HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » General Discussion (Forum) » As stated in the intro to...

Sun Jun 16, 2019, 06:54 PM

As stated in the intro to the Mueller Report, the investigators analyzed

"whether members of the Trump campaign 'coordinated'" with "Russian interference activities." After explaining that coordination "does not have a settled definition in federal criminal law", the intro states: "WE UNDERSTAND COORDINATION TO REQUIRE AN AGREEMENT---tacit or express---between the Trump Campaign and the Russian government on election interference." (emphasis mine)

Here's my problem:

I looked up "coordination" in numerous on-line dictionaries, including Merriam-Webster, Business Dictionary,Cambridge Dictionary and the Oxford Dictionary. NONE of the definitions even contain the word "agreement" and I did not find it listed as a synonym.

Mueller found no "coordination" because he found no "agreement"---a requirement that apparently HE ALONE imposed.

I assume this falls under "Move along---nothing to see here!"

17 replies, 690 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 17 replies Author Time Post
Reply As stated in the intro to the Mueller Report, the investigators analyzed (Original post)
Atticus Jun 16 OP
Hoyt Jun 16 #1
triron Jun 16 #3
Hoyt Jun 16 #4
elleng Jun 16 #2
Atticus Jun 16 #8
ilmare2000 Jun 16 #5
StarfishSaver Jun 16 #6
Atticus Jun 16 #7
StarfishSaver Jun 16 #9
Atticus Jun 16 #10
StarfishSaver Jun 16 #11
pnwmom Jun 16 #12
Atticus Jun 16 #13
pnwmom Jun 16 #14
Atticus Jun 16 #15
pnwmom Jun 16 #16
Atticus Jun 16 #17

Response to Atticus (Original post)

Sun Jun 16, 2019, 07:03 PM

1. Mueller spent a lot of time contorting his findings regarding Russia to let

trump and his family off the hook for the most important matter connected to the election. Must of worn himself out on that crud.

I think Mueller knew Obstruction is not likely to take trump down.

I think the House should just move on from the Mueller Report. There are plenty of other crime, incompetencies, emoluments, etc., to go after trump.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hoyt (Reply #1)

Sun Jun 16, 2019, 07:10 PM

3. Tend to agree except I still think Mueller needs to go before congress, publicly.

I'm not sure how much Barr influenced what's in the report.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to triron (Reply #3)

Sun Jun 16, 2019, 07:12 PM

4. Maybe. But Mueller has had plenty of opportunity to speak up, and he hasn't.

Very disappointed in Mueller.

I do think he should be given one more push before the House. Wish they could hook him up to a lie detector.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Atticus (Original post)

Sun Jun 16, 2019, 07:10 PM

2. Conspiracy:

'An agreement between two or more people to commit an illegal act, along with an intent to achieve the agreement's goal. Most U.S. jurisdictions also require an overt act toward furthering the agreement. An overt act is a statutory requirement, not a constitutional one. See Whitfield v. United States, 453 U.S. 209 (2005). The illegal act is the conspiracy's "target offense."'

https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/conspiracy

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to elleng (Reply #2)

Sun Jun 16, 2019, 07:56 PM

8. Please see #7 below. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Atticus (Original post)

Sun Jun 16, 2019, 07:21 PM

5. They don't look at dictionaries

 

They look at case law to determine how future judicial rulings might strike them down.

And, most importantly, we know one of the reasons they couldn't find strong evidence was because of the obstruction.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Atticus (Original post)

Sun Jun 16, 2019, 07:24 PM

6. It's more complicated than that

If you read the full paragraph, you'll see the Mueller team didn't pull their definition of "conspiracy" out of thin air; it is, along with coordination, an essential element of proving conspiracy.

"In evaluating whether evidence about collective action of multiple individuals constituted a crime, we applied the framework of conspiracy law, not the concept of "collusion." In so doing, The Office recognized that the word "collud[ e]" was used in communications with the Acting Attorney General confirming certain aspects of the investigation's scope and that the term has frequently been invoked in public reporting about the investigation. But collusion is not a specific offense or theory of liability found in the United States Code, nor is it a term of art in federal criminal law.

For those reasons, the Office's focus in analyzing questions of joint criminal liability was on conspiracy as defined in federal law. In connection with that analysis, we addressed the factual question whether members of the Trump Campaign "coordinat[ ed]"-a term that appears in the appointment order-with Russian election interference activities. Like collusion, "coordination" does not have a settled definition in federal criminal law. We understood coordination to require an agreement tacit or express- between the Trump Campaign and the Russian government on election interference. That requires more than the two parties taking actions that were informed by or responsive to the other's actions or interests. We applied the term coordination in that sense when stating in the report that the investigation did not establish that the Trump Campaign coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities."


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to StarfishSaver (Reply #6)

Sun Jun 16, 2019, 07:54 PM

7. My post did not mention "conspiracy". It dealt solely with how the Mueller Report

defined "coordinated". It matters not where Mueller pulled the term "agreement" from. It is not a necessary condition precedent to finding "coordination".

And, of course, I read the full paragraph.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Atticus (Reply #7)

Sun Jun 16, 2019, 07:58 PM

9. Your post didn't mention conspiracy, but the portion you selectively quoted from did

It was the part of a larger explanation of the definition of conspiracy. Coordination is an essential element of the crime of conspiracy.

Quoting only a small portion of that paragraph is misleading.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to StarfishSaver (Reply #9)

Sun Jun 16, 2019, 08:21 PM

10. This could go on forever if you keep moving the goalposts. Here I thought I could decide

what my OP was about. I had for gotten your propensity to explain what others "really" meant or "should have" said. That and your silly accusation is more than enough to justify "We're done".

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Atticus (Reply #10)

Sun Jun 16, 2019, 08:23 PM

11. Of course, you can decide what your OP is about. But if you post incomplete or misleading info,

you shouldn't be surprised or ticked off if you're called on it and corrected.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Atticus (Reply #7)

Sun Jun 16, 2019, 09:51 PM

12. But there isn't a law against coordination or collusion. There is a conspiracy law, and that law

has certain requirements, including the parties making an agreement; and the conspiracy law is the one Mueller said he couldn't prove beyond a reasonable doubt.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pnwmom (Reply #12)

Sun Jun 16, 2019, 10:14 PM

13. Agree with your entire post. But, that was not the subject of my post.

One aspect of their analysis of whether or not here was a conspiracy involved a determination of whether or not there was "coordination". While the larger question of "conspiracy" may require "agreement", there is no such requirement in order go find "coordination". THAT was my only point, despite what some(not you) have "interpreted".

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Atticus (Reply #13)

Sun Jun 16, 2019, 10:18 PM

14. I'm not sure that even if he had accepted your definition, that it could have changed the outcome.

The conspiracy law would still have been the applicable law, and that law clearly requires an agreement. And Mueller would have to prove that the crime of conspiracy was committed beyond a reasonable doubt.

So why is the definition of coordination important?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pnwmom (Reply #14)

Sun Jun 16, 2019, 10:50 PM

15. All that is clear from the report is that in some way, Mueller's finding "no coordination"

contributed to his finding "no conspiracy". Why else preface his discussion of coordination with "in connection with that analysis" (of conspiacy)?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Atticus (Reply #15)

Sun Jun 16, 2019, 10:54 PM

16. Mueller was using the term "coordination" to mean an agreement, and the agreement

was the essential thing -- not what word Mueller used. A criminal conspiracy requires a conspiracy -- that means people agree on some plan and carry it out.

He also made it clear it wasn't that there was NO evidence -- just not enough to prove criminal conspiracy. And that some people had lied and even deleted evidence. So maybe if there hadn't been obstruction he would have been able to prove a criminal conspiracy.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pnwmom (Reply #16)

Sun Jun 16, 2019, 11:11 PM

17. If coordination and agreement were synonyms, that would make sense. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread