[yard4sale]

I can make it more simple. The GOP began the dirt digging/investigation that became the Steele dossier. The Clinton campaign just continued to pick up the tab after Trump became the GOP nominee.

So is Upsetter saying the GOP is guilty too?

[Upsetter]

I’m not gonna waste anymore time looking shit up, here’s the article from the hill that strongly suggest you are wrong.

An early draft of former FBI Director James Comey's statement closing out the Hillary Clinton email case accused the former secretary of State of having been "grossly negligent" in handling classified information, newly reported memos to Congress show.

The tough language was changed to the much softer accusation that Clinton had been "extremely careless" in her handling of classified information when Comey announced in July 2016 there would be no charges against her.

The change is significant, since federal law states that gross negligence in handling the nation's intelligence can be punished criminally with prison time or fines.

http://thehill.com/homenews/senate/3589 ... -on-emails

[Upsetter]

[quote=RockinDaddyNotFromTN post_id=685858 time=1521145901 user_id.
Good lord man. A) As any self respecting trump fan knows, "Collusion" is not a crime, 2) Unlike something like murder for hire where there are specific laws for an involved party that does not actually do the crime (i.e. the person who did the hiring), even if collusion was a crime, there is not "collusion for hire" statute so D) any crime of the kind you are describing would have to fall under conspiracy and someone cannot be convicted, charged, whatever of conspiracy without knowledge and it's been reported that the clinton campaign didn't know about fusion gps never mind chris steele. [/quote]

I’m willing to accept that collusion is not a crime. but then what the fuck is this whole stupid investigation about anyway? All I ever hear about is collusion?!

I also accept your framing of conspiracy as THE chargeable crime and that it requires proven intent. BUT I am not willing to except horseshit media spin that Clinton didn’t know. That’s a fucking crock.

unless the trump investigation ends tomorrow and we MoveOn.org Clinton and the fbi douchebags need to be investigated too.

[Kfoxwyo]

Locking up Clinton would be an easy sacrifice and likely deserving if Orange Julius is riding along in the same patty wagon. Sacking a man 1.5 days before his retirement/ 50 birthday with half of his professional years dedicated to the service of this country is a pretty petty small penis thing to do-siteing "candor" as the cause...चोर चोर को चोर बुला रहा है

[RockinDaddyNotFromTN]

[quote=RockinDaddyNotFromTN post_id=685858 time=1521145901 user_id.
Good lord man. A) As any self respecting trump fan knows, "Collusion" is not a crime, 2) Unlike something like murder for hire where there are specific laws for an involved party that does not actually do the crime (i.e. the person who did the hiring), even if collusion was a crime, there is not "collusion for hire" statute so D) any crime of the kind you are describing would have to fall under conspiracy and someone cannot be convicted, charged, whatever of conspiracy without knowledge and it's been reported that the clinton campaign didn't know about fusion gps never mind chris steele.

I’m willing to accept that collusion is not a crime. but then what the fuck is this whole stupid investigation about anyway? All I ever hear about is collusion?!

I also accept your framing of conspiracy as THE chargeable crime and that it requires proven intent. BUT I am not willing to except horseshit media spin that Clinton didn’t know. That’s a fucking crock.

unless the trump investigation ends tomorrow and we MoveOn.org Clinton and the fbi douchebags need to be investigated too.
[/quote]

Two brief examples are outlined in that politico article and both have to do with Don, Jr.

1. Conspiring to to assist foreign nationals giving a "thing of value" in an election (see: meeting re: emails), and
2. Conspiring to assist a co-conspirator (also a foreign national in this case but not sure if relevant here) to violating the computer fraud and abuse act.

Basically the whole investigation is about a crime done in conjunction with Russians. Any person cannot be guilty of that portion of the investigation without knowledge (definition a little messy). The investigation has already established there was Russia involvement in the election, butthe question of Trump et. al. coordination with that involvement is what is being investigated now.

Long short, conspiracy is the operative word (in the legal sense, not the Tom Clancy sense). Trump throws around an amorphous phrase as a form of deniability that unfortunately some fall for.

What's the difference between clinton and trump? That's where knowledge comes into play. A crafty lawyer might also argue that Clinton did not receive a "thing of value" even if she had knowledge the info was coming from Russians because she obviously lost the election. Put another way, even if she knew, that which she received had no value. That would be a pretty cynical/sneaky argument but would be interesting. My suspicion is that in ten years, when all the dust settles, the conversation around the 2016 election will not be about clinton and the russians but perhaps another politician and the Russians. But that's my suspicion.

edit to say: I do find it funny that you think Don Jr did nothing wrong when it's a fact he was in a room collecting dirt from russians yet clinton is guilty because you have a gut that her knowledge of collecting dirt from russians cut through 4 degrees of separation. In other words, Trump actually committing the same act you are suspicious Clinton commited (but can't prove) that shows her guilt, says nothing about him.

[Upsetter]

Yes well, the steel dossier is essentially criminal conspiracy work product. Seems to me, all you have to do is connect the dots from the Clinton campaign to the DNC paying the law firm and the rest is pretty easy.

Donna Brazil herself said Clinton controlled the DNC treasure chest throughout the 2016 election. So the principal in charge of the DNC has publicly set Clinton up to take the fall.

As far as the Trump campaign is concerned, We have a meeting which may or may not have, depending on who you believe, been for the purpose of digging dirt on Clinton.

Where is the criminal work product? Or is simply the taking of the meeting enough? Despite choosing not to pursue it any further?

Here’s some light reading on the criminal conspiracy, let me know what you think given the obvious defense of withdrawal. I think it’s a no go, dead end, the appointment of a special prosecutor without even mentioning criminal conspiracy was horseshit.

Conspiracy
A conspiracy occurs when two or more people agree to commit an illegal act and take some step toward its completion. Conspiracy is an inchoate crime because it does not require that the illegal act actually have been completed. For instance, a group of individuals can be convicted of conspiracy to commit burglary even if the actual burglary never happens. Conspiracy is also unique in that, unlike attempt, a defendant can be charged with both conspiracy to commit a crime, and the crime itself if the crime is completed.

Elements of a Conspiracy
Conspiracy first requires a showing that two or more people were in agreement to commit a crime. This agreement does not have to be formal or in writing. All that is required is that the parties had a mutual understanding to undertake an unlawful plan. Second, all conspirators must have the specific intent to commit the objective of the conspiracy. This means that someone who is entirely unaware that she is participating in a crime cannot be charged with conspiracy. For instance, if two sisters agree to rob a bank and ask their brother to drive them to the bank without informing him of their intent to commit a crime, he cannot be charged with conspiring in the robbery. This specific intent requirement does not require that each individual knows all the details of the crime or all of the members of the conspiracy. As long as an individual understands that the act being planned is a criminal one and proceeds nonetheless, he can be charged with conspiracy.

Finally, in most states, conspiracy requires an “overt act” taken in furtherance of the crime. This overt act does not have to be the crime itself, nor does it have to be an act that is illegal. Rather, the act must merely be a step taken in furtherance of the criminal objective, such as buying a weapon or holding a meeting to plan an attack. The act must also take place after the group of individuals has agreed to conspire. Actions taken before the agreement do not fulfill this requirement. While an “overt act” implies an affirmative action, some courts have held that silence can be an overt act where it is intentional, planned, and done in furtherance of the conspiracy.

Defenses to Conspiracy
Like other inchoate crimes such as attempt, a defendant charged with conspiracy can raise the defense of abandonment or withdrawal. In order to do so, a defendant must show that he affirmatively communicated his withdrawal to his co-conspirators and took some positive action to withdraw from the conspiracy. Additionally, the defendant must have withdrawn from the conspiracy prior to its completion. Importantly, the defendant must have definitively cut ties with his fellow co-conspirators. If he continues to communicate with them or assist them in any way, this may prevent him from raising the defense of withdrawal.

[austrotard]

and this is considered intelligent writing in the sepps.




I'm gonna write a report and see how many times I can mention the word bludger.

"A bludger is a fella who wastes a fuck tonne of time pretending he's busy. If he is in the company of other bludgers this will seem easily executed. A bludger is also a fella who can make the mundane read very very very very very very interesting (but only to another bludger)..."

[yard4sale]

GOP, the dog that caught the car.

[RockinDaddyNotFromTN]

You wrote 5 paragraphs trying to connect Hillary to the Russians and you think she's guilty.

Donald Jr. had confirmed connections with the Russians yet he's squeaky clean.

That's your argument right?

[RockinDaddyNotFromTN]

Probably the best summary I've seen yet. From:
https://www.justsecurity.org/wp-content ... IN_pdf.pdf.

https://www.justsecurity.org/57611/test ... erference/

edit: just click the link.

[RockinDaddyNotFromTN]

part 2


edit: just click the link

[yard4sale]

Sweet jeebus, that is a spam killer of a cut n paste.