Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

General Discussion

pnwmom

(108,977 posts)

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

Reply to garybeck (Reply #10)

Sat Apr 20, 2019, 03:05 PM

Apr 2019

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.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

19 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

I don't understand why this is not collusion/conspiracy. [View all] garybeck Apr 2019 OP

Collusion has no legal meaning kennetha Apr 2019 #1

Exactly. ... spin Apr 2019 #2

I know that. That is not my question garybeck Apr 2019 #5

Because to prove the legal crime of conspiracy requires certain elements, pnwmom Apr 2019 #14

Barr and Mueller are using a definition of coordination that requires proof of an agreement Poiuyt Apr 2019 #3

Exactly. And since when is ignorance of the law a defense? SunSeeker Apr 2019 #4

Ok then garybeck Apr 2019 #6

What statute are you relying on? pnwmom Apr 2019 #8

how do you define "agreement"? garybeck Apr 2019 #10

I agree that there WAS COLLUSION. But collusion isn't the same as having the required elements pnwmom Apr 2019 #13

It is. Reportedly they don't feel they were able to build a Hortensis Apr 2019 #7

ok, i stilll don't get it garybeck Apr 2019 #9

I don't know how much more, either, but a team of some of Hortensis Apr 2019 #11

Conspiracy has to be an effort by two or more to violate the law. former9thward Apr 2019 #12

Right. It certainly seems suspicious, but they couldn't PROVE corrupt intent. pnwmom Apr 2019 #15

Though considering that it's Paul Manafort we're talking about... NacLeeFF Apr 2019 #18

They didn't have enough to provide conviction. Neoma Apr 2019 #16

One of the big issues was not being able to interview Trump himself. NacLeeFF Apr 2019 #17

I didn't think Mueller wanted to interview Trump. Neoma Apr 2019 #19