NO WONDER no charges filed for conspiracy... or collusion, whatever they call it.

[Eliot Rosewater]

https://www.cnn.com/2019/04/16/opinions/mueller-report-legal-definition-coordination-noble/index.html


If this says what I think it says, NO WONDER no charges of conspiracy filed

"In assessing potential conspiracy charges, the special counsel also considered whether members of the Trump campaign 'coordinated' with Russian election interference activities.

"The special counsel defined 'coordination' as an 'agreement-tacit or express-between the Trump campaign and the Russian government on election interference.'"

Since there are only two footnotes in the letter and this is the only substantive footnote, one can assume Barr thinks the legal definition of "coordination" used is significant. He is right.

The question of whether the Trump campaign interacted with the Russians as they interfered in the 2016 election, and whether that interaction is illegal, is often framed in terms of whether there was "collusion" between the campaign and the Russians. However, "collusion" is not a term of art and has no specific legal meaning in this case. In fact, the word "collusion" never appears in Barr's letter.

So our DU attorneys, does this really say unless there was like a CONTRACT in writing between the two you cant indict? Or on tape admitting they are working together even though ALL THE EVIDENCE proves they are? That there can be no charges absent one of those two things?

BULLSHIT


YES i understand the difference between collusion and conspiracy, was trying to save time by including that word

[uponit7771]

1. K&R, Barr or Mueller mentioned "Russian government" also knowing damn well Putin would

... always have plausible deniability.

[Eliot Rosewater]

3. And it has to be between them and GOVT OFFICIALS, another BULLSHIT

FUCK I wish there were more patriots in this country than there are, because if you are a patriot you are FUCKING MAD

[uponit7771]

4. +1

[UniteFightBack]

2. What it means is that there was collusion. The report will be damning. nt

[Eliot Rosewater]

5. No, it means unless it is in writing or on tape that they made an agreement to collude, there wont

be and OF COURSE that wont exist.

They colluded their fucking BRAINS out but at no time will there be a contract to this point or rump himself on tape agreeing to collude.

We are being FUCKED

[UniteFightBack]

9. I'm not surprised at this...I was expecting it now that I know what the legal requirements are to

meet the definition of conspiracy. I mean it makes sense when you think how they always try to get the conspirators on tape...and they often will talk in code so as not to entrap themselves since you can't really trust anybody.

Anyway.... It is still going to be very damaging. Don't forget Muller farmed out much that was not in his purview.

We are still running this marathon here...but we are going to win this in the end.

[Eliot Rosewater]

10. but those ARE NOT THE LEGAL requirements, that is the WHOLE POINT of the article

Last edited Wed Apr 17, 2019, 09:42 PM - Edit history (1)

SORRY , NOT mad at anyone here

I think a HUGE story here is being missed by everyone including the media, even Rachel and so on

[FakeNoose]

6. We still need to see the full report - no redactions

It will be leaked, somebody has it and they are biding their time.
We'll all get to see it.

I sure hope we hear from Bob Mueller soon. Is he hiding under a rock?

[anarch]

7. not a lawyer, but the sense I get is that yeah, they're saying this specific crime can't be proved

beyond a reasonable doubt. Which is of course not to say "there's no evidence" or "it didn't happen" etc.

By simple logic, this can almost certainly be attributed at least in part to the successful obstruction of the investigation by Individual 1 and his accomplices. Evidence regarding such obstruction, if I understand correctly, was then intended to be presented to congress for their consideration as to whether it constituted sufficient reason to take further action, etc.

The AG then interjected himself into the whole process and came out with his pronouncements, and frankly I'll be amazed if anything we don't already know about gets exposed in whatever actually gets released to the public from the SCO report.

[Eliot Rosewater]

8. They are using the WRONG definition of what you have to have to prove it

that is the BIG NEWS HERE

[anarch]

11. yeah...weasel words and more obfuscation

I wish more people could see through the bullshit; or that more of those who can see through it cared enough so that we could all collectively do something about it.

[RockRaven]

12. What the hell is "If it is what you say it is, I love it" if not a tacit agreement???

While Russians were engaged in cyber-crimes, The Trump campaign was offered the work product of that illegal activity, they said "yes please" and attended a meeting expecting to receive it.

What the F--K is lacking in demonstration of coordination with their mob friends' criminality when they set up a meeting to receive stolen goods, and then follow through on showing up for said meeting?

[Eliot Rosewater]

13. Yes but EVEN That is NOT the legal requirement. I think most are missing the point of this article

[Kashkakat v.2.0]

14. OP, read up on difference between "collusion" (not a legal term) and "criminal conspiracy" which yes

does have a whole set of criteria that must be met before it can be prosecuted as a crime.

Right wingers and especially the Drumpfenfuhrer like to conflate and confuse the two words, but they really are two separate things.

So yes - there was lots of "collusion," but apparently not enough evidence of conspiracy.

[Eliot Rosewater]

15. NO the point is they are using the WRONG definition, so YES there IS

I phrased it that way about collusion or whatever they call it for those who are used to seeing that word.


They are using the wrong definition according to the expert.
The WRONG definition of what is needed to show CRIMINAL CONSPIRACY.