Is collusion even a crime?

"...accepting information from a foreign government that might be helpful to your campaign is not illegal, he added."

Maybe OO is right, it's not collusion, just treason:

"Ex-Bush ethics lawyer on Trump Jr: 'This borders on treason'"

http://thehill.com/homenews/administrati...awyer-this


For the record, I have no idea, I'm not an expert. I just know that we had Comey thinking all this was worth investigating, as well as numerous *Republican* Senators and also Mueller who is a Republican but highly respected on both sides of the aisle.

So we are supposed to believe all of them are part of a partisan anti-Trump witch hunt?

(07-11-2017 08:24 AM)JustAnotherAustinOwl Wrote:  Maybe OO is right, it's not collusion, just treason:

"Ex-Bush ethics lawyer on Trump Jr: 'This borders on treason'"

http://thehill.com/homenews/administrati...awyer-this


For the record, I have no idea, I'm not an expert. I just know that we had Comey thinking all this was worth investigating, as well as numerous *Republican* Senators and also Mueller who is a Republican but highly respected on both sides of the aisle.

So we are supposed to believe all of them are part of a partisan anti-Trump witch hunt?

Well, let us start with the fact that "bordering" on treason is not the same as saying he committed treason. One thing I notice from the left that that when somebody says "maybe" or "possibly", in a few short minutes it is taken as a fact as long as it is a negative toward Trump. Part of being in the Resistance, I guess.

“This was an effort to get opposition research on an opponent in an American political campaign from the Russians..." I guess this guy has not yet heard about Ukraine helping Clinton.

"... who were known to be engaged in spying inside the United States,” Richard Painter said Sunday on MSNBC." Sure, russians are spying, as are Israelis, Koreans, japanese, and about 200 other governments. But THIS person denies being a spy or even a tool of the Russian government. Shouldn't we stop the profiling that defines every person who is or knows a Russian is a spy? convict her first, then move on to everybody she has ever met.

Lastly, MSNBC?

We are agreed and correct in one thing, though. It's not collusion.

No, we are not experts, and we don't need to be. We are voters and citizens, and all we need to do is to apply the same principles of logic and reason we would to any other conspiracy theory. I once knew a Holocaust denier. Well, not a denier, exactly,, more of a minimizer. His belief was that 200,000 max were killed by Hitler, not the 6,000,000 claimed. This guy was a WW II combat vet (pacific theatre - Iwo Jima). No amount of proof, logic, and reason could shake his belief that that was what really happened. Kind of reminds me of this collusion thing.

You raise enough stink, even the Republicans will call for investigation, just to clear the air of the smoke being blown.

So far, my prediction stands. Call me when somebody gets indicted for "collusion". In the meantime, pleasant dreams of Trump in Leavenworth.

http://www.politico.com/story/2017/01/uk...ire-233446

"And they [Ukrainian government officials] helped Clinton’s allies research damaging information on Trump and his advisers, a Politico investigation found."

Hmm. Did somebody in the Clinton campaign commit treason?

Anybody live in King County?

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/c...li=BBnb7Kz

Leaving the collusion topic for a minute, ithis is an interesting map.

(07-10-2017 01:30 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  I agree about popularity not being a good metric - but the metric I shared was not popularity. It was specifically asking if those people felt that the leader would do the right thing with regards to world affairs. Perhaps one could argue that this is a popularity metric, but I don't think it is.

In fact I was essentially saying that it pretty much is a popularity metric. I don't think people are much good at making a mental distinction between "I think this guy will make decisions that prove to be correct" and "He's one of the cool people", and I believe that in most cases the latter determines the former, not the other way around. The contemporary admiration among the British political establishment for Chamberlain and the contemporary contempt among the American establishment (on both sides of the aisle) for Truman are examples that I had in mind. But your point is well-taken, and I suppose I am splitting hairs, or whistling past the graveyard, or something.

I also recognize that in some cases, the true measure of leadership is taking people in the right direction REGARDLESS of whether they think at the time that it's the right decision. FDR famously achieved that (not without mis-steps) in supporting Great Britain before Pearl Harbor. Truman achieved it regarding Greece, Turkey, Berlin, Western Europe and Korea. George HW Bush did it in forging a military coalition to reverse Iraq's conquest of Kuwait, when most of the folks around him were content to let the conquest go unanswered. By that measure, Bill Clinton and Barack Obama were much more followers of opinion than they were leaders of it (with the notable exception, in Bill Clinton's case, of securing passage of NAFTA very early in his term).

(07-11-2017 10:07 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  Anybody live in King County?

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/c...li=BBnb7Kz

Leaving the collusion topic for a minute, ithis is an interesting map.

The article is certainly good evidence against statehood for D.C., and perhaps against the 23rd Amendment.

Any bets on how long before Trump calls the email thread tweeted by Junior "fake news"?

Am I right in understanding that the latest revelation is that DT Jr. was enticed to meet with a Russian national who claimed to have information/documents that would hurt the Clinton campaign, and that the information/documents was being billed as having its origins with a member of the Russian government (the "Crown Prosecutor")? And that the claimed information ultimately didn't check out (i.e., there were no documents or information that were useful to the Trump campaign)?

If the above is true, then it certainly seems that DT Jr. had the intent to receive information from a foreign governmental source for the purpose of giving his father's campaign a political advantage. To me, whether the information/documents ultimately proved damning against the Clinton campaign or not is of no moment--much in the same way that a would-be drug buyer who is lured into a deal only to find out that the cocaine is actually flour can't find refuge in the fact that it wasn't really cocaine.

I guess it makes sense that there may be no law against getting information from a foreign government--even if it's a hostile one. Heck, if Vladimir Putin himself picks up the phone and tells Donald Trump that he happened to be walking down the street and witnessed Hillary Clinton strangle a puppy, I don't see how the Trump campaign's acceptance of such information and photos is illegal. Where it would become a problem, of course, is if the opposition research/information/documents were the product of espionage, which includes hacking.

OO, I know you don't believe any of the above actually took place, but just as a hypothetical, if the Trump campaign willingly set up meetings to receive opposition research that was the product of foreign espionage, I assume you would have an issue with it?

In the last 48 hours I've gone from thinking "definitely some fishy stuff going on, but skeptical we'd find full on collusion" to "Holy crap, did they really do that?"

Junior's emails contradict a lot of his and the administrations prior statements.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-...4b29d146a0

(07-11-2017 04:23 PM)Barrett Wrote:  Am I right in understanding that the latest revelation is that DT Jr. was enticed to meet with a Russian national who claimed to have information/documents that would hurt the Clinton campaign, and that the information/documents was being billed as having its origins with a member of the Russian government (the "Crown Prosecutor")? And that the claimed information ultimately didn't check out (i.e., there were no documents or information that were useful to the Trump campaign)?

If the above is true, then it certainly seems that DT Jr. had the intent to receive information from a foreign governmental source for the purpose of giving his father's campaign a political advantage. To me, whether the information/documents ultimately proved damning against the Clinton campaign or not is of no moment--much in the same way that a would-be drug buyer who is lured into a deal only to find out that the cocaine is actually flour can't find refuge in the fact that it wasn't really cocaine.

I guess it makes sense that there may be no law against getting information from a foreign government--even if it's a hostile one. Heck, if Vladimir Putin himself picks up the phone and tells Donald Trump that he happened to be walking down the street and witnessed Hillary Clinton strangle a puppy, I don't see how the Trump campaign's acceptance of such information and photos is illegal. Where it would become a problem, of course, is if the opposition research/information/documents were the product of espionage, which includes hacking.

OO, I know you don't believe any of the above actually took place, but just as a hypothetical, if the Trump campaign willingly set up meetings to receive opposition research that was the product of foreign espionage, I assume you would have an issue with it?

Key word is espionage. Was the hacking of the DNC or Podesta espionage?

In any case, there is this

"And they helped Clinton’s allies research damaging information on Trump and his advisers, a Politico investigation found."

Seems the pot is trying very hard to make a case that the kettle is black and should be censured for it.

Is this controlling?

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/52/30121

(07-11-2017 04:39 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(07-11-2017 04:23 PM)Barrett Wrote:  Am I right in understanding that the latest revelation is that DT Jr. was enticed to meet with a Russian national who claimed to have information/documents that would hurt the Clinton campaign, and that the information/documents was being billed as having its origins with a member of the Russian government (the "Crown Prosecutor")? And that the claimed information ultimately didn't check out (i.e., there were no documents or information that were useful to the Trump campaign)?

If the above is true, then it certainly seems that DT Jr. had the intent to receive information from a foreign governmental source for the purpose of giving his father's campaign a political advantage. To me, whether the information/documents ultimately proved damning against the Clinton campaign or not is of no moment--much in the same way that a would-be drug buyer who is lured into a deal only to find out that the cocaine is actually flour can't find refuge in the fact that it wasn't really cocaine.

I guess it makes sense that there may be no law against getting information from a foreign government--even if it's a hostile one. Heck, if Vladimir Putin himself picks up the phone and tells Donald Trump that he happened to be walking down the street and witnessed Hillary Clinton strangle a puppy, I don't see how the Trump campaign's acceptance of such information and photos is illegal. Where it would become a problem, of course, is if the opposition research/information/documents were the product of espionage, which includes hacking.

OO, I know you don't believe any of the above actually took place, but just as a hypothetical, if the Trump campaign willingly set up meetings to receive opposition research that was the product of foreign espionage, I assume you would have an issue with it?

Key word is espionage. Was the hacking of the DNC or Podesta espionage?

In any case, there is this

"And they helped Clinton’s allies research damaging information on Trump and his advisers, a Politico investigation found."

Seems the pot is trying very hard to make a case that the kettle is black and should be censured for it.

I know the key word is espionage. I wrote the hypothetical. My question is, if the opposition research were the product of espionage, would you have an issue with it?

(07-11-2017 04:52 PM)Barrett Wrote:  

(07-11-2017 04:39 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(07-11-2017 04:23 PM)Barrett Wrote:  Am I right in understanding that the latest revelation is that DT Jr. was enticed to meet with a Russian national who claimed to have information/documents that would hurt the Clinton campaign, and that the information/documents was being billed as having its origins with a member of the Russian government (the "Crown Prosecutor")? And that the claimed information ultimately didn't check out (i.e., there were no documents or information that were useful to the Trump campaign)?

If the above is true, then it certainly seems that DT Jr. had the intent to receive information from a foreign governmental source for the purpose of giving his father's campaign a political advantage. To me, whether the information/documents ultimately proved damning against the Clinton campaign or not is of no moment--much in the same way that a would-be drug buyer who is lured into a deal only to find out that the cocaine is actually flour can't find refuge in the fact that it wasn't really cocaine.

I guess it makes sense that there may be no law against getting information from a foreign government--even if it's a hostile one. Heck, if Vladimir Putin himself picks up the phone and tells Donald Trump that he happened to be walking down the street and witnessed Hillary Clinton strangle a puppy, I don't see how the Trump campaign's acceptance of such information and photos is illegal. Where it would become a problem, of course, is if the opposition research/information/documents were the product of espionage, which includes hacking.

OO, I know you don't believe any of the above actually took place, but just as a hypothetical, if the Trump campaign willingly set up meetings to receive opposition research that was the product of foreign espionage, I assume you would have an issue with it?

Key word is espionage. Was the hacking of the DNC or Podesta espionage?

In any case, there is this

"And they helped Clinton’s allies research damaging information on Trump and his advisers, a Politico investigation found."

Seems the pot is trying very hard to make a case that the kettle is black and should be censured for it.

I know the key word is espionage. I wrote the hypothetical. My question is, if the opposition research were the product of espionage, would you have an issue with it?

I would not condone the publication of national secrets, regardless of how they were obtained or by whom.

something else new: http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-07-10...d-russians

I am not familiar with this site or the technology, but it would seem to be a counter view to the the narrative of spies stole the DNC's personal files which were state secrets.

So hypothetically, if there was no agreement between Trump and Vlad, is it still collusion? If there was, what was the Russian lawyer needed for? Hypothetically. I mean.

Hypothetically, if the 30,000 emails that Hillary did NOT turn over actually had more than her yoga schedule, say, if they had statements that might incriminate her, would that interest Democrats? Never mind, I know the answer.

Respectfully, OO, I think you're way too concerned with where you think my questions are going, or what you think my "agenda" is, such that you're signposting rebuttals to arguments I'm not even making. I don't think you need to be this protective of or invested in your position. If Campaign A willingly gets opposition research from a foreign government so that it can gain political advantage in an election, and such information is knowingly the product of illegal activity, including espionage, then is Campaign A guilty of a crime of some sort--perhaps some form of treason? I don't know the statutes in play, but my guess is that there would likely be a crime under those circumstances. Same would be true, in my mind, if Campaign B did it as well.

Again, I don't know if any of that occurred here with respect to the Trump campaign. Perhaps very few people who are outside of D.C. know. I feel like you believe you're one of them, such that you're sure that no investigation is even necessary. But I happen to think it's worthy of investigation--as do many Republicans, even.

If the investigation turns up emptyhanded, I think that's a good thing.

(07-11-2017 05:39 PM)Barrett Wrote:  Respectfully, OO, I think you're way too concerned with where you think my questions are going, or what you think my "agenda" is, such that you're signposting rebuttals to arguments I'm not even making. I don't think you need to be this protective of or invested in your position. If Campaign A willingly gets opposition research from a foreign government so that it can gain political advantage in an election, and such information is knowingly the product of illegal activity, including espionage, then is Campaign A guilty of a crime of some sort--perhaps some form of treason? I don't know the statutes in play, but my guess is that there would likely be a crime under those circumstances.

Again, I don't know if any of that occurred here. Perhaps very few people who are outside of D.C. know. I feel like you believe you're one of them, such that you're sure that no investigation is even necessary. But I happen to think it's worthy of investigation--as do many Republicans, even.

If the investigation turns up emptyhanded, I think that's a good thing.

Seems like there would be some corollary to the WikiLeaks situation.

The person stealing the information is presumed guilty. Publishing it is apparently freedom of the press/free speech.

Am I simplifying this too much? The 'presumed thief' is holed up in an embassy fighting extradition. The publishers or benefactors are free and clear?

(07-11-2017 09:54 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  http://www.politico.com/story/2017/01/uk...ire-233446

"And they [Ukrainian government officials] helped Clinton’s allies research damaging information on Trump and his advisers, a Politico investigation found."

Hmm. Did somebody in the Clinton campaign commit treason?

I don't see any reference to the Clinton campaign (point it out if I missed it please). Regardless, I think that's pretty f***d.

However, buzz off since you obviously don't care about this if you can't be bothered to care about a much more intentional and concerted effort with Russia and the Trumo campaign.

(07-11-2017 06:03 PM)Rick Gerlach Wrote:  

(07-11-2017 05:39 PM)Barrett Wrote:  Respectfully, OO, I think you're way too concerned with where you think my questions are going, or what you think my "agenda" is, such that you're signposting rebuttals to arguments I'm not even making. I don't think you need to be this protective of or invested in your position. If Campaign A willingly gets opposition research from a foreign government so that it can gain political advantage in an election, and such information is knowingly the product of illegal activity, including espionage, then is Campaign A guilty of a crime of some sort--perhaps some form of treason? I don't know the statutes in play, but my guess is that there would likely be a crime under those circumstances.

Again, I don't know if any of that occurred here. Perhaps very few people who are outside of D.C. know. I feel like you believe you're one of them, such that you're sure that no investigation is even necessary. But I happen to think it's worthy of investigation--as do many Republicans, even.

If the investigation turns up emptyhanded, I think that's a good thing.

Seems like there would be some corollary to the WikiLeaks situation.

The person stealing the information is presumed guilty. Publishing it is apparently freedom of the press/free speech.

Am I simplifying this too much? The 'presumed thief' is holed up in an embassy fighting extradition. The publishers or benefactors are free and clear?

That's where you get into a sticky situation. We must protect the ability for people to be whistleblowers when they identify wrongdoing or illegal activities (see Snowden - not that we are protecting him though). But we mustn't encourage others to actively try to seek out and obtain information illegally just to see if there is something there (Clinton campaign).

(07-11-2017 05:39 PM)Barrett Wrote:  Respectfully, OO, I think you're way too concerned with where you think my questions are going, or what you think my "agenda" is, such that you're signposting rebuttals to arguments I'm not even making. I don't think you need to be this protective of or invested in your position. If Campaign A willingly gets opposition research from a foreign government so that it can gain political advantage in an election, and such information is knowingly the product of illegal activity, including espionage, then is Campaign A guilty of a crime of some sort--perhaps some form of treason? I don't know the statutes in play, but my guess is that there would likely be a crime under those circumstances. Same would be true, in my mind, if Campaign B did it as well.

Again, I don't know if any of that occurred here with respect to the Trump campaign. Perhaps very few people who are outside of D.C. know. I feel like you believe you're one of them, such that you're sure that no investigation is even necessary. But I happen to think it's worthy of investigation--as do many Republicans, even.

If the investigation turns up emptyhanded, I think that's a good thing.

I think including espionage in your definition of illegal activity taints the question. Espionage is many degrees of seriousness removed from simple hacking, and there is no hint that spies were hacking the DNC computers looking for national secrets. Speeding is illegal activity. DWI is illegal activity. Lumping the two together as equals would taint the question. There is a difference.

Hacking is a crime. But is using the stolen information or publishing it also a crime?

Hypothetical: A hacker gets into the Mayor's computer and discovers kiddie porn. What should he do? Report it to the police? Should they accept the proceeds of a crime? Report it to a news organization, and let them publish it? Should they accept it? (after all it is stolen) Sit on it, respecting the Mayor's privacy?

Those are much closer to what I see happening or alleged here. No hint of espionage. Nothing classified on the Mayor's computer - or the DNC's. Would this knowledge influence the mayoral election? Hell yes - and that's a good thing. Might prevent the election of a pedophile. Presenting the truth to the electorate is always a good thing. (anybody disagree?) A better informed electorate is always a good thing. (anybody disagree?) Now does that change if the hacker is a Canadian? An Israeli? A Russian? A Ukrainian? I see no reason for that to matter. As long as the truth is presented, without editing, I fail to see the harm. The truth is the truth. Amazing to me how many people think publishing the truth is treason. Presenting the truth is why Freedom of the Press is so important.

I think the emails had little effect anyway. What did we learn? That the DNC stacked the deck for Hillary? That Hillary had no idea of what her message was? Nothing there that most people didn't already know. Much more important wer two slips by Hillary - "deplorables" and "What, with a rag?"
The first showed her contempt for Middle America - Middle in any sense of the word - and the latter showed she thought the whole thing was a big joke. It would all go away once she was President.

I cannot see the logic of Trump asking Putin to steal the emails for him and then wanting him to publish them without change. Was Trump so prescient that he knew long before that the truth was bad enough? Why ask Putin to do it? Couldn't he find an American to do it? We don't have any good hackers here, or he couldn't afford them? I keep.asking for somebody to explain that logic to me. So far, no takers.