Post by bigdog Post by mainframetech Post by bigdog Post by mainframetech Post by bigdog Post by firstname.lastname@example.org Post by bigdog
I just read across an article by some kook who also thinks gerrymandering
"Look around, and ask yourself: what are these dirtbags willing to do to
stay in power? The answer is obvious: anything. How did they achieve power
in the first place? By cheating: gerrymandering, fraud, hacking,
disenfranchisement, etc. Now they’ve been there for nearly two
years. The Democrats won the 2016 election by three million votes, and
look at where we are; do you really think 2018 is going to be any better?
(And I won’t get into how ineffective the Democratic leadership
has been; that’s a whole other can of worms.)"
The article is by a Perry Hoberman, a USC professor and spokesperson for a
far left wacko organization call Resist Fascism. He is advocating that
Democrats bypass the electoral process and take to the streets to force
the Trump/Pence administration out of office. It's no wonder he doesn't
want to use the electoral process to achieve his goals since he doesn't
even understand how it works. You can read the whole article here. I hope
Gerrymandering is something that BOTH parties have done whenever the
opportunity has presented itself. I wouldn't say Trump won because of
gerrymandering. I'd say he won because he won the electoral college.
We've been trying to convince Marsh of that for months but it hasn't sunk
in. Gerrymandering can't possibly affect the outcome in a winner-take-all
state which all but two states are. It doesn't matter how the
congressional districts are drawn within the state, it isn't going to
affect the statewide total which is all that matters as far as the
electoral college is concerned.
Post by email@example.com
Now, you can get down to the more granular explanations as to WHY did he
win certain states that have typically gone Democratic in the past - like
Michigan and Wisconsin, two states that were won by a fairly slim margin.
Yet, even if Clinton had won BOTH Michigan and Wisconsin - and we change
nothing else - Trump STILL gets an electoral win.
So, the Democrats have little to complain about with regards to the
Post by firstname.lastname@example.org
Still, what remains to be known is whether the Trump campaign - and,
perhaps, with Trump's knowledge and approval - coordinated with a hostile
nation to increase its chances. It's irrelevant as to whether this
coordination swung the election. The mere fact that it happened is cause
enough to de-legitimize a president - especially if he has LIED about it.
So far, Mueller has only indicted Russian nationals for illegal campaign
practices and in both rounds of indictments it was stated that the
indictments do not indicate any American knowingly colluded with these
Russians. If he has evidence of Trump campaign officials engaging in
illegal electioneering, why hasn't he produced that?
What baloney! Such disinformation! Among the indicted are these
Americans: Paul Manafort, Rick Gates, Michael Flynn, George Papadopoulos.
Odd you would leave out all 4 of them.
You're getting to be as bad as Marsh making knee jerk responses without
ever comprehending what was actually written. I'll type it slower this
time so hopefully you can follow along. The four people you named WERE NOT
INDICTED FOR COLLUSION WITH THE RUSSIANS. THEY WERE INDICTED FOR ALLEGED
CRIMES COMMITTED EITHER PRIOR TO TRUMP BECOMING A CANDIDATE OR AFTER HE
WAS ELECTED. Mueller hasn't indicted anyone for election tampering except
for 25 Russians who will never see the inside of an American courtroom
which also means Mueller will never have to actually show his hand.
Post by mainframetech
And as to the 'collusion', that
sort of thing where the president and his family may be involved, is held
until the end and then reported out altogether. And I'm sure there will
be plenty of charges to deal with.
Your sure of a lot of the things you just assume.
The evidence is already there in the public domain. I've listed it
out for you a few times already. Funny how you forget these things.
That's strange. After telling us the evidence for collusion was being held
until the end, you are now telling us it is in the public domain. Did that
happen in between these two posts by you?
Post by mainframetech Post by bigdog Post by mainframetech
If you need 'collusion' to keep you going, then consider that Trump
Jr. and Manafort and others sat with Russians who wanted to give over
'dirt' on Clinton. They went happily thinking they were going to get an
earful. And it doesn't matter if they did or did not get the 'dirt',
because the attempt was enough to make them guilty of collusion with
Russians to alter the election.
Why hasn't Mueller indicted Trump Jr. if he has evidence of collusion?
He will bring it altogether when it's time. Other investigations of
the president and administrations have taken longer. The nervousness of
Trump and his lawyers are what is pushing you and others to pretend there
are no crimes evident. Anything to get the Mueller probe cancelled.
I think the position of most of us regarding collusion with the Russians
is pretty much the same as the position we take regarding a conspiracy to
assassinate JFK. We have seen no compelling evidence of either. So far
Mueller has indicted a whole bunch or Russians for tampering with our
election which does not indicate collusion with the Trump campaign and
some associates of Trump for crimes that had nothing to do with the
campaign. They are alleged to have occurred either well before Trump
became a candidate or after the election was over. Neither are evidence of
collusion during the campaign.
Post by mainframetech Post by bigdog Post by mainframetech
And that's only the public knowledge of FEC crimes. There are also
crimes against the constitution and they have all been made known by suits
You can sue anyone for anything so the fact that suits have been filed
against Trump is no indication any of the suits have any merit.
Sorry, wrong again. There was suit against Trump for violating the
emoluments clause from the constitution, and it had to go before a judge
to be approved to go forth t a regular trial. It has now been approved
and Trump is going to trial for that violation. We'll see if the nepotism
You seem to not know the difference between an allegation and evidence.
Post by mainframetech Post by bigdog Post by mainframetech
Naturally he doesn't talk about them. There are known
crimes involving the emoluments clause, the hiring of relatives to work
directly under the president, and others.
Presidents can employ relatives so long as they don't draw a salary.
That's why Bill Clinton was allowed to use Hillary to lobby Congress for
his healthcare bill that went nowhere and was largely responsible for the
Democrats losing Congress in 1994. A 1967 law was passed that would have
made it illegal to appoint an immediate relative to a cabinet post as JFK
did with RFK.
Post by mainframetech Post by bigdog Post by email@example.com
Now, we don't know if any of that is true. Those who claim that there is
PROOF of collusion are wrong. Those who claim that there is absolutely NO
proof of collusion are also wrong.
We can say that so far, Mueller has produced none.
There is proof mentioned above, and they usually hold much of the
crimes until the end of the special counsel.
So until then you can just do what you do best, make baseless assumptions.
Well, in this situation assumptions aren't baseless.
If they weren't baseless, they wouldn't be assumptions.
Post by mainframetech
After all, we're
dealing with a large scale scam artist. Remember the Trump University?
Irrelevant to the issue at hand.
Post by mainframetech Post by bigdog Post by mainframetech Post by bigdog Post by firstname.lastname@example.org
The investigation is ongoing. There is
certainly enough "smoke" to justify an investigation as to whether there
was ever a "fire", especially in light of the U.S. intelligence findings.
So, the most responsible position on collusion is - we'll have to wait and
The longer it drags out, the more it looks like Mueller is fanning the
flames to influence the midterms. If he waits until after the midterms are
over and THEN announces he could find no evidence that anyone from the
Trump campaign colluded with the Russians, I think it will be pretty clear
what his real agenda was.
His real agenda was laid out when he got his orders, and he's pursuing
The purpose of his appointment was to determine if there was evidence of
collusion with Russians interfering in the 2016 election. He has gone far
beyond that mission by investigating alleged crimes which had nothing to
do with the election.
Part of his orders were to follow up on any and all crimes encountered
during the probe. That's what has happened. Soon Manafort will be found
guilty and we'll be off and running.
So he was authorized to conduct a witch hunt.
Give it up. Trump has already admitted the collusion, but he says
collusion isn't a crime. So did his Fox Lawyer Rudi:
Trump repeatedly denied collusion. Now his lawyer Rudy Giuliani says:
'Collusion is not a crime'
President Donald Trump's attorney, Rudolph Giuliani, asserted
Monday that "collusion is not a crime."
"I have been sitting here looking in the federal code trying to
find collusion as a crime," Giuliani said in an interview on "Fox &
Friends." "Collusion is not a crime."
The president has repeatedly asserted that there was "no collusion"
between his campaign and Russia during the 2016 U.S. presidential
election. As recently as Sunday, the president took to Twitter to repeat
Tucker Higgins | @tuckerhiggins
Published 9:40 AM ET Mon, 30 July 2018 Updated 2:36 PM ET Mon, 30 July 2018
The Washington Post
Democracy Dies in Darkness
Accessibility for screenreader
Trump says collusion isn’t a crime. He’s right. It’s actually many crimes.
President Trump smiles during a campaign rally Tuesday in Tampa. (AP
by Barry Berke, Norman Eisen and Dani James August 1 Follow @NormEisen
About the authors
President Trump’s defender-in-chief, Rudolph W. Giuliani, departed from
his client’s usual mantra of “no collusion” on Monday by arguing that
even if the Trump campaign colluded with Russia, that is not a crime. On
Tuesday, Trump repeated on Twitter that “collusion is not a crime.”
While he and Giuliani are technically correct, that’s only because
collusion is a rubric that in fact encompasses many crimes. As criminal
law experts with a collective century of experience prosecuting and
defending criminal charges, we believe the sudden pivot to this baseless
legal defense signals concern among Trump and his attorneys about
emerging evidence that will show collusion.
That term has come to be shorthand for the possibility that the Trump
campaign, its advisers or the president himself coordinated with Russia,
a hostile foreign power, to help Trump win the election. The argument
that such coordination would be lawful is striking, including the fact
that it follows 191 charges against 35 individuals and companies brought
by special counsel Robert S. Mueller III, which have yielded five guilty
pleas. Taken together, that work spells out the many crimes Russia
committed to attempt to affect the outcome of the 2016 election.
That conduct was deeply illegal, and it logically follows that if the
president or his campaign team actually worked with the Russians in
connection with their efforts, they, too, could be liable. That is not
only common sense: It is also the law, with a raft of specific
“collusion” crimes implicated.
Many fall under the rubric of conspiracy: an agreement to further
illegal action. The core federal conspiracy statute, 18 U.S.C. § 371,
would be triggered here if there were any agreement by Trump or those
around him with Russian agents to do something that the law forbids. For
example, if in or around the infamous June 2016 Trump Tower meeting, the
Russians and a Trump representative tacitly or explicitly agreed about
the release or use of illegally obtained information, that could
plausibly support a conspiracy charge. Indeed, there is already some
evidence of just that, including Donald Trump Jr.’s infamous email that
“if it’s what you say I love it.”
[To lawyers like us, Michael Cohen looks like he’s ready to flip on Trump]
To take another example of a “collusion” crime, the special counsel’s
February and July 2018 indictments against alleged Russian hackers
charged them with conspiracy to defraud the United States. Their
cyber-misconduct defrauded the government by interfering with federal
elections. If Trump campaign operatives were a part of that — say, by
coordinating the release of hacked DNC emails with Russian operatives or
planning speeches or other campaign events around those releases — then
the campaign, too, could plausibly be a part of the conspiracy to
defraud the United States.
Again, there is already enough evidence to warrant searching review,
such as the fact that within hours of the Russian offer of dirt, Trump
announced a major speech promising revelations about his opponent (a
speech that he would promise again the following week but never actually
deliver). Such campaign encouragement of, or involvement in, illegal
Russian activity would not just implicate conspiracy law. The Russian
conduct appears to have violated federal anti-hacking statutes, such as
the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act and the Wiretap Act. The Wiretap Act is
especially relevant because we know that the Russians infected the DNC
servers with malware that transmitted emails to the Russians’ main
server in real time. They were literally intercepting communications,
one of the precise activities the act criminalizes.
Even if members of the campaign didn’t encourage or direct that hack,
they could still be subject to prosecution for aiding and abetting — in
lay terms, helping — a violation of those statutes. Aiding and abetting
liability could become a factor if, for example, campaign operatives
took a step to make sure the Russians used the hacked materials in the
best possible way. (Indeed, campaign aides could even have directly
violated the Wiretap Act if they themselves used the contents of any
illegally intercepted communication, if they knew or had reason to know
the communication was intercepted illegally.)
Nor do the varieties of possible criminal “collusion” with Russia end
there. If the president knowingly accepted something of value from the
Russians, such as harmful information about his opponent, that could be
an illegal contribution by foreign nationals. That is an election law
crime. If he accepted that information in exchange for the promise of
some action (like taking a more accommodating posture toward the Russian
invasion of Ukraine) that he or his administration would take if his
campaign proved successful, that could constitute an illegal quid pro
quo — that is, bribery.
What if the Russians only informed the campaign about their plans to
disseminate stolen emails and the campaign did something that interfered
with the crime being uncovered? That could constitute the crime of
misprision of a felony — essentially of hiding crimes. And if any money
transfers were involved to further the collusion — like if the Russians
wired money to the National Rifle Association to avoid FEC scrutiny —
that could violate the money laundering statute. Both would be forms of
illegally working with the Russians. In a word: “collusion.”
[Trump’s lawyers say he’s above the law. They clearly don’t understand it.]
This list merely scratches the surface of the criminal collusion that
may be under investigation. In addition, there is of course the coverup
of the collusion, which implicates an entirely different set of crimes.
Michael T. Flynn and George Papadopoulos have pleaded guilty to the
crime of making false statements in connection with their dealings with
Russia. If recent reports that the president knew about the Trump Tower
meeting are true, then Trump Jr. could face similar charges based on his
congressional testimony to the contrary.
Those reports are of course based upon Michael Cohen’s alleged
willingness to testify about what Trump knew of the meeting with the
Russians and when he knew it. It could well be that there is other
corroborating evidence that Cohen has or the special counsel has gotten
from other sources. There is also the corroboration offered by common
sense: Given everything we know about the paterfamilias, it seems
unlikely that no one would have told him about a meeting that was
important enough to draw the entire senior leadership of the campaign.
As seasoned criminal law practitioners, we recognize when the tactic of
arguing that facts do not constitute a crime is used. That typically
happens only after it becomes clear that the prosecution will be able to
prove the conduct at issue occurred. That makes it particularly
interesting that the president and his lawyer are now reaching for the
“collusion is not a crime” defense, after the reports that Cohen will
say Trump knew of the Trump Tower meeting.
At any rate, there can be no question of the legitimate law enforcement
interest in investigating the many “collusion” crimes that may have been
committed. The American people have a fundamental right to know if the
president of the United States worked with Russia to win the election
and undermine American democracy. The president and his lawyers’ embrace
of the extraordinary defense that such collusion would be entirely
lawful raises an obvious question: Why are they so busy defending
collusion if there was none?
And remember, "When the President does it, that makes it legal."
- Richard Milhouse Nixon