Collusion, obstruction of justice or money laundering?
Remember, Mueller is looking at everything and they (FBI) have about a 90% conviction rate.
Message Board Archives
What would Trump be found guilty of
In reply to black
Grabbing p*$$y.
In reply to black
...for being a lying racist sack of shyte. But we don't need a court to convict him of those things.
The Scots had already sussed him out.
In reply to SnoopDog
In reply to SnoopDog
Only in America.
You'll get about 90 years in Saudi Arabia for that, plus a good whipping.
In reply to black
For beating Democrats BIGLY!
In reply to nitro
Now he is regretting it.
He said, any investigation into his finances would be crossing the line.
Too late.
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!
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.
Since Jared and Junior live in NY, they are more likely to face NY State charges.
Keep up nitro.
In reply to black
All three but OOJ will be the biggest one along with the ML
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".
In reply to nitro
He making friends on both sides or in his words, "many sides"
FBI don't choose sides.
In reply to black
being an idiot and an embarassment to the presidency of the United states.
What happend to all those women that came forward during the election? Given money and gag order?
In reply to Runs
they were paid by the billary campaign to lie against the GREAT DONALD TRUMP!
In reply to black
They chose Crooked Clinton!
In reply to nitro
The first on many indictments are about to be handed down.
Don't get nervous nitro.
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 .
In reply to black
Collusion is not a crime
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.
In reply to nitro
I fixed if for you.
In reply to Walco
It's not? Even if you are colluding with a foreign agent to affect the election?
In reply to nitro
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.
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.
In reply to black
In your mind maybe.
In reply to Walco
Read very carefully :
COLLUDING WITH A FOREIGN POWER
TO AFFECT THE OUTCOME USA GENERAL
ELECTIONS IS A CRIME .
In reply to POINT
No it is not!
In reply to black
Here is the definition of conspiracy from Black's Law Dictionary
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.
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.
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.
Fixed it for you. I will accept you apology when people are indicted for conspiracies.
In reply to nick2020
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.
In reply to black
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.
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.
In reply to Walco
Dude, the term is very broad, statutes are written to cover a wide range of situations.
In reply to black
Okay man. You and POINT carry on
By the way, I'm an expert in conspiracy law Let's see who gets indicted for conspiracy and who gets indicted for collusion. I will mark this thread.
In reply to Walco
I think both terms can be applied, collusion is not incorrect.
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?
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
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 .
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
In reply to black
for a fee i can argue anything, understand
In reply to sudden
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.
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.
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.
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
In reply to sudden
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.
In reply to sudden
You can do better than that.
In reply to black
in other words ignorance is no excuse, in most cases
In reply to black
what do they disagree about?
In reply to sudden
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.
In reply to black
must confess- you lost me there
In reply to sudden
Technically, Hillary Clinton violated the law, but she was not charged because the prosecution ruled that it was not intentional. You got me now?
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?
In reply to black
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.
Clintons 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?
In reply to black
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.
In reply to Walco
OMG. That is exactly what I said.
In reply to Walco
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.
But, we don't know that yet, do we?
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?
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
In reply to sudden
What about my plight?
In reply to nick2020
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
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.
In reply to sudden
Attempted or successful?
But I have you on record. Me, my estate, will call you. Collect.
In reply to nick2020
successful would be best for all concerned
In reply to black
Give? I thought you have to earn it by proving via tests that you do know the basics rules of the road...
In reply to Kay
Semantics
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.
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.
In reply to black
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.
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 .
In reply to nitro
Finally.
Phew!
In reply to POINT
I'll be glad if they are charged with conspiracy.
In reply to Runs
All those women got picked by a land rover
I won the award for most arrogant here, or is it Sudden?
There should be an award for most ingrunt.
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.
In reply to black
Sudden and I should bill you for services rendered
In reply to Walco
The media is fucked up, collusion is always what I heard, when I watched the news.
Search
Live Scores
- no matches