Miscellaneous And Off Topic Subjects

[iam416]

I think what Kapture is saying is that the end goal has to be criminal. I don't think he's saying that if it's not accomplished or if your part in the conspiracy isn't criminal then you're not criminally liable. If you take illegal acts in furthers of a legal partnership then you're liable for those acts, but no criminal conspiracy.

Yeah, "collusion" or "working together" or whatever is the broadest circle. Each party "colludes" with gads of different interest groups every election. Within that circle, there is the criminal conspiracy subset and all it's various tenets. But, there needs to be a crime or criminal goal at some point. I'm not sure what crime accepting oppo research breaks. If, e.g, PDJT set in place some sort of agreement to obtain oppo shit and then someone (anyone, doesn't have to be the Russians) hacked into a computer system, then the parties to the agreement could be criminally liable for that act.

[hack]

History shows what happens when you govern for the few and not the many. No matter what you think is right or ought to be, that just is what it is. History offers us a pretty big sample size. Complain to the history books if you don't like it. I'm sure they'll listen.

[iam416]

I don't think we should govern to the bottom few that can't take advantage of the tremendous opportunities offered by the greatest country in the world. Fortunately, we're still governing to the voice of the many and not the technocratic few. Our country fucking 'tis of thee....

[UMStan White]

Kapture and you are wrong. The end goal need not be criminal. Conspiracy law is quite clear that performing an illegal act to accomplish a legal goal can be the basis for a conspiracy conviction, just as taking a legal act to accomplish an illegal goal can be the basis for a conspiracy conviction. A conspiracy conviction usually requires taking an overt act. However if one is involved in a conspiracy, one may act legally at all times, but if others in the conspiracy act illegally to obtain a legal goal or act legally to obtain an illegal goal, you are guilty of conspiracy even if you had no knowledge that others acted. Basic black letter criminal conspiracy law. RICO is basically a codification of conspiracy law to establish a criminal enterprise.

[Kapture1]

Kapture and you are wrong. The end goal need not be criminal. Conspiracy law is quite clear that performing an illegal act to accomplish a legal goal can be the basis for a conspiracy conviction, just as taking a legal act to accomplish an illegal goal can be the basis for a conspiracy conviction. A conspiracy conviction usually requires taking an overt act. However if one is involved in a conspiracy, one may act legally at all times, but if others in the conspiracy act illegally to obtain a legal goal or act legally to obtain an illegal goal, you are guilty of conspiracy even if you had no knowledge that others acted. Basic black letter criminal conspiracy law. RICO is basically a codification of conspiracy law to establish a criminal enterprise.

the act wasn't illegal. It's not illegal to meet with Russian nationals, and it's not illegal to know about someone else having that meeting. Hell, it's not even illegal to lie when not under oath

because there was nothing illegal at all that happened, there is no conspiracy.



so even if you believe Cohen, and this was the one conversation that he decided not to record, then it adds up to a whole lot of nothing. sorry.

[Kapture1]

BQ6oK6a26DFoEumNQmqn66TynBQPdiXceMQMyzAZiwQ.jpg?w=499&s=4aefbf2c18f36eb06f6357dd2d498f81.jpg

[iam416]

I guess we're two crossing ships, Stan. You certainly are more knowledgeable in this area than I. But what I'm saying, I guess, is that practically speaking, there needs to be an agreement to commit the crime. If you and I agree to sell oranges and I go out and steal the oranges, you're not liable unless somehow or another that theft was foreseeable. In a law school hypo I guess it could be, but ordinarily I'm the only one on the hook criminally. Now, if I tell you I'm going to steal oranges so that we can sell them, then we have a conspiracy to steal oranges. In that case, you're still acting legally at all times, but now you have knowledge of the illegal acts. You obviously know all this, and I apologize for stating -- but it's more a way to explain my thinking that trying to teach you anything.

As the Supreme Court has held, "[t]he Court has repeatedly said that the essence of a conspiracy is 'an agreement to commit an unlawful act.'"

[hack]

Yeah but that's not what I said. It's harder to reply to what I said than it is a twisted version of it, but you have the ability.

[hack]

Or just go tell history that it's wrong. I'm sure you'll find an audience for that.

[iam416]

Ever supercilious. I guess you'll get to tell me "I told you so" in 500 years. Maybe 1000. Maybe 2000.

[iam416]

LOL@Ocasio-Cortez meme. The OC.

[UMStan White]

The last thing I'm going to debate with a non-educated moron is the law. (I'm referring to Kapture. not Talent). You are simply wrong. It is illegal to meet with Russian nationals if the purpose for the meeting is to accomplish either an illegal result using legal means or a legal result using illegal means. Tampering with the electoral process is an illegal act whether or not the conspiracy was successful or went beyond a single meeting. The meeting is the overt act. All conspirators are liable for the overt act. The thing about conspiracy law is that if you are part of the conspiracy it is no defense at all that you didn't know others were acting illegally to achieve a legal result or others were acting legally to achieve an illegal result. In fact, you may not have any knowledge that others have acted at all in furtherance of the conspiracy. Black letter law. (if you don't know what that means , look it up.) It may also well be a RICO violation. You simply have no idea what you are talking about, But that comes as no surprise as you very rarely if ever know what you are talking about. (And by the way it is a crime to lie to the FBI)

[Kapture1]

And there is no criminal code for collusion.

I guess the only crime that was committed was the actual hacking, which was done prior to the Trump Tower meeting.

so.....?


When the left bans straws, what the fuck are they gonna grasp onto?

[Kapture1]

The last thing I'm going to debate with a non-educated moron is the law. You are simply wrong. It is illegal to meet with Russian nationals if the purpose for the meeting is to accomplish either an illegal result using legal means or a legal result using illegal means. Tampering with the electoral process is an illegal act whether or not the conspiracy was successful or went beyond a single meeting. The meeting is the overt act. All conspirators are liable for the overt act. The thing about conspiracy law is that if you are part of the conspiracy it is no defense at all that you didn't know others were acting illegally to achieve a legal result or others were acting legally to achieve an illegal result. In fact, you may not have any knowledge that others have acted at all in furtherance of the conspiracy. Black letter law. (if you don't know what that means , look it up moron. It may also well be a RICO violation. You simply have no idea what you are talking about, But that comes as no surprise as you very rarely if ever know what you are talking about. (And by the way it is a crime to lie to the FBI)

we have heard from several people on both sides of this meeting... wtf do you think was discussed?

You imagine that they discussed the hacking of the DNC and John Podesta. That had already happened. You assume they were in any way connected with the Russian hacker. You assume they game planned how the emails would be released and when. You assume that some agreement was made, probably for money. You assume that DTjr called his dad from the meeting. none of that squares with the facts. and none of it is alleged by Cohen. He said that he is willing to give his word to Mueller that Trump knew of the meeting when he said he didn't.

[UMStan White]

Hey moron, we don't know the extent of the evidence that the special prosecutor has or may obtain. The conspiracy may well have been committed before the meeting. My point is that you have no clue as to what the law is on conspiracy yet you pontificate as to what it is not. Once again you contribute nothing more than ignorance.