But it seems ones are saying that it is a crime against international law, for one country to interfere with another country's elections. So, if this is true and in case someone did collude with what is an international crime, then wouldn't such a colluder be committing an international crime??"collusion" is not considered a criminal offense
For the Attorney General to assert that this President is absolved from "collusion" is totally misleading, as the head of the Department of Justice he should be well aware that "collusion," is not considered a criminal offense and therefore the Mueller Investigation would have no legal grounds to make that accusation!So Mueller's report says Trump is neck deep in collusion with the Russians but Barr is publicly lying about it?
For the Attorney General to absolve this President of "collusion" is totally misleading, as the head of the Department of Justice he should be well aware that "collusion" is not considered a criminal offense and therefore the Mueller Investigation has no legal grounds to make that accusation!So Mueller's report says Trump is neck deep in collusion with the Russians but Barr is publicly lying about it?
In case another country did things to help Donald to win . . . he lost the popular vote. So, what if Russia had not interfered? Would Donald have been sure to lose, in such a case? I have not heard either a Republican or a Democrat bring this up.There was definitely collusion but it doesn't seem to have risen to the point of criminal conspiracy.
For the Attorney General to absolve this President of "collusion" is totally misleading, as the head of the Department of Justice he should be well aware that "collusion" is not considered a criminal offense and that the Mueller Investigation was never tasked with making that case!
I've definitely noticed the wording Barr used. He seems to be playing to the White House instead of legalese. Collusion isn't the term which prosecutors use. Conspiracy is.
There was definitely collusion but it doesn't seem to have risen to the point of criminal conspiracy.
Mueller was investigating for evidence of "conspiracy," not "collision," and technically the Trump Campaign did not enter into a formal agreement with the Russian government, although it was more than willing to exploit the political damage created by the linking of DNC emails - which it knew had been illegally hacked!But it seems ones are saying that it is a crime against international law, for one country to interfere with another country's elections. So, if this is true and in case someone did collude with what is an international crime, then wouldn't such a colluder be committing an international crime??
And my question is that in case ones did get Russia's help to get Donald elected . . . what would have happened if Russia had not helped him? I keep noticing how this does not come up.The Mueller Report records that 16 members of the Trump Campaign "colluded" with the Russians
This seems to fit with someone saying there was not enough to indict Donald, but also they did not have enough to clear him.
And my question is that in case ones did get Russia's help to get Donald elected . . . what would have happened if Russia had not helped him? I keep noticing how this does not come up.
16 members od the Trump Campaign had contacts with the FBI, none of whom saw it as their patriotic duty as an American citizen to report them to the FBI - in fact several of the President's men "lied" to the FBI, the Mueller Investigation and /or congressional committees!Mueller's commission specifically stated that he was to investigate collusion between the Trump campaign and the Russians. Now, the investigation has concluded and there is no evidence of collusion between the Trump campaign and the Russians. The thing is over. It is dead. There is no sense in looking for guilt anymore.
Trump has been exonerated. The accusations were false. QED.
How much did the release help change the swing vote? That is the most likely reason Trump surged in the last few weeks of the election.In case another country did things to help Donald to win . . . he lost the popular vote. So, what if Russia had not interfered? Would Donald have been sure to lose, in such a case? I have not heard either a Republican or a Democrat bring this up.
But I heard that Russia was found to have tried to use misinformation to mess up the democratic process. But the one saying this did not specify if the effort helped one candidate or the other. Going only by what he said, I would have to consider it possible that he means the Russians were only doing a general mess-things-up campaign.
Again > it was not specified if the misinformation was more against one candidate, than against another, and who it could have helped, if anyone.
In any case, I trust God for how things turn out. So, I think we are wise not to boast people to be the ones really in control.
There is tons of evidence for collusion but collusion isn't necessarily a crime. Trump,calling for Russia to get Clinton's emails is collusion. Donald Jrmeeting Russians to get dirt on Clinton is collusion but Mueller didn't find evidence that they rose to criminal conspiracy.There is no evidence of collusion. The matter is over.
ConspiracyThere is no evidence of collusion. The matter is over.
16 members od the Trump Campaign had contacts with the FBI, none of whom saw it as their patriotic duty as an American citizen to report them to the FBI - in fact several of the President's men "lied" to the FBI, the Mueller Investigation and /or congressional committees!
If "collusion" or "lying to the American pubic" were criminal offenses, this President and most of the President's men and women would have been charged!
Conspiracy
An agreement between two or more persons to engage jointly in an unlawful or criminal act, or an act that is innocent in itself but becomes unlawful when done by the combination of actors.
Conspiracy is governed by statute in federal courts and most state courts. Before its Codification in state and federal statutes, the crime of conspiracy was simply an agreement to engage in an unlawful act with the intent to carry out the act. Federal statutes, and many state statutes, now require not only agreement and intent but also the commission of an Overt Act in furtherance of the agreement.
- Conspiracy is a crime separate from the criminal act for which it is developed ...
- ... It differs from solicitation in that conspiracy requires an agreement between two or more persons, whereas solicitation can be committed by one person alone.
The law seeks to punish conspiracy as a substantive crime separate from the intended crime because when two or more persons agree to commit a crime, the potential for criminal activity increases, and as a result, the danger to the public increases.
conspiracy
**************************************************************
"Collusion" is not a criminal offense, but "conspiracy" is - although 16 members of the Trump Campaign had contacts with Russians, none of which were ever reported to the FBI, the Mueller Campaign was unable to confirm that this President and his surrogates entered into a formal agreement to illegally hack the DNC emails!
I think I heard him say there was not enough proof; yet, if he says he is sure there was "intent", I think this can be prosecutable.intent
In that case, it sounded like the FBI decided she was guilty but they decided not to prosecute her. If that is right, that is different than Donald being reported to not have enough to determine he is guilty. They concluded she was guilty, but maybe not guilty enough to make prosecuting her worthwhile.Clinton was about in the same situation as Trump is their investigations.
For the Attorney General to assert that this President is absolved from "collusion" is totally misleading, as the head of the Department of Justice he should be well aware that "collusion," is not considered a criminal offense and therefore the Mueller Investigation would have no legal grounds to make that accusation!
This is from the letter appointing Mueller to investigate:
(a) Robert S. Mueller III is appointed t() serve as Special Counsel for the United States Department of Justice.
(b) The Special Counsel is authorized to conduct the investigation confirmed by then-FBI Director James 8. Comey in testimony before the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence on March 20, 2017, including:
(i) any links and/or coordination between the Russian government and individuals associated with the campaign of President Donald Trump;
**************************
Mueller's investigation found no evidence of "any links and/or coordination between the Russian government and individuals associated with the campaign of President Donald Trump".
Your conclusions are wrong.
Yes of course. As explained by multiple posters, Trump did not have to release certain information given executive privilege. He waved the privilege.Well, that's not the case, it seems...
White House and Justice Dept. Officials Discussed Mueller Report Before Release
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?