(02-27-2018 05:21 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  If there is evidence of collusion I will accept that. Now, feel free to correct me, but "collusion" is not defined as a crime in any criminal statutes of which I am aware. Conspiracy is, and its elements are pretty straightforward: an agreement between two or more parties to commit a crime in the future, plus some tangible step taken in furtherance of that crime. I haven't seen anything yet that meets that test. Have you?

That is my understanding as well ("collusion" is not a crime, "conspiracy" is a crime). I'm not a criminal attorney and am content to see what the special counsel's investigation turns up. I think, based on what we know publicly, it is certainly worth investigating whether there was a conspiracy (not tinfoil hat, but actual legal conspiracy) related to the June 9th meeting:

Quote:Federal law prohibits a foreign national from giving anything of value to a campaign engaged in a U.S. election. It’s also a crime to solicit a foreign national to do so, or even to "knowingly provide substantial assistance" in receiving something of value.

While illegal foreign contributions typically take the form of money, legal experts told us it’s possible a court could find that "information" satisfies the legal requirement if it’s considered valuable to a campaign.

Separately, but not unrelatedly, I think it is worth looking at whether there has been obstruction of justice (and a conspiracy related to that). So even if there was no collusion/conspiracy, there could have been obstruction.