Now It's "Conspiracy To Collude"

[forkup]

Since there is no law against "collusion", with a little digging the Rats have decided to give"conspiracy to collude" a go. Again, they can't snare the President so his son will have to do. The gist of this nothing-burger is that because Junior "thought" he might get some dirt on the Clintons from a Russian, (any Russian will do), that's a conspiracy.

Jeffrey Jacobovitz, a white collar lawyer who represented officials in the Clinton White House and now is with Arnall Golden Gregory LLP. And it could mean Trump Jr. crossed the legal line on collusion with Russia.

But you can go to jail for conspiring with a foreign adversary to influence or undermine an election, and Jacobovitz thinks what the New York Times reported Trump Jr. did could rise to that level.

“You may have crossed the line on conspiracy to commit election fraud or conspiracy to obtain information from a foreign adversary,” he said. “You cannot benefit from a foreign adversary in this kind of scenario.”

Who would know better how to "benefit from a foreign adversary" better than a Clintonite?

Analysis | Donald Trump Jr. may have just crossed the legal line on collusion

the terms conspiracy and collusion are being used interchangeably, dum dum.

conspiracy does not require the completion of the criminal act, only the taking of a step or "overt act" in furtherance of the conspiracy.

now, dum dum.... what do you think meeting with a soviet agent is?

this is why no one should pretend to "debate" you freaks

Russian agent?

This really is the problem that I have with the coverage and constant focus on the Trump-Russia connection. Anyone who is Russian is suddenly a Russian agent colluding even if those meetings (as in the case with sessions) are part of their job. A very serious matter has devolved into pathetic whining.

I agree that objectivity does tend to get lost in this story on both sides. On the other hand. How long did Trump hold up his birther claims even after it was objectively proven to be baloney? How long did Republicans hold up the Benghazi story? 7 separate congressional investigations all coming up empty if I'm not mistaking. Did the Hilary e-mail screaming stop after Comey finished his investigation? Objectively speaking none of these stories hold the same seriousness as this one, yet it dragged for years and is still dragging for most Republicans.

And none of those have anything to do with this story or my comment on it. Having any commonality with birthers does not really help in advocating for this asinine trend.

Your comment was aimed, rightfully so, at the lefts tendency to put everything in the worst light possible, often without having sufficient information. My reply that it's something the right does/did too and arguably worse, is therefore a perfectly relevant reply. You call it wining, if so it's wining that gave the Republicans the presidency and now calling for fairness is hypocritical. Don't get me wrong I agree in principal, I feel everybody first and foremost needs to be aware that at the moment none of us are completely objective. And everybody should be very aware of the difference between what we know and what we think.What we know is the following in this story. Don jr, kushner and Manafort took a meeting with as purpose to get damaging information developed by the Russians. None of these people's spoke up when Trump and his people over and over said that there where no inappropriate contacts with Russians. Kushner has previously neglected to disclose contacts with Russians. What we don't know is, that Trump was aware that this was happening, although ignorance on this matter is highly unbelievable considering circumstantial evidence. And we also don't know if the Trump campaign eventually succeeded in working with Russia to defeat Clinton. What we know is very unethical. What we think is likely illegal. Sorry for my late reply I missed it before.

 

[jillian]

Since there is no law against "collusion", with a little digging the Rats have decided to give"conspiracy to collude" a go. Again, they can't snare the President so his son will have to do. The gist of this nothing-burger is that because Junior "thought" he might get some dirt on the Clintons from a Russian, (any Russian will do), that's a conspiracy.

Jeffrey Jacobovitz, a white collar lawyer who represented officials in the Clinton White House and now is with Arnall Golden Gregory LLP. And it could mean Trump Jr. crossed the legal line on collusion with Russia.

But you can go to jail for conspiring with a foreign adversary to influence or undermine an election, and Jacobovitz thinks what the New York Times reported Trump Jr. did could rise to that level.

“You may have crossed the line on conspiracy to commit election fraud or conspiracy to obtain information from a foreign adversary,” he said. “You cannot benefit from a foreign adversary in this kind of scenario.”

Who would know better how to "benefit from a foreign adversary" better than a Clintonite?

Analysis | Donald Trump Jr. may have just crossed the legal line on collusion

the terms conspiracy and collusion are being used interchangeably, dum dum.

conspiracy does not require the completion of the criminal act, only the taking of a step or "overt act" in furtherance of the conspiracy.

now, dum dum.... what do you think meeting with a soviet agent is?

this is why no one should pretend to "debate" you freaks

Russian agent?

This really is the problem that I have with the coverage and constant focus on the Trump-Russia connection. Anyone who is Russian is suddenly a Russian agent colluding even if those meetings (as in the case with sessions) are part of their job. A very serious matter has devolved into pathetic whining.

I agree that objectivity does tend to get lost in this story on both sides. On the other hand. How long did Trump hold up his birther claims even after it was objectively proven to be baloney? How long did Republicans hold up the Benghazi story? 7 separate congressional investigations all coming up empty if I'm not mistaking. Did the Hilary e-mail screaming stop after Comey finished his investigation? Objectively speaking none of these stories hold the same seriousness as this one, yet it dragged for years and is still dragging for most Republicans.

And none of those have anything to do with this story or my comment on it. Having any commonality with birthers does not really help in advocating for this asinine trend.

Your comment was aimed, rightfully so, at the lefts tendency to put everything in the worst light possible, often without having sufficient information. My reply that it's something the right does/did too and arguably worse, is therefore a perfectly relevant reply. You call it wining, if so it's wining that gave the Republicans the presidency and now calling for fairness is hypocritical. Don't get me wrong I agree in principal, I feel everybody first and foremost needs to be aware that at the moment none of us are completely objective. And everybody should be very aware of the difference between what we know and what we think.What we know is the following in this story. Don jr, kushner and Manafort took a meeting with as purpose to get damaging information developed by the Russians. None of these people's spoke up when Trump and his people over and over said that there where no inappropriate contacts with Russians. Kushner has previously neglected to disclose contacts with Russians. What we don't know is, that Trump was aware that this was happening, although ignorance on this matter is highly unbelievable considering circumstantial evidence. And we also don't know if the Trump campaign eventually succeeded in working with Russia to defeat Clinton. What we know is very unethical. What we think is likely illegal. Sorry for my late reply I missed it before.

he has never had an appropriate comment in his life.

and the "tendency to view things in the worst possible light" is a joke given how the nutty right shrieked about benghaaaaaaaaaaazzzzzzziiiiiiiiii and emails for two years.

and you really are a forkup.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Since there is no law against "collusion", with a little digging the Rats have decided to give"conspiracy to collude" a go. Again, they can't snare the President so his son will have to do. The gist of this nothing-burger is that because Junior "thought" he might get some dirt on the Clintons from a Russian, (any Russian will do), that's a conspiracy.

Jeffrey Jacobovitz, a white collar lawyer who represented officials in the Clinton White House and now is with Arnall Golden Gregory LLP. And it could mean Trump Jr. crossed the legal line on collusion with Russia.

But you can go to jail for conspiring with a foreign adversary to influence or undermine an election, and Jacobovitz thinks what the New York Times reported Trump Jr. did could rise to that level.

“You may have crossed the line on conspiracy to commit election fraud or conspiracy to obtain information from a foreign adversary,” he said. “You cannot benefit from a foreign adversary in this kind of scenario.”

Who would know better how to "benefit from a foreign adversary" better than a Clintonite?

Analysis | Donald Trump Jr. may have just crossed the legal line on collusion

So your position is what? that there are no laws against conspiracy?

Prove it.

 

[FA_Q2]

Since there is no law against "collusion", with a little digging the Rats have decided to give"conspiracy to collude" a go. Again, they can't snare the President so his son will have to do. The gist of this nothing-burger is that because Junior "thought" he might get some dirt on the Clintons from a Russian, (any Russian will do), that's a conspiracy.

Jeffrey Jacobovitz, a white collar lawyer who represented officials in the Clinton White House and now is with Arnall Golden Gregory LLP. And it could mean Trump Jr. crossed the legal line on collusion with Russia.

But you can go to jail for conspiring with a foreign adversary to influence or undermine an election, and Jacobovitz thinks what the New York Times reported Trump Jr. did could rise to that level.

“You may have crossed the line on conspiracy to commit election fraud or conspiracy to obtain information from a foreign adversary,” he said. “You cannot benefit from a foreign adversary in this kind of scenario.”

Who would know better how to "benefit from a foreign adversary" better than a Clintonite?

Analysis | Donald Trump Jr. may have just crossed the legal line on collusion

the terms conspiracy and collusion are being used interchangeably, dum dum.

conspiracy does not require the completion of the criminal act, only the taking of a step or "overt act" in furtherance of the conspiracy.

now, dum dum.... what do you think meeting with a soviet agent is?

this is why no one should pretend to "debate" you freaks

Russian agent?

This really is the problem that I have with the coverage and constant focus on the Trump-Russia connection. Anyone who is Russian is suddenly a Russian agent colluding even if those meetings (as in the case with sessions) are part of their job. A very serious matter has devolved into pathetic whining.

I agree that objectivity does tend to get lost in this story on both sides. On the other hand. How long did Trump hold up his birther claims even after it was objectively proven to be baloney? How long did Republicans hold up the Benghazi story? 7 separate congressional investigations all coming up empty if I'm not mistaking. Did the Hilary e-mail screaming stop after Comey finished his investigation? Objectively speaking none of these stories hold the same seriousness as this one, yet it dragged for years and is still dragging for most Republicans.

And none of those have anything to do with this story or my comment on it. Having any commonality with birthers does not really help in advocating for this asinine trend.

Your comment was aimed, rightfully so, at the lefts tendency to put everything in the worst light possible, often without having sufficient information. My reply that it's something the right does/did too and arguably worse, is therefore a perfectly relevant reply. You call it wining, if so it's wining that gave the Republicans the presidency and now calling for fairness is hypocritical. Don't get me wrong I agree in principal, I feel everybody first and foremost needs to be aware that at the moment none of us are completely objective. And everybody should be very aware of the difference between what we know and what we think.What we know is the following in this story. Don jr, kushner and Manafort took a meeting with as purpose to get damaging information developed by the Russians. None of these people's spoke up when Trump and his people over and over said that there where no inappropriate contacts with Russians. Kushner has previously neglected to disclose contacts with Russians. What we don't know is, that Trump was aware that this was happening, although ignorance on this matter is highly unbelievable considering circumstantial evidence. And we also don't know if the Trump campaign eventually succeeded in working with Russia to defeat Clinton. What we know is very unethical. What we think is likely illegal. Sorry for my late reply I missed it before.

My comment was not aimed at the 'left' - it was aimed at the attitude and coverage around Trump and Russia.

Pointing out that the right acts this way does not add anything at all to the conversation considering I have not charged that either side is any better with this tendencies than the other. All it does is to distract from the point with justifications that the other side does it too.

I see it over and over again in politics - people taking the a stance that is just like those stances they claim are the most abhorrent possible. This was true with Bush and remained true with Obama. While I do not expect much change it will eventually, IMHO, come to a very very bad outcome.

 

[Toro]

Then: "Trump wasn't colluding with Russia!"

Now: "Trump's collusion with Russia wasn't illegal!"

 

[Norman]

Then: "Trump wasn't colluding with Russia!"

Now: "Trump's collusion with Russia wasn't illegal!"

Meeting with a random guy can't be considered collusion you idiot.

Unless you think that every politician ever is colluding with the Russians. Of course, they guy isn't even part of the administration so he is in no way relevant.

 

[Cellblock2429]

Soros is changing the charges against Trump to "attempted conspiracy to maybe collude -- or something"

/---- President Trump knows a guy who knows a guy who related to a guy who knows a Russian cook at the corner Deli. This could be trouble.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Then: "Trump wasn't colluding with Russia!"

Now: "Trump's collusion with Russia wasn't illegal!"

Trumps failed to disclose attempted conspiracy to collude...or something