HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » General Discussion (Forum) » I don't understand why th...

Fri Apr 19, 2019, 01:21 AM

I 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?

19 replies, 851 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 19 replies Author Time Post
Reply I don't understand why this is not collusion/conspiracy. (Original post)
garybeck Apr 2019 OP
kennetha Apr 2019 #1
spin Apr 2019 #2
garybeck Apr 2019 #5
pnwmom Apr 2019 #14
Poiuyt Apr 2019 #3
SunSeeker Apr 2019 #4
garybeck Apr 2019 #6
pnwmom Apr 2019 #8
garybeck Apr 2019 #10
pnwmom Apr 2019 #13
Hortensis Apr 2019 #7
garybeck Apr 2019 #9
Hortensis Apr 2019 #11
former9thward Apr 2019 #12
pnwmom Apr 2019 #15
NacLeeFF Apr 2019 #18
Neoma Apr 2019 #16
NacLeeFF Apr 2019 #17
Neoma Apr 2019 #19

Response to garybeck (Original post)

Fri Apr 19, 2019, 01:23 AM

1. Collusion has no legal meaning

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kennetha (Reply #1)

Fri Apr 19, 2019, 01:38 AM

2. Exactly. ...

What Is Collusion? Is It Even a Crime?
The presidentís 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

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kennetha (Reply #1)

Sat Apr 20, 2019, 12:40 AM

5. I know that. That is not my question

Collusion is a misnomer for conspiracy.

If you prefer the legal term then just rephrase the question with the word conspiracy.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to garybeck (Reply #5)

Sat Apr 20, 2019, 02:11 PM

14. Because to prove the legal crime of conspiracy requires certain elements,

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to garybeck (Original post)

Fri Apr 19, 2019, 01:46 AM

3. Barr and Mueller are using a definition of coordination that requires proof of an agreement

This is contrary to the law and Federal Election Commission regulations and, more importantly, has been rejected by the Supreme Court.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Poiuyt (Reply #3)

Fri Apr 19, 2019, 01:49 AM

4. Exactly. And since when is ignorance of the law a defense?

How was Don Jr. not indicted?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Poiuyt (Reply #3)

Sat Apr 20, 2019, 12:44 AM

6. Ok then

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

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Poiuyt (Reply #3)

Sat Apr 20, 2019, 04:13 AM

8. What statute are you relying on?

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pnwmom (Reply #8)

Sat Apr 20, 2019, 12:36 PM

10. how do you define "agreement"?

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to garybeck (Reply #10)

Sat Apr 20, 2019, 02:05 PM

13. I agree that there WAS COLLUSION. But collusion isn't the same as having the required elements

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to garybeck (Original post)

Sat Apr 20, 2019, 03:24 AM

7. It is. Reportedly they don't feel they were able to build a

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.

It's not what you know, it's what you can prove. ~ Alonzo Harris


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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hortensis (Reply #7)

Sat Apr 20, 2019, 12:30 PM

9. ok, i stilll don't get it

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to garybeck (Reply #9)

Sat Apr 20, 2019, 12:36 PM

11. I don't know how much more, either, but a team of some of

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to garybeck (Original post)

Sat Apr 20, 2019, 12:45 PM

12. Conspiracy has to be an effort by two or more to violate the law.

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to former9thward (Reply #12)

Sat Apr 20, 2019, 02:13 PM

15. Right. It certainly seems suspicious, but they couldn't PROVE corrupt intent.

And that is a necessary element of the crime of conspiracy.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pnwmom (Reply #15)

Sat Apr 20, 2019, 02:26 PM

18. Though considering that it's Paul Manafort we're talking about...

 

But yeah, point taken.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to garybeck (Original post)

Sat Apr 20, 2019, 02:20 PM

16. They didn't have enough to provide conviction.

As far as a clear agreement taking place.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to garybeck (Original post)

Sat Apr 20, 2019, 02:25 PM

17. One of the big issues was not being able to interview Trump himself.

 

IMO.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NacLeeFF (Reply #17)

Sat Apr 20, 2019, 03:44 PM

19. I didn't think Mueller wanted to interview Trump.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread