- Joined
- Apr 20, 2018
- Messages
- 10,257
- Reaction score
- 4,161
- Location
- Washington, D.C.
- Gender
- Undisclosed
- Political Leaning
- Undisclosed
Definition of "collusion":
Definition of "deceive"
The above definitions notwithstanding, the fact is "collusion" does not exist as a criminal act in the U.S. Code; thus collusion is merely an act, a behavior undertaken by two or more parties. Collusion may, however, transform into being illegal, in which case the applicable offense is "conspiracy," or it may not, in which the behavior in question is collusion.
As goes whether the "Trump Tower meeting with several Russians suggests the will to collude with Russians:
As noted, the law criminalizes conspiracy, but not collusion. A key distinguishing feature of conspiracy is that it doesn't require that an unlawful outcome result. For conspiracy, one need only act willfully to achieve an outcome that, regardless of whether the outcome comes to fruition, would be unlawful to have achieved in the way one achieved it. That is how, for example, one can be guilty of conspiring to commit, say, murder without actually murdering someone.
In short, "conspiracy to commit XYZ" is nothing other than the group version of "attempted XYZ" as undertaken by an individual. That should shock nobody for it's well understood that attempting to break the law, along with actually violating a law, is unlawful.
Did anyone on the Trump team, with or without Trump's approbation, conspire to commit an illegal act? I don't know for sure, but it strains credulity to think that there is no or only a slight chance they did. Furthermore, given Trump's track record for lying, there's no basis for believing his attestations that neither collusion nor conspiracy occurred between his people and Russians, or anyone else, for that matter, for it's clear collusion happened at Trump Tower at least once.
- Merriam-Webster --> secret agreement or cooperation especially for an illegal or deceitful purpose
Definition of "deceive"
- Merriam-Webster's non-obsolete, non-archaic definition:
- Transitive: to cause to accept as true or valid what is false or invalid
- Intransitive: to make someone believe something that is not true
The above definitions notwithstanding, the fact is "collusion" does not exist as a criminal act in the U.S. Code; thus collusion is merely an act, a behavior undertaken by two or more parties. Collusion may, however, transform into being illegal, in which case the applicable offense is "conspiracy," or it may not, in which the behavior in question is collusion.
As goes whether the "Trump Tower meeting with several Russians suggests the will to collude with Russians:
- There is no way to credibly refute that to the extent the Trump campaign team members who participated in it were at least willing to cooperate with Russians to achieve one or several of the campaign's ends. That Trump's personnel met with those Russians is evidence of their (Trumpers') willingness to cooperate with the Russians and/or the principal(s) whose interests those meeting-attending Russians represented.
- We already know that at least one of those Russians participation was for the purpose of representing the interests of someone else's interests. At the very least, Natalia V. participated in the meeting so she could inform a Russian state official about matters pertaining to the Trump campaign; thus she was there as an agent of the Russian state.
- That Trump team members met with the Russian state actor(s)/cut-out shows that the group colluded the fact that they met shows they were, at least at that moment, cooperating.
- Why did Trump's people collude: Trump's people cooperated/colluded with the Russian meeting attendees to obtain from the Russian state negative information about Hillary Clinton.
- Are foreign states and their agents/officials permitted to participate in the U.S. electoral process? No. Period.
- Why did Trump's people collude: Trump's people cooperated/colluded with the Russian meeting attendees to obtain from the Russian state negative information about Hillary Clinton.
- There is no question that Trump and/or his campaign team uttered myriad remarks that were untrue and that Trump wanted the American electorate to accept as truthful.
- The instant one is found to have lied, the question of why did one lie becomes a valid one to ask. And let's be honest; rarely does one lie to hide innocuous (to oneself or others) and/or exculpatory facts/details. After all, Trump's and his people's lies aren't/weren't uttered to deceive the guest of honor about the planning/occurence of a surprise birthday party or something similar.
As noted, the law criminalizes conspiracy, but not collusion. A key distinguishing feature of conspiracy is that it doesn't require that an unlawful outcome result. For conspiracy, one need only act willfully to achieve an outcome that, regardless of whether the outcome comes to fruition, would be unlawful to have achieved in the way one achieved it. That is how, for example, one can be guilty of conspiring to commit, say, murder without actually murdering someone.
In short, "conspiracy to commit XYZ" is nothing other than the group version of "attempted XYZ" as undertaken by an individual. That should shock nobody for it's well understood that attempting to break the law, along with actually violating a law, is unlawful.
Did anyone on the Trump team, with or without Trump's approbation, conspire to commit an illegal act? I don't know for sure, but it strains credulity to think that there is no or only a slight chance they did. Furthermore, given Trump's track record for lying, there's no basis for believing his attestations that neither collusion nor conspiracy occurred between his people and Russians, or anyone else, for that matter, for it's clear collusion happened at Trump Tower at least once.
