The Independent Voice of West Indies Cricket

Message Board Archives

What would Trump be found guilty of

 
black 2017-09-18 13:56:25 

Collusion, obstruction of justice or money laundering?

Remember, Mueller is looking at everything and they (FBI) have about a 90% conviction rate.

 
nick2020 2017-09-18 14:02:02 

In reply to black

Grabbing p*$$y.

 
SnoopDog 2017-09-18 14:20:25 

In reply to black

What would Trump be found guilty of


...for being a lying racist sack of shyte. But we don't need a court to convict him of those things. big grin

The Scots had already sussed him out. lol

 
nick2020 2017-09-18 14:44:32 

In reply to SnoopDog

lol lol lol

 
black 2017-09-18 14:57:05 

In reply to SnoopDog

Only in America. lol

You'll get about 90 years in Saudi Arabia for that, plus a good whipping. lol

 
nitro 2017-09-18 15:43:21 

In reply to black

For beating Democrats BIGLY!

 
black 2017-09-18 16:02:47 

In reply to nitro

Now he is regretting it. lol

He said, any investigation into his finances would be crossing the line.

Too late. lol

 
nitro 2017-09-18 16:14:11 

In reply to black

He is torturing you, Point and ProWi and his haters.

He decided not to fire Mueller because he can pardon everybody!

 
black 2017-09-18 16:28:39 

In reply to nitro


He decided not to fire Mueller because he can pardon everybody!


Not going to work this time, State and Federal charges are going to be brought against them.

Trump cannot pardon on State charges. lol lol lol

Since Jared and Junior live in NY, they are more likely to face NY State charges.

Keep up nitro. lol lol lol

 
Chrissy 2017-09-18 16:36:53 

In reply to black

All three but OOJ will be the biggest one along with the ML

 
nitro 2017-09-18 16:37:22 

In reply to black

To be honest i hardly follow that up.

It is a waste of time. Nothing will happen to Trump.

He making friends on both sides or in his words, "many sides".

 
black 2017-09-18 16:44:34 

In reply to nitro


He making friends on both sides or in his words, "many sides"
.

FBI don't choose sides. lol

 
birdseye 2017-09-18 16:45:30 

In reply to black
being an idiot and an embarassment to the presidency of the United states.

 
Runs 2017-09-18 17:04:50 

What happend to all those women that came forward during the election? Given money and gag order? lol

 
nickoutr 2017-09-18 17:16:04 

In reply to Runs
they were paid by the billary campaign to lie against the GREAT DONALD TRUMP!

 
nitro 2017-09-18 17:24:07 

In reply to black

They chose Crooked Clinton!

 
black 2017-09-18 22:15:20 

In reply to nitro

The first on many indictments are about to be handed down.

Don't get nervous nitro. lol

 
POINT 2017-09-18 22:15:55 

In reply to black

My take is that ALL of what you mentioned in your Post . Look when a
Judge gave the FBI the Authority to
pick Manaport Front Door , it meant that the FBI , were able to convince a
Judge to Pick Manaport Front Door ,
things aint looking Good for Manaport.

Worse yet Manaport was informed recently that Mueller intends to indict him . This is generally a tactic Prosecutors use to get persons to Spill their guts by Squealing . In
fact Manaport was treated like a common Criminal ; because they feared
that by knocking at the door he would have had time to destroy evidence .

 
Walco 2017-09-18 22:19:35 

In reply to black

Collusion, obstruction of justice or money laundering?

Collusion is not a crime

 
nitro 2017-09-18 22:20:37 

In reply to POINT

Manafort and Flynn maybe in trouble, not the President.

We cannot afford anybody to remove Trump. We will have a race war on our hands.

Only haters of America would wish that on this country.

 
Walco 2017-09-18 22:24:20 

In reply to nitro

We cannot afford anybody to remove Trump unless Mueller comes up with a smoking gun directly implicating Trump in criminal activity.

I fixed if for you.

 
black 2017-09-18 22:25:01 

In reply to Walco

It's not? Even if you are colluding with a foreign agent to affect the election?

 
black 2017-09-18 22:27:29 

In reply to nitro

We cannot afford anybody to remove Trump. We will have a race war on our hands.

Only haters of America would wish that on this country.


Dude, this is not optional, if he committed a crime, he has to be impeached.

 
Walco 2017-09-18 22:31:30 

In reply to black

That would be a conspiracy, which would definitely be illegal. Collusion is bandied about by reporters and by pundits, but conspiracy is what they are really talking about.

 
nitro 2017-09-18 22:31:46 

In reply to black

In your mind maybe.

 
POINT 2017-09-18 22:33:51 

In reply to Walco

Read very carefully :

COLLUDING WITH A FOREIGN POWER

TO AFFECT THE OUTCOME USA GENERAL

ELECTIONS IS A CRIME .

 
nitro 2017-09-18 22:36:00 

In reply to POINT
No it is not!

 
Walco 2017-09-18 22:36:16 

In reply to black

Here is the definition of conspiracy from Black's Law Dictionary

What is CONSPIRACY?

In criminal law. A combination or confederacy between two or more persons formed for the purpose of committing, by their joint efforts, some unlawful or criminal act, or some act which is innocent in itself, but becomes unlawful when done by the concerted action of the conspirators, or for the purpose of using criminal or unlawful means to the commission of an act not in itself unlawful. Pettibone v. U. S., 148 U. S. 197, 13 Sup. Ct. 542, 37 L. Ed. 419; State v. Slutz, 106 La. 182, 30 South. 298; Wright v. U. S., 108 Fed. 805, 48 C. C. A. 37; U. S. v. Benson, 70 Fed. 591, 17 C. C. A. 293; Girdner v. Walker, 1 Heisk. (Tenn.) 186; Boutwell v. Marr, 71 Vt. 1, 42 Atl. 607, 43 L. It. A. 803, 76 Am. St. Rep. 746; U. S. v. Weber (C. C.) 114 Fed. 950; Comm. v. Hunt, 4 Mete. (Mass.) Ill, 3S Am. Dec. 340; Erdman v. Mitchell, 207 Pa. 79, 56 Atl. 327, 63 L. R. A. 534, 99 Am. St. Rep. 7S3; Standard Oil Co. v. Doyle, US Ky. 602, 82 S. W. 271, 111 Am. St. Rep. 331. Conspiracy is a consultation or agreement between two or more persons, either falsely to accuse another of a crime punishable by law; or wrongfully to injure or prejudice a third person, or any body of men, in any manner; or to commit any offense punishable by law; or to do any act with intent to prevent the course of justice; or to effect a legal purpose with a corrupt intent, or by improper means. Hawk. P. C. c. 72.

 
black 2017-09-18 22:37:48 

In reply to Walco

Webster.


Definition of collusion

:secret agreement or cooperation especially for an illegal or deceitful purpose acting in collusion with the enemy


This would definitely be illegal because the U.S. laws prohibit it.

 
Walco 2017-09-18 22:45:57 

In reply to POINT

Look man, carry yuh shite somewhere else okay. Believe me when I tell you there is nothing you can teach me about law.

CONSPIRING WITH A FOREIGN POWER TO AFFECT THE OUTCOME USA GENERAL ELECTIONS IS A CRIME .

Fixed it for you. I will accept you apology when people are indicted for conspiracies.

 
Toney 2017-09-18 22:47:06 

In reply to nick2020

Grabbing p*$$y.


Not unless women press charges against him for grabbing den by their pussy.

Remember, Trump did not say he grabbed women's pussy. He said that those women would even let you grab them by the pussy. lol lol

 
Walco 2017-09-18 22:57:18 

In reply to black

What is COLLUSION?

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

As you can see from this definition, collusion is a civil action, not a criminal action. American attorneys use Black's Law Dictionary as their bible, not Webster.

 
black 2017-09-18 22:58:28 

In reply to Walco

I think you are wrong, if collusion was not the proper term, many experts would have corrected it by now. I have not heard any expert dispute that term.

 
black 2017-09-18 23:02:47 

In reply to Walco

Dude, the term is very broad, statutes are written to cover a wide range of situations.

 
Walco 2017-09-18 23:13:29 

In reply to black

Okay man. You and POINT carry on smile

By the way, I'm an expert in conspiracy law wink Let's see who gets indicted for conspiracy and who gets indicted for collusion. I will mark this thread.

 
black 2017-09-18 23:25:39 

In reply to Walco

I think both terms can be applied, collusion is not incorrect.

 
black 2017-09-18 23:32:45 

In reply to Walco

Conspiracy is a willful act, collusion might or might not be willful. That is the difference.

In other words, we don't know if this was a conspiracy, it could have been ignorance.

See the difference?

 
Walco 2017-09-18 23:54:02 

In reply to black

Let me get this straight. I tell you I'm an expert in conspiracy law, and you start teaching me about conspiracy law??? Boy yuh good. I bet you attended law school at Harvard or Yale or Stanford smile

 
POINT 2017-09-19 00:13:05 

In reply to nitro

Evidently you are unaware of the fact that Mueller is working closely with
the New York State Attorney General ,
Trump cannot pardon Persons convicted
by States Attorney Generals .

Obviously that will nullify any Pardons that Trump is thinking of
handing out . Go look it up if you don't believe me .

To use an America phrase , Mueller &
the New York State Attorney General
have all the bases covered . If you took the time and effort to look at
MSNBC & CNN , YOU would be well aware of the fact that what I am stating in this Forum is factual .

You need to stop looking at B.S that
FAUX NOISE peddles daily , Breitbart's Nonsense , Rupert Murdoch's New York Post & the National Enquirer , whose Owner is a
very good friend of Donald Trump .

 
black 2017-09-19 06:09:25 

In reply to Walco


Let me get this straight. I tell you I'm an expert in conspiracy law, and you start teaching me about conspiracy law??? Boy yuh good. I bet you attended law school at Harvard or Yale or Stanford


So why are other experts not disputing the term?

By the way, I am not arguing the law, I am arguing the simple definition of a word.

 
nitro 2017-09-19 06:22:53 

In reply to POINT

Why would I only watch networks who are enemies of the President?

Did you watch Foxnews for unbiased news on Obama or any other Democrat?

 
black 2017-09-19 07:23:12 

In reply to Walco

The difference is in the intent. Did Trump and associates deliberately set out to violate the law? That is still to be determined.

You cannot call it a conspiracy until you know all the facts.

 
sudden 2017-09-19 07:42:52 

In reply to black

you are a right asshole. what reporters refer to as collusion in this matter, is conspiracy. the learned Walco is correct.

 
black 2017-09-19 07:57:38 

In reply to sudden

I beg to differ. How can you call it a conspiracy, when that has not been determined. For all I know, these guys could be innocent.

Now, it could be a conspiracy but that is yet to be determined.

 
sudden 2017-09-19 08:12:55 

In reply to black

during the investigation, it will be suspicion of committing conspiracy if that is what they are looking at. like all other crimes even the so called collusion, which as the learned Walco pointed out, is a civil act term, an investigation will determine whether they are charged / indicted/ sued

 
black 2017-09-19 08:16:10 

In reply to sudden

Look, I know you guys are lawyers, but if being a lawyer makes you 100% correct, why are lawyers disputing the facts of this case everyday? Someone has to be wrong.

 
sudden 2017-09-19 08:18:54 

In reply to black

for a fee i can argue anything, understand

 
black 2017-09-19 08:20:41 

In reply to sudden

if it is an investigation, it will be suspicion of committing conspiracy until they are charged/indicted- like all other crimes even the so called collusion, which as the learned Walco pointed out, is a civil act term


Yes, I got all that, but in this case, they might not have known they were committing a crime. So, you have to wait for the facts to come out.

 
sudden 2017-09-19 08:21:31 

In reply to black

ignorance of the law is no excuse.

waiting for the facts to come out, if they do, is a process of the investigation, as i have tried to point out.

 
black 2017-09-19 08:33:05 

In reply to sudden


ignorance of the law is no excuse.


The intent is, do you remember the Hillary Clinton case? She could have been charged with a crime.

 
sudden 2017-09-19 08:40:21 

In reply to black

in most cases, intent or lack thereof is a mitigating factor, not a full prohibition from prosecution or lawful exception to a crime.

kill Nick and then say you didnt know that killing him is a crime. for a fee i would represent you

 
black 2017-09-19 08:43:14 

In reply to sudden

for a fee i can argue anything, understand


Don't get me wrong, I know there are people like Dershowitz out there, that guy would sell his mother for fifty bucks, but but other scholars genuinely disagree about this case.

 
black 2017-09-19 08:44:35 

In reply to sudden

kill Nick and then say you didnt know that killing him is a crime
.

You can do better than that.

 
sudden 2017-09-19 08:46:01 

In reply to black

in other words ignorance is no excuse, in most cases

 
sudden 2017-09-19 08:51:02 

In reply to black

what do they disagree about?

 
black 2017-09-19 09:02:06 

In reply to sudden

in other words ignorance is no excuse, in most cases


Ignorance is not an excuse in obvious cases.

Why did the government give you a license to drive? Isn't it because they expect you to understand the BASIC rules of the road?

I guarantee you, there are people out there that don't know the "not so basic" rules of the road.

 
sudden 2017-09-19 09:08:03 

In reply to black

must confess- you lost me there

 
black 2017-09-19 09:18:31 

In reply to sudden

must confess- you lost me there


Technically, Hillary Clinton violated the law, but she was not charged because the prosecution ruled that it was not intentional. You got me now?

 
nick2020 2017-09-19 09:29:13 

In reply to sudden

I need representation.

There is a guy online plotting my demise. Even telling his cohort he will receive legal counsel after he commits the act.

What are your fees?

 
sudden 2017-09-19 09:47:39 

In reply to black

Here are highlights of what Comey said:

“Although we did not find clear evidence that Secretary Clinton or her colleagues intended to violate laws governing the handling of classified information, there is evidence that they were extremely careless in their handling of very sensitive, highly classified information.”

Clinton’s emails included seven message chains with information classified as top secret.

“None of these emails should have been on any kind of unclassified system.”

“The security culture of the State Department …was generally lacking in the kind of care for classified information found elsewhere in the government.”

Comey acknowledged that the FBI did not normally make public its recommendations to prosecutors as to whether to bring criminal charges. He added: “In this case, given the importance of the matter, I think unusual transparency is in order.”

“Although there is evidence of potential violations of the statutes regarding the handling of classified information, our judgment is that no reasonable prosecutor would bring such a case.”

“I know there will be intense public debate in the wake of this recommendation, as there was throughout this investigation.”



Black, there are certain grades/ categories of crimes, so to speak- felonies, misdemeanours and summary offences. some require intent/knowledge and or the act- mens rea and actus reus, some require both and some only the act.

altho mishandling classified info is a felony the law requires intent or negligence as a requirement for prosecution.

now do you see what Comey was saying? his investigation couldnt prove intent on Clinton's part and proving negligence under the circumstances was speculative at best. note that Comey used the word careless (not a word in the statute) and not negligence which is an element of the offence

contrast that with conspiracy which in itself is like Walco describes- planning to act in concert with others to commit a criminal act. planning /scheming/ even colluding imply knowledge if not intent, dont they?

 
Walco 2017-09-19 09:49:11 

In reply to black

Technically, Hillary Clinton violated the law, but she was not charged because the prosecution ruled that it was not intentional.

Bredrin, this is not as simple as you think. That's why you have to study a ling time and take a bar exam to practice law. There are specific intent crimes and general intent crimes. Clinton could not have violated any law, technically or otherwise, if she did not have the requisite intent.

 
black 2017-09-19 09:53:37 

In reply to Walco

OMG. That is exactly what I said.

 
black 2017-09-19 10:00:16 

In reply to Walco


Black, there are certain grades/ categories of crimes, so to speak- felonies, misdemeanours and summary offences. some require intent/knowledge and or the act- mens rea and actus reus, some require both and some only the act.

altho mishandling classified info is a felony the law requires intent or negligence as a requirement for prosecution.

now do you see what Comey was saying? his investigation couldnt prove intent on Clinton's part and proving negligence under the circumstances was speculative at best. note that Comey used the word careless (not a word in the statute) and not negligence which is an element of the offence



I said the same thing, with five hundred less words.

contrast that with conspiracy which in itself is like Walco describes- planning to act in concert with other to commit a criminal act. planning /scheming/ even colluding imply knowledge if not intent, dont they


But, we don't know that yet, do we?

 
sudden 2017-09-19 10:13:37 

In reply to black

you are as thick as a jungle. of course we dont know yet, otherwise you wont be talking shoite and Walco and i wont be trying to explain it to you.

you wrote this in reply to WALCO's definitions of conspiracy and collusion, correct?

The difference is in the intent. Did Trump and associates deliberately set out to violate the law? That is still to be determined.

You cannot call it a conspiracy until you know all the facts.


your words - the difference is intent. implied in the word conspiracy or even collusion is intent/knowledge. how can you plan to do some act if you didnt have the knowledge/intention and the only reason you arent being investigated or charged as the case may be for the offence itself is because the act was not completed or could not be proven to be completed hence conspiracy is the easier / appropriate offence to prosecute
evil

 
nick2020 2017-09-19 10:39:05 

In reply to sudden

What about my plight?

 
sudden 2017-09-19 10:41:47 

In reply to nick2020

I need representation.

There is a guy online plotting my demise. Even telling his cohort he will receive legal counsel after he commits the act.

What are your fees?


give me a call when the act is completed. i will represent you pro bono. no sense wasting your money at this stage

 
black 2017-09-19 11:18:29 

In reply to sudden

Ok, here is the definition of both.


Black's Law Dictionary defines collusion as "a deceitful agreement or compact between two or more persons, for the one party to bring an action against the other for some evil purpose, as to defraud a third party..." A conspiracy, on the other hand, is defined as "a combination or confederacy between two or more persons formed for the purposes of committing, by their joint efforts, some unlawful or criminal act, or some act which is innocent in itself, but becomes unlawful when done by the concerted action of the conspirators." Got it? You can have collusion without having a criminal conspiracy, but you can't have a criminal conspiracy without some sort of collusion.


All I am saying is, the conspiracy charge will come, when it is proven.

 
nick2020 2017-09-19 12:17:29 

In reply to sudden

Attempted or successful?

But I have you on record. Me, my estate, will call you. Collect.

 
sudden 2017-09-19 12:32:07 

In reply to nick2020

successful would be best for all concerned

 
Kay 2017-09-19 12:54:04 

In reply to black

Why did the government give you a license to drive? Isn't it because they expect you to understand the BASIC rules of the road?

Give? I thought you have to earn it by proving via tests that you do know the basics rules of the road...

 
black 2017-09-19 13:17:01 

In reply to Kay

Semantics

 
Walco 2017-09-19 13:48:04 

In reply to black

Man you spinning more than a windmill in a hurricane. You started this thread inquiring whether Trump will be convicted for the crime of collusion. I pointed out that "collusion" is not a crime.

Now the conversation has changed from whether collusion is a crime to whether there can be a conspiracy without collusion. The answer is yes. You should reread the definition of collusion from Black's law dictionary, keeping in mind that "an action" is a lawsuit or legal proceeding. Collusion has a very narrow definition under the law.

 
black 2017-09-19 14:22:01 

In reply to Walco

I still hold to my claim, you are the one that claimed it was a conspiracy. Like I said, it might be but it has not been proven.


We know that they worked with the Russians, we don't know if it was their intention to commit conspiracy.

 
Walco 2017-09-19 14:46:05 

In reply to black

I still hold to my claim, you are the one that claimed it was a conspiracy. Like I said, it might be but it has not been proven.

Which claim? The one that collusion is a crime or the one that you cannot have a conspiracy without collusion?

BTW, I can make out a conspiracy case against Trump Jr. right now (solely based upon publicly available evidence) and probably nail his father as a coconspirator. You would be amazed at how easy it is to prove a criminal conspiracy. Don't have the time now though.

 
POINT 2017-09-19 15:05:34 

In reply to black

So then the pertinent question is this?

WHAT WAS THE PURPOSE OF THEM WORKING

WITH THE RUSSIANS ?????


WERE THEY GOING TO BUY CAVIAR OR WERE

THEY GOING TO SABOTAGE HILLARY

CLINTON'S CAMPAIGN ?????

One thing I know for sure is that the
freaking Answer aint Blowing in the
Wind . I also know that involving a Foreign Country in the USA Elections
especially Russia was & is a huge mistake .

Like it or not ALL REPUBLICANS up for Reelection next year are going to be tarred with asinine Matter . Please remember that Donald J Trump is currently the Head of the Republican
Party .

In essence his Sins are also their Sins ; They accepted him into their Party ; if the Devil himself came to Earth in Human form , the Republicans would have selected him .

THEY were only interested in Winning
nothing else mattered to them . Make absolutely no mistake either , this
was a Backlash against President Obama's winning two Terms in Office .

Make no mistake , the Republicans will beheld accountable for whatever
Trump does & says .The Midterm Elections next year will give us all
a Clue , regarding Trump & the Republican Party Support in the USA .

 
archangel 2017-09-19 15:20:24 

In reply to nitro



We will have a race war on our hands.



Finally.
Phew!

 
black 2017-09-19 15:52:03 

In reply to POINT

I'll be glad if they are charged with conspiracy.

 
Dan_De_Lyan 2017-09-19 16:48:46 

In reply to Runs

All those women got picked by a land rover

 
Courtesy 2017-09-19 19:22:20 

I won the award for most arrogant here, or is it Sudden?

There should be an award for most ingrunt.

lol lol lol

 
black 2017-09-19 20:57:02 

In reply to Walco and Sudden

Ok, there's a stronger argument to be made for conspiracy.

I didn't have the time to research until now.

There, I said it. lol

 
Walco 2017-09-20 12:58:53 

In reply to black

Sudden and I should bill you for services rendered smile

 
black 2017-09-20 13:03:26 

In reply to Walco

lol lol lol

The media is fucked up, collusion is always what I heard, when I watched the news.