Jonathan Turley doesn't know what collusion is

[deminks]

on Morning Joke a few minutes ago. Meaning he doesn't think collusion is a crime. He has been saying for month 'where is the crime?'

So let me clear away his bullsh*t.

Collusion is an agreement between two or more parties, sometimes illegal and therefore secretive, to limit open competition by deceiving, misleading, or defrauding others of their legal rights, or to obtain an objective forbidden by law typically by defrauding or gaining an unfair market advantage. It is an agreement among firms or individuals to divide a market, set prices, limit production or limit opportunities.[1] It can involve "wage fixing, kickbacks, or misrepresenting the independence of the relationship between the colluding parties".[2] In legal terms, all acts effected by collusion are considered void.[3

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collusion

Collusion with the Russians to affect the outcome of an election is illegal.

Collusion with the Russians to influence the election in return for lifting sanctions is illegal.

Collusion with the Russians to lie about foreign contacts is illegal.

Collusion with the Russians to interfere with the investigation into collusion with the Russians is illegal.

So, asswipe Turley, here is the crime you are looking for.

/rant off

[Cracklin Charlie]

1. That was well done.

Your response, Mr. Turley?

[hlthe2b]

2. Isn't the entire RICO act based on the premise of "collusion"?

(Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act)

Turley does this from time to time--the legal version of "too cute by half"....

[underthematrix]

3. It's called conspiracy not collusion

[uponit7771]

5. +1

[hlthe2b]

6. Yes... but simply pointing that the legal term is conspiracy not collusion would suffice

For the lay public, these are synonyms and any legal differences are mere shades of gray. When legal experts become condescendingly defiant that there is not such a thing as collusion, rather than saying the above, serves only to confuse, infuriate, and make them seem like intentionally deflecting, Trump-defending, confusing boobs. One can argue the extent of "acts" required to meet the threshold might not yet have been shown by information to date, but simply arguing the terms is ridiculous.

[uponit7771]

9. +1, Semantics is all Red Don's supporters have now ... few Trumpers are going to ever admit they ...

... were wrong about him and we can add Turley to the list.

I've read about Nixon and his crooked ass, its crazy that ANYONE supported Nixon after his bold faced ass'd obstruction

[Mike Nelson]

4. There are other crimes...

...also. Obstruction of Justice is itself a crime. I'm amazed at people who can imagine all sorts of "crimes" when they look at Obama or Clinton - yet, Mr. Turley and others see a non-criminal when they look at Trump. I think it's the looker, not the looked.

[geek tragedy]

7. Turley sued Obama on behalf of John Boehner. Fuck him nt

[kentuck]

8. Add conspiracy, cover-up, and obstruction to that.

Turley is a dumbass.

[justiceischeap]

10. The strongest case we've seen for collusion so far is in the cover-up

I think it will be difficult to prove collusion with Russia in regards to Trump himself--he can claim his team did it without his knowledge and if there's no smoking gun,they can't get him on that, IMO. But it's quite clear that since he's taken office he has colluded with others in a cover-up of whatever was done.

I'm no lawyer but in my logical way of thinking there may have been no direct collusion with Russia but in his effort to quash that, he very well may have committed a crime to prove his "innocence."

[MFM008]

11. Don't know what happened

To Turley.
Money I guess.

[mopinko]

12. obama. no scandals to monger.

8 years is a long time to be off the teevee.

[Zorro]

13. Anything to get attention

He is long past his tv exposure expiration date.