General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsI don't understand why this is not collusion/conspiracy.
The Mueller report gives clear details of how manafort gave polling information to kilimnik.
Why is that not collusion/conspiracy?
kennetha
(3,666 posts)spin
(17,493 posts)What Is Collusion? Is It Even a Crime?
The presidents son met with a Russian lawyer offering damaging information about Hillary Clinton. Does that mean the campaign colluded with the Kremlin? We asked legal experts to size up the evidence.
By POLITICO MAGAZINE July 12, 2017
https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2017/07/12/what-is-collusion-215366
garybeck
(9,932 posts)Collusion is a misnomer for conspiracy.
If you prefer the legal term then just rephrase the question with the word conspiracy.
pnwmom
(108,925 posts)including an agreement to conspire and a corrupt intent. The corrupt intent was the hardest part to prove without access to deleted emails and disappeared texts.
Poiuyt
(18,087 posts)This is contrary to the law and Federal Election Commission regulations and, more importantly, has been rejected by the Supreme Court.
SunSeeker
(51,367 posts)How was Don Jr. not indicted?
Proof
Gates was there. He said it happened. Manafort agreed it happened in his guilty plea.
Agreement
Kilimnik asked for the information andManafort gave it to him
pnwmom
(108,925 posts)And what is the agreement that Manafort and Kilimnik had with regard to Trump?
Because the specific agreement would have to be proved in order to prove a conspiracy.
garybeck
(9,932 posts)if two people meet and one person hands someone some documents and the other person takes them and uses them for a specific purpose, didn't there have to be an agreement to meet at that location in the first place? didn't there have to be an agreement to get the information and bring it there? are we supposed to think that they just happened to meet by chance and he just happened to have the polling data in his pocket? an agreement is required for any of this to happen. people don't just pull papers out of their pocket and hand them to someone.
and anyway, the media's repeated mantra that there isn't evidence of collusion/conspiracy is patently false. there are many contacts with russians and the campaign. maybe they could say there isn't enough evidence to indict/convict at this time. but they should stop saying the report concludes there wasn't conspiracy, and only focusing on obstruction. there is clear evidence of both.
pnwmom
(108,925 posts)for a criminal conspiracy, and so Mueller wasn't able to prove that. Part of his problem in proving the necessary "corrupt intent" was that people were lying to him and otherwise destroying evidence. And he couldn't force testimony from people like Kilimnik.
Hortensis
(58,785 posts)strong legal case beyond a reasonable doubt. The report does not say there was no collusion. And no matter how often much of the MSM says it did, it didn't.
But, of course congress doesn't need either DoJ indictment or the level of proof required for the DoJ to prosecute; it only needs enough Republican senators to decide to cooperate with removal for any of 100 causes, conspiracy included.
garybeck
(9,932 posts)again, we know that kilimnik met with manafort and manafort handed him polling data.
we know this as established fact because Gates told Mueller, he was there, and then Manafort admitted to it by pleading guilty.
how much more do you to make it beyond reasonable doubt? if two people who were there admit to it?
and furthermore....
I have not read the report, but where is the media getting this talking point I keep hearing that the Mueller report did not find evidence of collusion/conspiracy. what the F? yes it did, just read it.
Hortensis
(58,785 posts)the best, most experienced federal prosecutors our nation has decided they didn't have enough, Guessing they feel a case against a president, in an environment where even the right to indict at all is strongly questioned and in an explosive national political environment, would need to be airtight.
But, standards are entirely different for the senate when trying an impeached president. Only an intensely corrupt partisan senate majority, which is what we have, would not be acting at this point.
former9thward
(31,802 posts)In order to charge conspiracy there has to be an underlying crime the conspiracy furthers.
Polling is legal. Anyone can do it. Russia, if they wanted, could poll U.S. citizens on anything they wanted. They could come to NYC and rent a building and call whomever they wanted and ask whatever they wanted. We are not at war with Russia. They even take our astronauts to space since we can't do it.
What exactly would be the crime to give polling data to Russia or any of the other 190 nations of earth? That is why there was no conspiracy charged about that act.
pnwmom
(108,925 posts)And that is a necessary element of the crime of conspiracy.
NacLeeFF
(89 posts)But yeah, point taken.
Neoma
(10,039 posts)As far as a clear agreement taking place.
NacLeeFF
(89 posts)IMO.