I agree. Collusion is not a crime

[techne7319]

I agree. Collusion(by definition) is not necessarily a crime. However, collusion with foreign agents in an effort to disrupt or interfere with the democratic principles of this country is another matter. I think there’s a word for that. Hmmmmm.....treason

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

1. The word for it is conspiracy. Treason has a different definition:

"Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court." US Constitution, Art. III sec. 3.

[techne7319]

2. I stand corrected

I stand corrected. Conspiracy may be the more logical conclusion to the collusion that occurrred during the 2016 campaign (and since). I think that further findings, should there be any, wouldn’t necessarily rule out behaviors consistent with treason. I guess it may depend on how broad the words “war” and “adhering to enemies” and “aid and comfort” are defined. Even now, I could see where acts of that sort may have occurred already.
I’m not a lawyer.

[Stallion]

5. Conspiracy to Defraud the United States-18 USC Sec 371

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/371

[samnsara]

3. one of the msnbc hosts said this weeks ago... i think Chris Matthews?

..anyway its been said before that collusion is not a crime.

[techne7319]

4. Perhaps

And neither is the single act of firing a gun. But if that gun is fired at someone with the intent to kill or with result of killing someone, then you have a crime. The semantics of isolating a word and it’s definition out of context is preposterous to me. It’s not the collusion that is in itself criminal, but whom it was with, to what end was its aim, and with what outcome that appears to be of a criminal nature.

[Stallion]

6. The Key: Each Member of the Conspiracy Must Participate in an "Overt Act" in Furtherance of ...

of the object/aim of the conspiracy. Each conspirator can be held criminally responsible for actions of other members of the conspiracy.

[Towlie]

15. A lawyer on MSNBC pointed out that a bank heist isn't a crime.

He said that you won't find the word "heist" in any law, but of course a bank robbery is a crime.

Similarly, collusion may not be a crime but conspiracy is.

[ChoppinBroccoli]

7. Collusion ISN'T A Crime

Colluding with others with the intent to COMMIT a crime, however, is. And that's what Trump did. Colluding with a foreign power to subvert the American electoral process is TREASON.

[techne7319]

8. Thank you!

[GoCubsGo]

13. Yes. Colluding with others with the intent to commit a crime is called "conspiracy."

Unlike "collusion", conspiracy IS illegal--including 923. 18 U.S.C. § 371—Conspiracy to Defraud the United States

[DrDan]

9. isn't this what RICO is all about? I don't understand how this talking point ever got steam.

[techne7319]

10. Clearly

“Collusion is not a crime” began with Giuliani and his big mouth. Trump reiterated it in a text this morning. CNN has an story on their website today which suggests that Mueller likely will not indict Trump with a crime and that the “jury” will be public opinion. The theory is that Mueller will release his findings and the result will will be a version of “He said, he said.” The narrative that Giuliani spins at present is one that provides Trump’s base with ammunition (factual or not) to contest whatever it is that Mueller finds. Clearly, Mueller has remained very silent on the developments of his ongoing investigation. In that sense Trump is winning because everything he or his people say is “more” than the other side is offereing. In an attempt to diminishing the veracity of all media reports (barring Fox News),by discounting any actions by the trump organization or campaign as only politics as usual, and by claiming everything trump does as being more honorable to anything Obama or Hillary did, Giuliani distracts from the facts and keeps the Trump base content. He and trump are, in a sense, controlling the story (for now).
In some respects, my posting this thread makes me guilty of falling for this distraction. It is probably best that Giuliani be ignored by those interested in the facts.
But, yes, if the talking point about which you speak is that “collusion is not a crime,” then I agree, it’s meaningless, and that was the initial motivation for this post.

[DrDan]

11. exactly my point

seems to me the only argument supporting this claim is that if one were to google the specific term "collusion", then there is no link to a crime.

However, if one were not fixated on that specific term, then crimes are definitely possible, particularly in the context of RICO - election fraud, money laundering, etc.

I am obviously not a lawyer, but I wish someone would either clarify this, or call them out for misleading comments.

[techne7319]

12. It seems

It seems that the word “collusion” is a most convenient term for Trump, Giuliani, and his associates to use in describing what may or may not have occurred. It may have been carefully selected for that particular reason. Yes, outside of context it seems innocent, I guess. But as another DUer posted today, the term should be “criminal conspiracy.” You won’t see anyone tweeting “There was no criminal conspiracy.” Again, it’s just word games these criminals are playing in order to distract and control the narrative. I am not a lawyer, and I certainly lack access to all the evidence available to investigators. Nevertheless and on the surface, it seems highly likely that there was collusion of a criminal nature by some players, possibly including the president. The coordination between these players to execute a plan aimed at a specific result means conspiracy. Depending on the aim and outcome of this conspiracy, treason is a possible characterization of these “alleged” activities as well.

[DrDan]

14. there is little doubt trump is deeply involved - look at how he runs his administration

He HAS to be the center of all activity - he HAS to be the decision maker - he HAS to get all the credit.

No doubt in my mind he was in the middle of this mess, and drove all of the efforts personally.

[techne7319]

16. No doubt

No doubt you are likely correct in that estimation of his involvement. Is there enough evidence though and will it be discovered, that is the question. Guess we’ll see.