Mid-air Collusion (Mueller Thread v. 19)

[waiguoren]

“Collusion is not a crime” and yet you claim to be an unbiased critic?

Permanent AV bet: you can't produce a relevant section of the US Code that uses "collusion" to describe anything relevant to the Trump/Russia investigation.

Conspiracy to defraud the US is a crime.

Yes, and "defraud" has a specific meaning in this context which is not relevant to the Trump/Russia investigation. Hammerschmidt v. US clarified the definition. To be guilty of "conspiracy to defraud the US", Trump would have to interfere with or obstruct a lawful governmental function through dishonest means. Which lawful governmental function do you accuse Trump of interfering with through dishonest means? Hint: firing Comey doesn't count.

 

[waiguoren]

52 USC 30121 Contributions and Donations by Foreign Nationals

Prohibition

It shall be unlawful for—
(1) a foreign national, directly or indirectly, to make—

• (A) a contribution or donation of money or other thing of value, or to make an express or implied promise to make a contribution or donation, in connection with a Federal, State, or local election;
• (B) a contribution or donation to a committee of a political party; or
• (C) an expenditure, independent expenditure, or disbursement for an electioneering communication (within the meaning of section 30104(f)(3) of this title); or

(2) a person to solicit, accept, or receive a contribution or donation described in subparagraph (A) or (B) of paragraph (1) from a foreign national.




Dershowitz: First of all, [Trump Jr.'s meeting at Trump Tower] may very well be "soliciting" and it may very well be "a thing of value". The problem is it would be unconstitutional for a statute to prohibit a candidate from obtaining information from any source whatsoever. Just like the New York Times can't be prohibited from obtaining information or Chris Cuomo can't be prohibited from obtaining information even if the information you have is stolen. Even if you know it was given to you by Manning or Snowden or Daniel Ellsberg, the Constitution requires an open marketplace of ideas and you cannot construe a statute that was intended to prevent financial contributions (largely) to apply to information, to apply to facts, to apply to news. That would be unconstitutional.

The statue itself clearly is intended to cover financial contributions. It has always been applied that way. It has never been construed or interpreted...

Cuomo: Then why didn't they say that? Why didn't they say, "money"?

Dershowitz: Well, they did. They said "something of value". Let me be even more specific. Even if they intended to cover this, they can't cover it because it would be unconstitutional. You cannot regulate ideas. The federal government simply doesn't have the power under the 1st Amendment to prohibit a candidate----remember a candidate is also expressing First Amendment views---he has exactly the same status as the New York Times and as you do. He has the right or she has the right to use any information from any source and it doesn't matter if it's a foreign or domestic source. That's why to construe an ambiguous statute that way would violate the First Amendment and the first rule of constitutional construction is that if you have a statue that's capable of being construed in two different ways, you must always construe it constitutionally consistent with the First Amendment.

 

[ChainFlow]

Permanent AV bet: you can't produce a relevant section of the US Code that uses "collusion" to describe anything relevant to the Trump/Russia investigation.

”Oh I got you! They don’t use that exact word, just its synonyms!”

This is a perfect example of your entire posting history on the Trump investigation. It’s mendacious by intent and expression.

The rest of your post revolves around trying really hard to pin the tail on a specific reading of conspiracy to defraud on the Comey firing, which obviously appears to be obstruction of justice. “You say my client murdered someone! Well, then why are you talking about how he threw the body in the river! The body was already dead, we all agree! That’s not murder!”

That entirely misses the point, and deliberately so. We will see what Mueller produces on the conspiracy to defraud angle, but everyone who’s following it knows that there’s deliberate reasoning behind that being part of charges brought against the Russian government-employed hackers to begin with.

But you keep being you, “just asking questions” about the investigation like a version of ODB that studied law at the feet of Giuliani.

 

[waiguoren]

The rest of your post revolves around trying really hard to pin the tail on a specific reading of conspiracy to defraud on the Comey firing, which obviously appears to be obstruction of justice.

Frankly, your legal knowledge is not sufficient to discuss this topic intelligently. Without even recognizing it, you've flitted from conspiracy to obstruction of justice. These are two very different crimes. Nevertheless, Trump will not be indicted on either. I hereby offer you an account bet on that proposition.

 

[OverCoronavirus Pressure]

But you keep being you, “just asking questions” about the investigation like a version of ODB that studied law at the feet of Giuliani.

 

[ChainFlow]

Frankly, your legal knowledge is not sufficient to discuss this topic intelligently. Without even recognizing it, you've flitted from conspiracy to obstruction of justice. These are two very different crimes. Nevertheless, Trump will not be indicted on either. I hereby offer you an account bet on that proposition.

Without even realizing it? I was the one who stated that the Comey firing issue was NOT about conspiracy (directly), it appears to be obstruction!

To be guilty of "conspiracy to defraud the US", Trump would have to interfere with or obstruct a lawful governmental function through dishonest means. ... Hint: firing Comey doesn't count.

Entirely realizing it, you're attempting to use an instance of one crime as proof of the absence of a different crime.

Your constant yammering about account bans based on dishonest representations of others' arguments does you no favors, too. Insisting on an "indictment" when the question remains open of whether a sitting President can be indicted rather than listed as an unindicted co-conspirator, for instance. You're noxious.

 

[OverCoronavirus Pressure]

At the very least, folks could stop arguing as though they're receiving daily briefings from Bob Mueller about his investigation, the evidence he's collected, and its progress.

 

[Falsedawn]

At the very least, folks could stop arguing as though they're receiving daily briefings from Bob Mueller about his investigation, the evidence he's collected, and its progress.

"You guys are jumping the gun! Nothing has been proven!" -Stans

"Mueller doesn't have any evidence and I know that for a fact!" -Also stans

 

[LangfordBarrow]

I see that you still haven't read the order appointing Mueller.

Is it substantively different that any other? The ones into Clinton or Nixon for example?

 

[OverCoronavirus Pressure]

Is it substantively different that any other? The ones into Clinton or Nixon for example?

It's shorter

 

[vengeful]

What specific facts/events originated the FBI investigation you speak of? This information has not been made public and therefore we still don't know the answer. Collusion is not a crime. Even if it were, you write of "suspected collusion", but you use the passive voice. That leads you to avoid the key issue: who in the FBI suspected the Trump campaign of "collusion", and on what specific grounds? To know this, we must see the investigation's originating documents. If the investigation was mostly or entirely founded on the Steele dossier, our system has failed.

You're correct that it would be inappropriate to have Trump appoint directly an investigator to look into his own campaign. It appeared (and still appears) that the Russian state hacked the DNC and DCCC e-mail systems. A nonpartisan commission could have been formed to investigate foreign interference in the 2016 election. If that commission were to discover evidence of crimes, it could refer that evidence to federal prosecutors. There would be no political pressure on the commission to find a particular outcome. See the 9/11 commission for reference.

Mueller is a prosecutor investigating the Trump campaign. If Mueller fails to indict the head of that campaign (Trump Sr.), he will be attacked. If Mueller indicts Trump, he will be attacked. Thus the mere appointment of special counsel to investigate a sitting president is dangerously political. No matter the outcome, millions from one side or the other will lose faith in the political system.

You don't need specifics to start an investigation to see if a crime took place, I don't know why this sudden high standard suddenly happens when it comes to investigating the Trump Campaign. What you need is suspicion that a crime took place, you then investigate to see if that happened or not. It doesn't matter if an investigation was founded or mostly founded on the Steele Dossier, hundreds of investigations start because of an anonymous tip, you believe an anonymous tip is somehow more reliable than that of a seasoned Intelligence Agent with a history of working with the US government?

52 USC 30121 Contributions and Donations by Foreign Nationals

Prohibition

It shall be unlawful for—
(1) a foreign national, directly or indirectly, to make—

• (A) a contribution or donation of money or other thing of value, or to make an express or implied promise to make a contribution or donation, in connection with a Federal, State, or local election;
• (B) a contribution or donation to a committee of a political party; or
• (C) an expenditure, independent expenditure, or disbursement for an electioneering communication (within the meaning of section 30104(f)(3) of this title); or

(2) a person to solicit, accept, or receive a contribution or donation described in subparagraph (A) or (B) of paragraph (1) from a foreign national.




Dershowitz: First of all, [Trump Jr.'s meeting at Trump Tower] may very well be "soliciting" and it may very well be "a thing of value". The problem is it would be unconstitutional for a statute to prohibit a candidate from obtaining information from any source whatsoever. Just like the New York Times can't be prohibited from obtaining information or Chris Cuomo can't be prohibited from obtaining information even if the information you have is stolen. Even if you know it was given to you by Manning or Snowden or Daniel Ellsberg, the Constitution requires an open marketplace of ideas and you cannot construe a statute that was intended to prevent financial contributions (largely) to apply to information, to apply to facts, to apply to news. That would be unconstitutional.

The statue itself clearly is intended to cover financial contributions. It has always been applied that way. It has never been construed or interpreted...

Cuomo: Then why didn't they say that? Why didn't they say, "money"?

Dershowitz: Well, they did. They said "something of value". Let me be even more specific. Even if they intended to cover this, they can't cover it because it would be unconstitutional. You cannot regulate ideas. The federal government simply doesn't have the power under the 1st Amendment to prohibit a candidate----remember a candidate is also expressing First Amendment views---he has exactly the same status as the New York Times and as you do. He has the right or she has the right to use any information from any source and it doesn't matter if it's a foreign or domestic source. That's why to construe an ambiguous statute that way would violate the First Amendment and the first rule of constitutional construction is that if you have a statue that's capable of being construed in two different ways, you must always construe it constitutionally consistent with the First Amendment.

If what Dershowitz says is true, then how can the theft of Intellectual property and 'trade secrets' be a crime?

 

[HomerThompson]

It's shorter

And more justified than Clinton's was. By a lot.

 

[Ophydian]

And I’m sorry “something of value” in legalese is catch all to cover anything that could be considered something of value not just money.

 

[OverCoronavirus Pressure]

And more justified than Clinton's was. By a lot.

Ridiculous. Are you seriously suggesting that Russian election interference > shady land deal?

You're a partisan hack fraud

 

[TheBlondBomber]

If what Dershowitz says is true, then how can the theft of Intellectual property and 'trade secrets' be a crime?

Article I, section 8, clause 8 of the United States constitution

 

[waiguoren]

Collusion is not a crime.

“Collusion is not a crime” and yet you claim to be an unbiased critic?

Conspiracy to defraud the US is a crime.

Yes, and "defraud" has a specific meaning in this context which is not relevant to the Trump/Russia investigation. Hammerschmidt v. US clarified the definition. To be guilty of "conspiracy to defraud the US", Trump would have to interfere with or obstruct a lawful governmental function through dishonest means. Which lawful governmental function do you accuse Trump of interfering with through dishonest means?

We will see what Mueller produces on the conspiracy to defraud angle, but everyone who’s following it knows that there’s deliberate reasoning behind that being part of charges brought against the Russian government-employed hackers to begin with.

I've already seen the future, and Trump walks free.

Without even realizing it? I was the one who stated that the Comey firing issue was NOT about conspiracy (directly), it appears to be obstruction!

Firing executive branch staff or issuing pardons cannot be construed as obstruction of justice. These are constituionally protected executive functions. Obstruction of justice requires an underlying crime. See: Watergate. I hereby offer you a permanent AV bet: President Trump will not be indicted on even one charge of obstruction of justice.

As for the previous dialogue, I apologize if I mischaracterized your statements.

Insisting on an "indictment" when the question remains open of whether a sitting President can be indicted rather than listed as an unindicted co-conspirator, for instance.

I guess you think it's unlikely that Trump is indicted, then. Glad to have you on the team.

Perhaps we should have a bet on whether President Trump is listed as an unindicted co-conspirator at the conclusion of the Mueller probe.

You're noxious.

I love you.

 

[WaylonMercy5150]

I've already seen the future, and Trump walks free.

 

[waiguoren]

I've already seen the future, and Trump walks free.

I sense skepticism on your part. I wonder if you are man enough to risk your AV on this matter.

 

[WaylonMercy5150]

I sense skepticism on your part. I wonder if you are man enough to risk your AV on this matter.

If he is charged what will you gamble?

 

[waiguoren]

If he is charged what will you gamble?

Your choice. AV/sig/name.