• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Mueller "Witch Hunt"

Tangmo said:
The standard of an investigation is its probative value under enabling statutes.

If no probative value is found the investigation is closed according to statutes. If probative value is found then the investigation proceeds according to law. Your being an internet discussion board Rudy Giuliani doesn't cut it. That's cause you never made it past the bar down there. So you post whatever pops inside your head for the moment.
Click to expand...

"Collusion" isn't a statute. So...
 
apdst said:
"Collusion" isn't a statute. So...
Click to expand...

Where did the poster use the word Collusion in the post you quoted? NOWHERE. Now Donald says No Collusion, a meaningless contention in the current context about 5 times a day.
 
apdst said:
"Collusion" isn't a statute. So...
Click to expand...


That's two years old now.

Sooo....

Russia investigation: Stanford law professor explains why Trump is wrong to say ‘collusion is not a crime’

Although collusion is not technically illegal, it can feature in crimes of accomplice liability and conspiracy


Collusion is not a crime, but colluding can be. In the colloquial sense, collusion simply means an act of secret cooperation, generally for nefarious ends. There’s no law you can violate that constitutes collusion in the third degree – but working with someone in a conspiracy to break the law is illegal.

It’s called conspiracy.

“Every conspiracy is a form of collusion,” Stanford law professor Robert Weisberg said in a telephone interview on Tuesday. “Conspiracy is an agreement to do a crime plus some overt act in that direction. It’s really that simple.” An advantage of the law from a prosecutorial standpoint, he added, was that “you can punish the agreement and the overt act even if no one comes very, very close to committing the crime.”

“The collusion term is a red herring,” Mr Weisberg said. “Both accomplice liability – which is the same thing as complicity – and conspiracy could easily be described as forms of collusion, and they’re both ways of committing crimes.”

Mr Trump’s argument is, to some extent, like saying that wiring money is not illegal. It’s not!

But wiring money to pay a hit man is.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/...lusion-stanford-robert-weisberg-a8472356.html


USC provides for probing conspiracy law violations when collusion or colluding exist. Collusion is thus the statutory entree' to the crime of conspiracy. Prosecutors pursue charges of conspiracy, not the collusion that occurred before the suspected conspiracy happened. If you collude to wire money there isn't any crime to investigate, i.e., to probe. However, if you collude to wire money to commit a crime, you are liable under USC to be probed for a crime.

Then again, someone who never made it past the bar down there won't ever get this.
 
Taylor said:
Yep, that's pretty much been my take on these convictions.
Click to expand...

I don't even know what that means in the context of the post I was responding to. Nice try though.
 
So the absurdity of Trump's position becomes more apparent with every comment. He says he wants "full transparency" of the FISA Warrants. Well in fact he is not actually supporting full transparency, just the most classified sections.

What is the future supposed to hold for this country if this material is released. Should we expect FISA Warrants to be authorized and then released to the public at whim, at any time regardless of its during an ongoing investigation or not? Forget it then. Shut down all of the Investigative functions of the FBI...the Libertarians win! Nicely done Donald.

I have a question. Does anybody think Donald has any earthly idea the dynamics of future investigation he is setting up with this nonsense and does he have any idea how gleeful Valdimir is at this very moment?

I would point here to a comment I made in a different thread. The New Right has NOTHING to do with Conservatism. Conservatives actually cared about National Security. They did not support the use of National Security for one's own political purposes and one's own self-aggransizement.
 
Tangmo said:
That's two years old now.

Sooo....

Russia investigation: Stanford law professor explains why Trump is wrong to say ‘collusion is not a crime’

Although collusion is not technically illegal, it can feature in crimes of accomplice liability and conspiracy


Collusion is not a crime, but colluding can be. In the colloquial sense, collusion simply means an act of secret cooperation, generally for nefarious ends. There’s no law you can violate that constitutes collusion in the third degree – but working with someone in a conspiracy to break the law is illegal.

It’s called conspiracy.

“Every conspiracy is a form of collusion,” Stanford law professor Robert Weisberg said in a telephone interview on Tuesday. “Conspiracy is an agreement to do a crime plus some overt act in that direction. It’s really that simple.” An advantage of the law from a prosecutorial standpoint, he added, was that “you can punish the agreement and the overt act even if no one comes very, very close to committing the crime.”

“The collusion term is a red herring,” Mr Weisberg said. “Both accomplice liability – which is the same thing as complicity – and conspiracy could easily be described as forms of collusion, and they’re both ways of committing crimes.”

Mr Trump’s argument is, to some extent, like saying that wiring money is not illegal. It’s not!

But wiring money to pay a hit man is.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/...lusion-stanford-robert-weisberg-a8472356.html


USC provides for probing conspiracy law violations when collusion or colluding exist. Collusion is thus the statutory entree' to the crime of conspiracy. Prosecutors pursue charges of conspiracy, not the collusion that occurred before the suspected conspiracy happened. If you collude to wire money there isn't any crime to investigate, i.e., to probe. However, if you collude to wire money to commit a crime, you are liable under USC to be probed for a crime.

Then again, someone who never made it past the bar down there won't ever get this.
Click to expand...

Show us the law prohibiting "collusion". Or, the law prohibiting "conspiracy". "Conspiracy" isn't a crime. Your co-workers may conspire to overload your coffee with sugar, while you aren't looking, but overloading your coffee with sugar isn't a crime.
 
apdst said:
Show us the law prohibiting "collusion". Or, the law prohibiting "conspiracy". "Conspiracy" isn't a crime. Your co-workers may conspire to overload your coffee with sugar, while you aren't looking, but overloading your coffee with sugar isn't a crime.
Click to expand...

Conspiracy to defraud the United States is. Keep up the ridiculous analogies that are not actual analogies though. They are fun reading anyway.
 
jnug said:
Conspiracy to defraud the United States is. Keep up the ridiculous analogies that are not actual analogies though. They are fun reading anyway.
Click to expand...

How was The United States government defrauded?

Opposition research has nothing to do with the government.

Go ahead and give us your breathlessly rediculous explanation.
 
How was The United States government defrauded?

Opposition research has nothing to do with the government.

Go ahead and give us your breathlessly rediculous explanation.


That will be the likely charge if a charge is made involving either Stone, Don Jr or Don Sr. You can play ring around the rosy all you want. The evidence will be the evidence once its presented and not before that. Notice if you will that none of them have been interviewed by Mueller's team. You can keep living with the fantasy that there is actually no reason for that.

I suspect that Mueller knows more about what is and is not Oppo research than you do and what a crime is and what a crime is not. In fact I am dead sure of it.
 
Last edited:
apdst said:
prob·a·ble cause
nounLAWNORTH AMERICAN
reasonable grounds (for making a search, pressing a charge, etc.).
Click to expand...
Hmmm Police Magazine: Probable Cause and Reasonable Suspicion
Some actions you take have been classified by Supreme Court decisions as requiring that you articulate a "reasonable suspicion" in order to make them constitutionally reasonable, while others can be undertaken only if there is "probable cause" ("PC")

The Law Dictionary
Probable cause and reasonable suspicion are two of the most important concepts in deciding the when it is appropriate for police to make an arrest, search for evidence and stop a person for questioning.
Oh, and note that investigations are not mentioned as needing either.
 
apdst said:
How was The United States government defrauded?

Opposition research has nothing to do with the government.

Go ahead and give us your breathlessly rediculous explanation.
Click to expand...

Partisan use of government departments and personnel to spy on political opponents and to create fake investigations which do damage to the executive branch of the US government are not sins which do not matter.
 
jnug said:
So the absurdity of Trump's position becomes more apparent with every comment. He says he wants "full transparency" of the FISA Warrants. Well in fact he is not actually supporting full transparency, just the most classified sections.

What is the future supposed to hold for this country if this material is released. Should we expect FISA Warrants to be authorized and then released to the public at whim, at any time regardless of its during an ongoing investigation or not? Forget it then. Shut down all of the Investigative functions of the FBI...the Libertarians win! Nicely done Donald.

I have a question. Does anybody think Donald has any earthly idea the dynamics of future investigation he is setting up with this nonsense and does he have any idea how gleeful Valdimir is at this very moment?

I would point here to a comment I made in a different thread. The New Right has NOTHING to do with Conservatism. Conservatives actually cared about National Security. They did not support the use of National Security for one's own political purposes and one's own self-aggransizement.
Click to expand...

Trump has argued since day 1 that there was no collusion between his campaign and Russia. Indeed, there have been no charges or prosecutions claiming the contrary. That needs to start being a relevent fact.

There has been a further argument that the motivation behind the claim and investigation is political: that the standards and systems of law enforcement were twisted to enable this investigation.

Trump wishes to declassify certain items that bear on the genesis of this investigation. Its not clear why Vladimir would be happy if further evidence of his little secret was revealed, or if further evidence of it being a sham was revealed.
 
pinqy said:
Hmmm Police Magazine: Probable Cause and Reasonable Suspicion
Some actions you take have been classified by Supreme Court decisions as requiring that you articulate a "reasonable suspicion" in order to make them constitutionally reasonable, while others can be undertaken only if there is "probable cause" ("PC")

The Law Dictionary
Probable cause and reasonable suspicion are two of the most important concepts in deciding the when it is appropriate for police to make an arrest, search for evidence and stop a person for questioning.
Oh, and note that investigations are not mentioned as needing either.
Click to expand...

Investigations require probable cause.
 
Athanasius68 said:
Trump has argued since day 1 that there was no collusion between his campaign and Russia. Indeed, there have been no charges or prosecutions claiming the contrary. That needs to start being a relevent fact.

There has been a further argument that the motivation behind the claim and investigation is political: that the standards and systems of law enforcement were twisted to enable this investigation.

Trump wishes to declassify certain items that bear on the genesis of this investigation. Its not clear why Vladimir would be happy if further evidence of his little secret was revealed, or if further evidence of it being a sham was revealed.
Click to expand...

1) I don't give a rats behind what Trump claims about collusion. For one thing his entire collusion argument is meaningless within the context of a prosecutorial investigation. If he was yammering about "no conspiracy" he would at least be be contextually on target. Let the investigation run its course. Watergate took 930 days to resolve and if Nixon not been compelled to resign at that point it would have been 1,000 days. So people need so just get real about the term of this extremely complicated investigation. This makes Watergate look like child's play. We will know when we know and we won't know a darned thing worth knowing until we get the evidence.

2) In part you will be able to judge the voracity of the investigation through its results! The idea that you investigate the investigators while they are investigating is NONSENSE. Those in power who support that nonsense are doing it for personal political gain and self aggrandizement. Those citizens who support that notion are willing to see the system burned to the ground just so they get some sort of information about the veracity of the investigation now. They don't want full information. They just want the information that supports their conspiratorial theories. Full information would start with the result and judging that result for what it is. If people want to investigate and then tar and feather the investigators at that point there are remedies to salve that wound. THIS IS UTTER NONSENSE, it is self righteous in the extreme and a complete misunderstanding of how to redress grievances within the confines of a system.

3) Finally why would Vladimir be thrilled? He would be thrilled because what he has planned and executed continues to work beyond his wildest dreams. You are blindly supporting pulling apart the norms and institutions that bind this country wrongly claiming that you are going to save something by doing that. Honestly I no longer can determine if people are just that unscrupulous as to want to get their way no matter what or if they aren't suffering massive failures of imagination and a complete lack of real curiosity. If you were truly "curious" you would allow the RESULT of this investigation to be the first step in redressing what you THINK might be a grievance.

As for what Trump wants for a documents release, Trump only wants to release what he hopes will provide more fuel to what is in the main a political fire he hopes will help burn down the Investigative effort. It is not a full release and there should be no release at this point. It is entirely self serving on his part while playing into misguided conspiratorial nonsense that does not represent real curiosity or real interest in governmental oversight. Real oversight begins with a review of the results of the Investigation.
 
jnug said:
1) I don't give a rats behind what Trump claims about collusion. For one thing his entire collusion argument is meaningless within the context of a prosecutorial investigation. If he was yammering about "no conspiracy" he would at least be be contextually on target. Let the investigation run its course. Watergate took 930 days to resolve and if Nixon not been compelled to resign at that point it would have been 1,000 days. So people need so just get real about the term of this extremely complicated investigation. This makes Watergate look like child's play. We will know when we know and we won't know a darned thing worth knowing until we get the evidence.

2) In part you will be able to judge the voracity of the investigation through its results! The idea that you investigate the investigators while they are investigating is NONSENSE. Those in power who support that nonsense are doing it for personal political gain and self aggrandizement. Those citizens who support that notion are willing to see the system burned to the ground just so they get some sort of information about the veracity of the investigation now. They don't want full information. They just want the information that supports their conspiratorial theories. Full information would start with the result and judging that result for what it is. If people want to investigate and then tar and feather the investigators at that point there are remedies to salve that wound. THIS IS UTTER NONSENSE, it is self righteous in the extreme and a complete misunderstanding of how to redress grievances within the confines of a system.

3) Finally why would Vladimir be thrilled? He would be thrilled because what he has planned and executed continues to work beyond his wildest dreams. You are blindly supporting pulling apart the norms and institutions that bind this country wrongly claiming that you are going to save something by doing that. Honestly I no longer can determine if people are just that unscrupulous as to want to get their way no matter what or if they aren't suffering massive failures of imagination and a complete lack of real curiosity. If you were truly "curious" you would allow the RESULT of this investigation to be the first step in redressing what you THINK might be a grievance.

As for what Trump wants for a documents release, Trump only wants to release what he hopes will provide more fuel to what is in the main a political fire he hopes will help burn down the Investigative effort. It is not a full release and there should be no release at this point. It is entirely self serving on his part while playing into misguided conspiratorial nonsense that does not represent real curiosity or real interest in governmental oversight. Real oversight begins with a review of the results of the Investigation.
Click to expand...

1. In Watergate, there was a crime alleged. Here- there is nothing. Just a lot of conjecture as to what Mueller is probably doing.

2. Investigating the actions of the investigators happens all the time. Given the nature of the start of the investigation, the FISA warrants, warrants that do not allow the investigated to challenge the basis of the investigation, how else does one challenge the investigation?

3. Uncritically accepting the dictates of the government is what tears the system.
 
Athanasius68 said:
1. In Watergate, there was a crime alleged. Here- there is nothing. Just a lot of conjecture as to what Mueller is probably doing.

2. Investigating the actions of the investigators happens all the time. Given the nature of the start of the investigation, the FISA warrants, warrants that do not allow the investigated to challenge the basis of the investigation, how else does one challenge the investigation?

3. Uncritically accepting the dictates of the government is what tears the system.
Click to expand...

Mueller's last hope is that democrats will win back power in Congress and shut down any efforts to have prosecutors look into what facts laid the groundwork for his phony investigation of Trump/Russia collusion. That is why Mueller cannot allow his investigation to end before the mid term elections.
 
apdst said:
Investigations can't be launched using false evidence, nor without evidence. They certainly can't be launched based on a make believe crime.
Click to expand...
I completely agree.
But you stated that probable cause was the standard that had to be met. Are you changing your position?

Example: the polic receive an anonymous tip that X(a known felon) is running a crack house in a specified neighborhood.
This is NOT probable cause for an arrest warrant or a search warrant.
It is NOT reasonable suspicion to stop or detain X.

By your claim that probable cause is necessary for an investigation, it follows that your opinion would be the police should ignore the tip altogether.

I would consider that poor police work. I hold that the police should investigate that neighborhood and X’s activities to see if there is any evidence that the tip is true, or determine if it is false.

Do you still claim probable cause is the standard?
 
pinqy said:
I completely agree.
But you stated that probable cause was the standard that had to be met. Are you changing your position?

Example: the polic receive an anonymous tip that X(a known felon) is running a crack house in a specified neighborhood.
This is NOT probable cause for an arrest warrant or a search warrant.
It is NOT reasonable suspicion to stop or detain X.

By your claim that probable cause is necessary for an investigation, it follows that your opinion would be the police should ignore the tip altogether.

I would consider that poor police work. I hold that the police should investigate that neighborhood and X’s activities to see if there is any evidence that the tip is true, or determine if it is false.

Do you still claim probable cause is the standard?
Click to expand...

Probable cause means they have evidence. :lamo

Holy crap!...lol
 
jnug said:
1) I don't give a rats behind what Trump claims about collusion. For one thing his entire collusion argument is meaningless within the context of a prosecutorial investigation. If he was yammering about "no conspiracy" he would at least be be contextually on target. Let the investigation run its course. Watergate took 930 days to resolve and if Nixon not been compelled to resign at that point it would have been 1,000 days. So people need so just get real about the term of this extremely complicated investigation. This makes Watergate look like child's play. We will know when we know and we won't know a darned thing worth knowing until we get the evidence.

2) In part you will be able to judge the voracity of the investigation through its results! The idea that you investigate the investigators while they are investigating is NONSENSE. Those in power who support that nonsense are doing it for personal political gain and self aggrandizement. Those citizens who support that notion are willing to see the system burned to the ground just so they get some sort of information about the veracity of the investigation now. They don't want full information. They just want the information that supports their conspiratorial theories. Full information would start with the result and judging that result for what it is. If people want to investigate and then tar and feather the investigators at that point there are remedies to salve that wound. THIS IS UTTER NONSENSE, it is self righteous in the extreme and a complete misunderstanding of how to redress grievances within the confines of a system.

3) Finally why would Vladimir be thrilled? He would be thrilled because what he has planned and executed continues to work beyond his wildest dreams. You are blindly supporting pulling apart the norms and institutions that bind this country wrongly claiming that you are going to save something by doing that. Honestly I no longer can determine if people are just that unscrupulous as to want to get their way no matter what or if they aren't suffering massive failures of imagination and a complete lack of real curiosity. If you were truly "curious" you would allow the RESULT of this investigation to be the first step in redressing what you THINK might be a grievance.

As for what Trump wants for a documents release, Trump only wants to release what he hopes will provide more fuel to what is in the main a political fire he hopes will help burn down the Investigative effort. It is not a full release and there should be no release at this point. It is entirely self serving on his part while playing into misguided conspiratorial nonsense that does not represent real curiosity or real interest in governmental oversight. Real oversight begins with a review of the results of the Investigation.
Click to expand...

And you don’t seam to be concerned about the new text that shows they had nothing factual to support the investigation, or the resent meeting with Page were she confirmed they had nothing, are you ok with our FBI treating private citizens this way. Or maybe you don’t like Trump so you don’t care!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
pinqy said:
I completely agree.
But you stated that probable cause was the standard that had to be met. Are you changing your position?

Example: the polic receive an anonymous tip that X(a known felon) is running a crack house in a specified neighborhood.
This is NOT probable cause for an arrest warrant or a search warrant.
It is NOT reasonable suspicion to stop or detain X.

By your claim that probable cause is necessary for an investigation, it follows that your opinion would be the police should ignore the tip altogether.

I would consider that poor police work. I hold that the police should investigate that neighborhood and X’s activities to see if there is any evidence that the tip is true, or determine if it is false.

Do you still claim probable cause is the standard?
Click to expand...

Sure the police will drive buy so called location, if they never catch so called criminal at said location, can they start investigating said criminals family and friends for crimes and investigate said criminal until they maybe find something all because someone said he might be. Is that how it works?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom