guy is pretty much sunk.

Sorry I don't remember who it was in the news who said ^^^ this. I'm thinking it was Ari Melber.

This is from a footnote is the Papadopalous indictment.

doing is one thing, a possible out at every corner

writing it down and keeping records is a fate sealer ..

 

[Luddly Neddite]

Something I've been hearing is that the reason for these indictments at this time is the statute of limitations. By filing now, its sorta like a place holder - they can always add to the charges later.

Should be great fun to hear what Popodopoulos recorded while wearing a wire. Also interesting is who will sing nexrt.

 

[Luddly Neddite]

There are basically two kinds of cases - People or Paper.

If its a people case, an attorney can do quite a lot to get their client off.

If its a paper case, the bad guy is pretty much sunk.

Sorry I don't remember who it was in the news who said ^^^ this. I'm thinking it was Ari Melber.

This is from a footnote is the Papadopalous indictment.

doing is one thing, a possible out at every corner

writing it down and keeping records is a fate sealer ..

Yep.

Oddly, trump doesn't seem to understand that the internet, videos, email, tweets - its all forever. But, he has also said he is above the law.

 

[JoeMoma]

Robert Mueller has issued his initial salvo from the "Russia" investigation and we are now hearing responses from Trump, the WH and others sympathetic to or currently/formerly allied, in one way or another, with Trump. Those retorts are really all about managing public opinion; however, public opinion, not matter whether it favors or doesn't favor Trump, Manafort, et al, does not equate to the opinion of the twelve people who will, if the matter goes to trial, decide on the merit of the charges and supporting evidence. Insofar as the trial has not happened, the evidence is not part of the public record, so we don't really know what Mueller has that militated for grand jury to hand down the indictments.

Who does know what the evidence is? Well, the people who are involved in the matter. Manafort, who is an attorney, knew he played "fast and loose" with his taxes. He knew what was in whatever the FBI seized when it raided his home. The authors and recipients of emails know what they wrote and read.

It's quite telling that Manafort's lawyer yesterday in his sidewalk remarks stated that Manafort didn't collude with Russians. What's telling about it?

1. He knows, as do all attorneys, that collusion is neither a crime nor is it something Manafort is accused of having done; thus saying Manafort didn't collude with Russians is pointless. Strawman, red herring, take your pick...The remark doesn't at all address the charge.
2. He didn't say that Manafort did not conspire in any of the ways stated in the indictments against him.

So while those individuals can try to shape public by using a variety of deflective tactics, the fact remains that in a courtroom, if it goes that far, such tactics aren't going to "fly." Whereas in the public sphere, the only people who will "object" and point out the irrelevance of the litany of deflections are also people and groups whom Trump and his cronies have vilified to the point that Trump's most diehard supporters won't believe them, in a courtroom, those very same objections will be sustained by a judge and will thus be ineligible to be considered by the jury weighing the case on its merits. It's nice that Trump, Gates, Manafort, et al may, due to an assortment of circumstances, be able to shape public opinion, but doing so will not keep them out of jail, though it won't put them in jail either.

And that's the thing about indictments and responding to them. One cannot deflect one's way to a not guilty verdict. In a courtroom, unlike when commenting from a sidewalk, in a tweet, from a dais in a briefing room or auditorium, etc., one can't "spin" one's way out of the charges, has to address the charges and evidence head-on.

Your point #1. If Collusion is not a crime (which I agree, it's not), then what is the point of the special council that was put in place because Trump fired Comey. In other words, how can there be obstruction of justice if there was no investigation of a crime to obstruct?

 

[Luddly Neddite]

Robert Mueller has issued his initial salvo from the "Russia" investigation and we are now hearing responses from Trump, the WH and others sympathetic to or currently/formerly allied, in one way or another, with Trump. Those retorts are really all about managing public opinion; however, public opinion, not matter whether it favors or doesn't favor Trump, Manafort, et al, does not equate to the opinion of the twelve people who will, if the matter goes to trial, decide on the merit of the charges and supporting evidence. Insofar as the trial has not happened, the evidence is not part of the public record, so we don't really know what Mueller has that militated for grand jury to hand down the indictments.

Who does know what the evidence is? Well, the people who are involved in the matter. Manafort, who is an attorney, knew he played "fast and loose" with his taxes. He knew what was in whatever the FBI seized when it raided his home. The authors and recipients of emails know what they wrote and read.

It's quite telling that Manafort's lawyer yesterday in his sidewalk remarks stated that Manafort didn't collude with Russians. What's telling about it?

1. He knows, as do all attorneys, that collusion is neither a crime nor is it something Manafort is accused of having done; thus saying Manafort didn't collude with Russians is pointless. Strawman, red herring, take your pick...The remark doesn't at all address the charge.
2. He didn't say that Manafort did not conspire in any of the ways stated in the indictments against him.

So while those individuals can try to shape public by using a variety of deflective tactics, the fact remains that in a courtroom, if it goes that far, such tactics aren't going to "fly." Whereas in the public sphere, the only people who will "object" and point out the irrelevance of the litany of deflections are also people and groups whom Trump and his cronies have vilified to the point that Trump's most diehard supporters won't believe them, in a courtroom, those very same objections will be sustained by a judge and will thus be ineligible to be considered by the jury weighing the case on its merits. It's nice that Trump, Gates, Manafort, et al may, due to an assortment of circumstances, be able to shape public opinion, but doing so will not keep them out of jail, though it won't put them in jail either.

And that's the thing about indictments and responding to them. One cannot deflect one's way to a not guilty verdict. In a courtroom, unlike when commenting from a sidewalk, in a tweet, from a dais in a briefing room or auditorium, etc., one can't "spin" one's way out of the charges, has to address the charges and evidence head-on.

Your point #1. If Collusion is not a crime (which I agree, it's not), then what is the point of the special council that was put in place because Trump fired Comey. In other words, how can there be obstruction of justice if there was no investigation of a crime to obstruct?

Why are RWNJs all stuck on "collusion"? Conspiracy is at the top of the list right now. And lying to feds. Both are felonies and just about every one of them has done it, gotten caught and quickly tried to back pedal.

And there was indeed crimes to obstruct but what we all saw on television was trump admitting to obstruction. Then, was it just the next day that he's having his secret meeting with Russians IN THE OVAL OFFICE? And bragging that he'd gotten rid of that pesky investigation. Gawd Damn but that man really is a fucking moron.

 

[JoeMoma]

Robert Mueller has issued his initial salvo from the "Russia" investigation and we are now hearing responses from Trump, the WH and others sympathetic to or currently/formerly allied, in one way or another, with Trump. Those retorts are really all about managing public opinion; however, public opinion, not matter whether it favors or doesn't favor Trump, Manafort, et al, does not equate to the opinion of the twelve people who will, if the matter goes to trial, decide on the merit of the charges and supporting evidence. Insofar as the trial has not happened, the evidence is not part of the public record, so we don't really know what Mueller has that militated for grand jury to hand down the indictments.

Who does know what the evidence is? Well, the people who are involved in the matter. Manafort, who is an attorney, knew he played "fast and loose" with his taxes. He knew what was in whatever the FBI seized when it raided his home. The authors and recipients of emails know what they wrote and read.

It's quite telling that Manafort's lawyer yesterday in his sidewalk remarks stated that Manafort didn't collude with Russians. What's telling about it?

1. He knows, as do all attorneys, that collusion is neither a crime nor is it something Manafort is accused of having done; thus saying Manafort didn't collude with Russians is pointless. Strawman, red herring, take your pick...The remark doesn't at all address the charge.
2. He didn't say that Manafort did not conspire in any of the ways stated in the indictments against him.

So while those individuals can try to shape public by using a variety of deflective tactics, the fact remains that in a courtroom, if it goes that far, such tactics aren't going to "fly." Whereas in the public sphere, the only people who will "object" and point out the irrelevance of the litany of deflections are also people and groups whom Trump and his cronies have vilified to the point that Trump's most diehard supporters won't believe them, in a courtroom, those very same objections will be sustained by a judge and will thus be ineligible to be considered by the jury weighing the case on its merits. It's nice that Trump, Gates, Manafort, et al may, due to an assortment of circumstances, be able to shape public opinion, but doing so will not keep them out of jail, though it won't put them in jail either.

And that's the thing about indictments and responding to them. One cannot deflect one's way to a not guilty verdict. In a courtroom, unlike when commenting from a sidewalk, in a tweet, from a dais in a briefing room or auditorium, etc., one can't "spin" one's way out of the charges, has to address the charges and evidence head-on.

Your point #1. If Collusion is not a crime (which I agree, it's not), then what is the point of the special council that was put in place because Trump fired Comey. In other words, how can there be obstruction of justice if there was no investigation of a crime to obstruct?

Why are RWNJs all stuck on "collusion"? Conspiracy is at the top of the list right now. And lying to feds. Both are felonies and just about every one of them has done it, gotten caught and quickly tried to back pedal.

And there was indeed crimes to obstruct but what we all saw on television was trump admitting to obstruction. Then, was it just the next day that he's having his secret meeting with Russians IN THE OVAL OFFICE? And bragging that he'd gotten rid of that pesky investigation. Gawd Damn but that man really is a fucking moron.

What is the difference between collusion and conspiracy?

I bet the feds could arrest tons of people if they simply conduct massive investigations before there in fact an known crime to investigate. With the uncountable number of laws on the books, almost everyone is guilty of something.

 

[Tax Man]

Where i live the public is in firm belief Rump and his cronies must go because they are incompetent, irrelevant and crooks.

 

[usmbguest5318]

Robert Mueller has issued his initial salvo from the "Russia" investigation and we are now hearing responses from Trump, the WH and others sympathetic to or currently/formerly allied, in one way or another, with Trump. Those retorts are really all about managing public opinion; however, public opinion, not matter whether it favors or doesn't favor Trump, Manafort, et al, does not equate to the opinion of the twelve people who will, if the matter goes to trial, decide on the merit of the charges and supporting evidence. Insofar as the trial has not happened, the evidence is not part of the public record, so we don't really know what Mueller has that militated for grand jury to hand down the indictments.

Who does know what the evidence is? Well, the people who are involved in the matter. Manafort, who is an attorney, knew he played "fast and loose" with his taxes. He knew what was in whatever the FBI seized when it raided his home. The authors and recipients of emails know what they wrote and read.

It's quite telling that Manafort's lawyer yesterday in his sidewalk remarks stated that Manafort didn't collude with Russians. What's telling about it?

1. He knows, as do all attorneys, that collusion is neither a crime nor is it something Manafort is accused of having done; thus saying Manafort didn't collude with Russians is pointless. Strawman, red herring, take your pick...The remark doesn't at all address the charge.
2. He didn't say that Manafort did not conspire in any of the ways stated in the indictments against him.

So while those individuals can try to shape public by using a variety of deflective tactics, the fact remains that in a courtroom, if it goes that far, such tactics aren't going to "fly." Whereas in the public sphere, the only people who will "object" and point out the irrelevance of the litany of deflections are also people and groups whom Trump and his cronies have vilified to the point that Trump's most diehard supporters won't believe them, in a courtroom, those very same objections will be sustained by a judge and will thus be ineligible to be considered by the jury weighing the case on its merits. It's nice that Trump, Gates, Manafort, et al may, due to an assortment of circumstances, be able to shape public opinion, but doing so will not keep them out of jail, though it won't put them in jail either.

And that's the thing about indictments and responding to them. One cannot deflect one's way to a not guilty verdict. In a courtroom, unlike when commenting from a sidewalk, in a tweet, from a dais in a briefing room or auditorium, etc., one can't "spin" one's way out of the charges, has to address the charges and evidence head-on.

Your point #1. If Collusion is not a crime (which I agree, it's not), then what is the point of the special council that was put in place because Trump fired Comey. In other words, how can there be obstruction of justice if there was no investigation of a crime to obstruct?

Look at what the special counsel's "marching orders" are. The charge(s), thus what's being investigated, will most likely be "aiding and abetting such and such criminal activity" or "conspiring to commit such and such criminal activity."

 

[usmbguest5318]

Robert Mueller has issued his initial salvo from the "Russia" investigation and we are now hearing responses from Trump, the WH and others sympathetic to or currently/formerly allied, in one way or another, with Trump. Those retorts are really all about managing public opinion; however, public opinion, not matter whether it favors or doesn't favor Trump, Manafort, et al, does not equate to the opinion of the twelve people who will, if the matter goes to trial, decide on the merit of the charges and supporting evidence. Insofar as the trial has not happened, the evidence is not part of the public record, so we don't really know what Mueller has that militated for grand jury to hand down the indictments.

Who does know what the evidence is? Well, the people who are involved in the matter. Manafort, who is an attorney, knew he played "fast and loose" with his taxes. He knew what was in whatever the FBI seized when it raided his home. The authors and recipients of emails know what they wrote and read.

It's quite telling that Manafort's lawyer yesterday in his sidewalk remarks stated that Manafort didn't collude with Russians. What's telling about it?

1. He knows, as do all attorneys, that collusion is neither a crime nor is it something Manafort is accused of having done; thus saying Manafort didn't collude with Russians is pointless. Strawman, red herring, take your pick...The remark doesn't at all address the charge.
2. He didn't say that Manafort did not conspire in any of the ways stated in the indictments against him.

So while those individuals can try to shape public by using a variety of deflective tactics, the fact remains that in a courtroom, if it goes that far, such tactics aren't going to "fly." Whereas in the public sphere, the only people who will "object" and point out the irrelevance of the litany of deflections are also people and groups whom Trump and his cronies have vilified to the point that Trump's most diehard supporters won't believe them, in a courtroom, those very same objections will be sustained by a judge and will thus be ineligible to be considered by the jury weighing the case on its merits. It's nice that Trump, Gates, Manafort, et al may, due to an assortment of circumstances, be able to shape public opinion, but doing so will not keep them out of jail, though it won't put them in jail either.

And that's the thing about indictments and responding to them. One cannot deflect one's way to a not guilty verdict. In a courtroom, unlike when commenting from a sidewalk, in a tweet, from a dais in a briefing room or auditorium, etc., one can't "spin" one's way out of the charges, has to address the charges and evidence head-on.

Your point #1. If Collusion is not a crime (which I agree, it's not), then what is the point of the special council that was put in place because Trump fired Comey. In other words, how can there be obstruction of justice if there was no investigation of a crime to obstruct?

Why are RWNJs all stuck on "collusion"? Conspiracy is at the top of the list right now. And lying to feds. Both are felonies and just about every one of them has done it, gotten caught and quickly tried to back pedal.

And there was indeed crimes to obstruct but what we all saw on television was trump admitting to obstruction. Then, was it just the next day that he's having his secret meeting with Russians IN THE OVAL OFFICE? And bragging that he'd gotten rid of that pesky investigation. Gawd Damn but that man really is a fucking moron.

FWIW, obstruction of justice is an example of a "root" offense. Conspiring to obstruct justice and aiding and abetting the obstruction of justice are also criminal acts, but, legally and as charges, they aren't the same as obstructing justice and their burdens of proof, respectively, differ from that of "root" obstruction of justice. (I don't know if penally conspiring or aiding and abetting carry the same penalty as the "root" crime to which they relate, be the "basic" crime obstruction of justice or any other "root" crime.)

 

[Peach]

Collusion and Conspiracy are similar in meaning.

 

[JoeMoma]

Robert Mueller has issued his initial salvo from the "Russia" investigation and we are now hearing responses from Trump, the WH and others sympathetic to or currently/formerly allied, in one way or another, with Trump. Those retorts are really all about managing public opinion; however, public opinion, not matter whether it favors or doesn't favor Trump, Manafort, et al, does not equate to the opinion of the twelve people who will, if the matter goes to trial, decide on the merit of the charges and supporting evidence. Insofar as the trial has not happened, the evidence is not part of the public record, so we don't really know what Mueller has that militated for grand jury to hand down the indictments.

Who does know what the evidence is? Well, the people who are involved in the matter. Manafort, who is an attorney, knew he played "fast and loose" with his taxes. He knew what was in whatever the FBI seized when it raided his home. The authors and recipients of emails know what they wrote and read.

It's quite telling that Manafort's lawyer yesterday in his sidewalk remarks stated that Manafort didn't collude with Russians. What's telling about it?

1. He knows, as do all attorneys, that collusion is neither a crime nor is it something Manafort is accused of having done; thus saying Manafort didn't collude with Russians is pointless. Strawman, red herring, take your pick...The remark doesn't at all address the charge.
2. He didn't say that Manafort did not conspire in any of the ways stated in the indictments against him.

So while those individuals can try to shape public by using a variety of deflective tactics, the fact remains that in a courtroom, if it goes that far, such tactics aren't going to "fly." Whereas in the public sphere, the only people who will "object" and point out the irrelevance of the litany of deflections are also people and groups whom Trump and his cronies have vilified to the point that Trump's most diehard supporters won't believe them, in a courtroom, those very same objections will be sustained by a judge and will thus be ineligible to be considered by the jury weighing the case on its merits. It's nice that Trump, Gates, Manafort, et al may, due to an assortment of circumstances, be able to shape public opinion, but doing so will not keep them out of jail, though it won't put them in jail either.

And that's the thing about indictments and responding to them. One cannot deflect one's way to a not guilty verdict. In a courtroom, unlike when commenting from a sidewalk, in a tweet, from a dais in a briefing room or auditorium, etc., one can't "spin" one's way out of the charges, has to address the charges and evidence head-on.

Your point #1. If Collusion is not a crime (which I agree, it's not), then what is the point of the special council that was put in place because Trump fired Comey. In other words, how can there be obstruction of justice if there was no investigation of a crime to obstruct?

Look at what the special counsel's "marching orders" are. The charge(s), thus what's being investigated, will most likely be "aiding and abetting such and such criminal activity" or "conspiring to commit such and such criminal activity."

What criminal activity?

 

[usmbguest5318]

Robert Mueller has issued his initial salvo from the "Russia" investigation and we are now hearing responses from Trump, the WH and others sympathetic to or currently/formerly allied, in one way or another, with Trump. Those retorts are really all about managing public opinion; however, public opinion, not matter whether it favors or doesn't favor Trump, Manafort, et al, does not equate to the opinion of the twelve people who will, if the matter goes to trial, decide on the merit of the charges and supporting evidence. Insofar as the trial has not happened, the evidence is not part of the public record, so we don't really know what Mueller has that militated for grand jury to hand down the indictments.

Who does know what the evidence is? Well, the people who are involved in the matter. Manafort, who is an attorney, knew he played "fast and loose" with his taxes. He knew what was in whatever the FBI seized when it raided his home. The authors and recipients of emails know what they wrote and read.

It's quite telling that Manafort's lawyer yesterday in his sidewalk remarks stated that Manafort didn't collude with Russians. What's telling about it?

1. He knows, as do all attorneys, that collusion is neither a crime nor is it something Manafort is accused of having done; thus saying Manafort didn't collude with Russians is pointless. Strawman, red herring, take your pick...The remark doesn't at all address the charge.
2. He didn't say that Manafort did not conspire in any of the ways stated in the indictments against him.

So while those individuals can try to shape public by using a variety of deflective tactics, the fact remains that in a courtroom, if it goes that far, such tactics aren't going to "fly." Whereas in the public sphere, the only people who will "object" and point out the irrelevance of the litany of deflections are also people and groups whom Trump and his cronies have vilified to the point that Trump's most diehard supporters won't believe them, in a courtroom, those very same objections will be sustained by a judge and will thus be ineligible to be considered by the jury weighing the case on its merits. It's nice that Trump, Gates, Manafort, et al may, due to an assortment of circumstances, be able to shape public opinion, but doing so will not keep them out of jail, though it won't put them in jail either.

And that's the thing about indictments and responding to them. One cannot deflect one's way to a not guilty verdict. In a courtroom, unlike when commenting from a sidewalk, in a tweet, from a dais in a briefing room or auditorium, etc., one can't "spin" one's way out of the charges, has to address the charges and evidence head-on.

Your point #1. If Collusion is not a crime (which I agree, it's not), then what is the point of the special council that was put in place because Trump fired Comey. In other words, how can there be obstruction of justice if there was no investigation of a crime to obstruct?

Why are RWNJs all stuck on "collusion"? Conspiracy is at the top of the list right now. And lying to feds. Both are felonies and just about every one of them has done it, gotten caught and quickly tried to back pedal.

And there was indeed crimes to obstruct but what we all saw on television was trump admitting to obstruction. Then, was it just the next day that he's having his secret meeting with Russians IN THE OVAL OFFICE? And bragging that he'd gotten rid of that pesky investigation. Gawd Damn but that man really is a fucking moron.

What is the difference between collusion and conspiracy?

I bet the feds could arrest tons of people if they simply conduct massive investigations before there in fact an known crime to investigate. With the uncountable number of laws on the books, almost everyone is guilty of something.

What is the difference between collusion and conspiracy?

Well, that depends on what one conspired to do. It's safe to say that collusion of no sort is illegal, but conspiring of certain sorts is illegal. That's the difference.

If you want to know what the difference is in more precise terms, look up both of them in Black's law dictionary or some other law dictionary, but be aware that in reading the definitions you'll find there every word, every word's denotation and connotation, every word placement/sequence and every punctuation mark matters. There is no "Cliff Notes" version that conveys exactly the same meaning in its entirety.

For far more exhaustive and complete legal theory and practice discussions of conspiracy (I don't think you'll find such discussions on collusion), you may want to start with these documents:

• Conspiracy: The Criminal Agreement, in Theory and in Practice
  
• Federal Criminal Conspiracy
  
• The Pinkerton Paradox

Reading those documents is what led me to realize that whatever anyone has to say, in a truly legal context, about collusion is irrelevant. That awareness is part of what inspired this thread's creation.

 

[miketx]

Manafort is so dangerous, the losers in DC don't have him locked up. He will never see jail time.

 

[usmbguest5318]

Where i live the public is in firm belief Rump and his cronies must go because they are incompetent, irrelevant and crooks.

About 12% of the people who voted for Trump say, in effect, knowing what they know now, they would not have voted for Trump.

You can do the math to see how that might have played out:

• The 10 Closest States in the 2016 Election
  
• 2016 Popular Vote Totals by State

Could it be that all or substantially all of those 12% are in states that Trump lost? I suppose, and were that the case, there'd have been no different outcome. It'd take a lot for that singular set of circumstances to be the case, but that it could be the case cannot be summarily overlooked.

 

[miketx]

Where i live the public is in firm belief Rump and his cronies must go because they are incompetent, irrelevant and crooks.

About 12% of the people who voted for Trump say, in effect, knowing what they know now, they would not have voted for Trump.

You can do the math to see how that might have played out:

• https://www.usnews.com/news/the-run...14/the-10-closest-states-in-the-2016-election
  
• 2016 Popular Vote Totals by State

Could it be that all or substantially all of those 12% are in states that Trump lost? I suppose, and were that the case, there'd have been no different outcome. It'd take a lot for that singular set of circumstances to be the case, but that it could be the case cannot be summarily overlooked.

There is no accounting for stupid people who believe everything the media pukes say.

 

[usmbguest5318]

Robert Mueller has issued his initial salvo from the "Russia" investigation and we are now hearing responses from Trump, the WH and others sympathetic to or currently/formerly allied, in one way or another, with Trump. Those retorts are really all about managing public opinion; however, public opinion, not matter whether it favors or doesn't favor Trump, Manafort, et al, does not equate to the opinion of the twelve people who will, if the matter goes to trial, decide on the merit of the charges and supporting evidence. Insofar as the trial has not happened, the evidence is not part of the public record, so we don't really know what Mueller has that militated for grand jury to hand down the indictments.

Who does know what the evidence is? Well, the people who are involved in the matter. Manafort, who is an attorney, knew he played "fast and loose" with his taxes. He knew what was in whatever the FBI seized when it raided his home. The authors and recipients of emails know what they wrote and read.

It's quite telling that Manafort's lawyer yesterday in his sidewalk remarks stated that Manafort didn't collude with Russians. What's telling about it?

1. He knows, as do all attorneys, that collusion is neither a crime nor is it something Manafort is accused of having done; thus saying Manafort didn't collude with Russians is pointless. Strawman, red herring, take your pick...The remark doesn't at all address the charge.
2. He didn't say that Manafort did not conspire in any of the ways stated in the indictments against him.

So while those individuals can try to shape public by using a variety of deflective tactics, the fact remains that in a courtroom, if it goes that far, such tactics aren't going to "fly." Whereas in the public sphere, the only people who will "object" and point out the irrelevance of the litany of deflections are also people and groups whom Trump and his cronies have vilified to the point that Trump's most diehard supporters won't believe them, in a courtroom, those very same objections will be sustained by a judge and will thus be ineligible to be considered by the jury weighing the case on its merits. It's nice that Trump, Gates, Manafort, et al may, due to an assortment of circumstances, be able to shape public opinion, but doing so will not keep them out of jail, though it won't put them in jail either.

And that's the thing about indictments and responding to them. One cannot deflect one's way to a not guilty verdict. In a courtroom, unlike when commenting from a sidewalk, in a tweet, from a dais in a briefing room or auditorium, etc., one can't "spin" one's way out of the charges, has to address the charges and evidence head-on.

Your point #1. If Collusion is not a crime (which I agree, it's not), then what is the point of the special council that was put in place because Trump fired Comey. In other words, how can there be obstruction of justice if there was no investigation of a crime to obstruct?

Look at what the special counsel's "marching orders" are. The charge(s), thus what's being investigated, will most likely be "aiding and abetting such and such criminal activity" or "conspiring to commit such and such criminal activity."

What criminal activity?

Well, now, that is precisely what is being determined by the "Russia" investigation. Why would I sit here and speculate on what criminal acts were committed when there's a federal investigation figuring out what criminal acts were, based on the evidence it collects, committed? I'm perfectly content and patient enough to wait and see what the investigators find.

 

[JoeMoma]

Robert Mueller has issued his initial salvo from the "Russia" investigation and we are now hearing responses from Trump, the WH and others sympathetic to or currently/formerly allied, in one way or another, with Trump. Those retorts are really all about managing public opinion; however, public opinion, not matter whether it favors or doesn't favor Trump, Manafort, et al, does not equate to the opinion of the twelve people who will, if the matter goes to trial, decide on the merit of the charges and supporting evidence. Insofar as the trial has not happened, the evidence is not part of the public record, so we don't really know what Mueller has that militated for grand jury to hand down the indictments.

Who does know what the evidence is? Well, the people who are involved in the matter. Manafort, who is an attorney, knew he played "fast and loose" with his taxes. He knew what was in whatever the FBI seized when it raided his home. The authors and recipients of emails know what they wrote and read.

It's quite telling that Manafort's lawyer yesterday in his sidewalk remarks stated that Manafort didn't collude with Russians. What's telling about it?

1. He knows, as do all attorneys, that collusion is neither a crime nor is it something Manafort is accused of having done; thus saying Manafort didn't collude with Russians is pointless. Strawman, red herring, take your pick...The remark doesn't at all address the charge.
2. He didn't say that Manafort did not conspire in any of the ways stated in the indictments against him.

So while those individuals can try to shape public by using a variety of deflective tactics, the fact remains that in a courtroom, if it goes that far, such tactics aren't going to "fly." Whereas in the public sphere, the only people who will "object" and point out the irrelevance of the litany of deflections are also people and groups whom Trump and his cronies have vilified to the point that Trump's most diehard supporters won't believe them, in a courtroom, those very same objections will be sustained by a judge and will thus be ineligible to be considered by the jury weighing the case on its merits. It's nice that Trump, Gates, Manafort, et al may, due to an assortment of circumstances, be able to shape public opinion, but doing so will not keep them out of jail, though it won't put them in jail either.

And that's the thing about indictments and responding to them. One cannot deflect one's way to a not guilty verdict. In a courtroom, unlike when commenting from a sidewalk, in a tweet, from a dais in a briefing room or auditorium, etc., one can't "spin" one's way out of the charges, has to address the charges and evidence head-on.

Your point #1. If Collusion is not a crime (which I agree, it's not), then what is the point of the special council that was put in place because Trump fired Comey. In other words, how can there be obstruction of justice if there was no investigation of a crime to obstruct?

Why are RWNJs all stuck on "collusion"? Conspiracy is at the top of the list right now. And lying to feds. Both are felonies and just about every one of them has done it, gotten caught and quickly tried to back pedal.

And there was indeed crimes to obstruct but what we all saw on television was trump admitting to obstruction. Then, was it just the next day that he's having his secret meeting with Russians IN THE OVAL OFFICE? And bragging that he'd gotten rid of that pesky investigation. Gawd Damn but that man really is a fucking moron.

What is the difference between collusion and conspiracy?

I bet the feds could arrest tons of people if they simply conduct massive investigations before there in fact an known crime to investigate. With the uncountable number of laws on the books, almost everyone is guilty of something.

What is the difference between collusion and conspiracy?

Well, that depends on what one conspired to do. It's safe to say that collusion of no sort is illegal, but conspiring of certain sorts is illegal. That's the difference.

If you want to know what the difference is in more precise terms, look up both of them in Black's law dictionary or some other law dictionary, but be aware that in reading the definitions you'll find there every word, every word's denotation and connotation, every word placement/sequence and every punctuation mark matters. There is no "Cliff Notes" version that conveys exactly the same meaning in its entirety.

For far more exhaustive and complete legal theory and practice discussions of conspiracy (I don't think you'll find such discussions on collusion), you may want to start with these documents:

• Conspiracy: The Criminal Agreement, in Theory and in Practice
  
• Federal Criminal Conspiracy
  
• The Pinkerton Paradox

Reading those documents is what led me to realize that whatever anyone has to say, in a truly legal context, about collusion is irrelevant. That awareness is part of what inspired this thread's creation.

Conspiring and colluding are synonyms. Conspiring or colluding to murder someone is illegal. Conspiring or colluding to throw a birthday party party is not illegal.

So the question is, what is the root crime that the investigating is looking into?

 

[JoeMoma]

Robert Mueller has issued his initial salvo from the "Russia" investigation and we are now hearing responses from Trump, the WH and others sympathetic to or currently/formerly allied, in one way or another, with Trump. Those retorts are really all about managing public opinion; however, public opinion, not matter whether it favors or doesn't favor Trump, Manafort, et al, does not equate to the opinion of the twelve people who will, if the matter goes to trial, decide on the merit of the charges and supporting evidence. Insofar as the trial has not happened, the evidence is not part of the public record, so we don't really know what Mueller has that militated for grand jury to hand down the indictments.

Who does know what the evidence is? Well, the people who are involved in the matter. Manafort, who is an attorney, knew he played "fast and loose" with his taxes. He knew what was in whatever the FBI seized when it raided his home. The authors and recipients of emails know what they wrote and read.

It's quite telling that Manafort's lawyer yesterday in his sidewalk remarks stated that Manafort didn't collude with Russians. What's telling about it?

1. He knows, as do all attorneys, that collusion is neither a crime nor is it something Manafort is accused of having done; thus saying Manafort didn't collude with Russians is pointless. Strawman, red herring, take your pick...The remark doesn't at all address the charge.
2. He didn't say that Manafort did not conspire in any of the ways stated in the indictments against him.

So while those individuals can try to shape public by using a variety of deflective tactics, the fact remains that in a courtroom, if it goes that far, such tactics aren't going to "fly." Whereas in the public sphere, the only people who will "object" and point out the irrelevance of the litany of deflections are also people and groups whom Trump and his cronies have vilified to the point that Trump's most diehard supporters won't believe them, in a courtroom, those very same objections will be sustained by a judge and will thus be ineligible to be considered by the jury weighing the case on its merits. It's nice that Trump, Gates, Manafort, et al may, due to an assortment of circumstances, be able to shape public opinion, but doing so will not keep them out of jail, though it won't put them in jail either.

And that's the thing about indictments and responding to them. One cannot deflect one's way to a not guilty verdict. In a courtroom, unlike when commenting from a sidewalk, in a tweet, from a dais in a briefing room or auditorium, etc., one can't "spin" one's way out of the charges, has to address the charges and evidence head-on.

Your point #1. If Collusion is not a crime (which I agree, it's not), then what is the point of the special council that was put in place because Trump fired Comey. In other words, how can there be obstruction of justice if there was no investigation of a crime to obstruct?

Look at what the special counsel's "marching orders" are. The charge(s), thus what's being investigated, will most likely be "aiding and abetting such and such criminal activity" or "conspiring to commit such and such criminal activity."

What criminal activity?

Well, now, that is precisely what is being determined by the "Russia" investigation. Why would I sit here and speculate on what criminal acts were committed when there's a federal investigation figuring out what criminal acts were, based on the evidence it collects, committed? I'm perfectly content and patient enough to wait and see what the investigators find.

So, would it be okay if the FBI started an investigation on you to determine what criminal activity you may be involved in without knowing of a specific crime to begin with? There should be probable cause of some crime to merit an investigation, otherwise "investigations" can become a weapon to use against the citizens.