The next developments in the collusion story

[_The CCC]

How is this NOT collusion?

I keep coming back to this question.

It seems to me that yes, this constitutes collusion.

I have yet to see a legal definition that applies to politics. Can anyone supply a definition that pertains directly to politics?

Here's the other thing. Political campaigns do search for dirt on opponents and use it as a vehicle to trash the other side. The difference here is that they went to Russia?

What American (first of all) trusts anything Russia has to say about an American Presidential candidate and for what reason would they go to Russia for such information?

What I'm saying is that I don't think these people are smart. You trust your biggest enemy? Who does that?

Collusion can be better defined as Conspiracy to Commit a Crime.

It is not a crime to do opposition research. It is a crime for Americans to use foreign governments as a source of that information.

We shouldn't trust them, beyond the extent that an investigation show. "Trust but Verify". The Drumpf team wanted to win at all costs."Russia I hope you have those 33,000 Emails"
Drumpf.

Apparently damn near every one on the Drumpf Team.

[_Some Schmo]

This should be a lesson to all those who believe you need to be smart to be rich.

It should also be a lesson to all those who think a businessman is the best choice to run a government.

[_DarkHelmet]

Where are Trump Sr.'s tweets? His favorite son is being viciously attacked by the fake news people, and he is strangely silent.

[_Xenophon]

If anyone is having trouble with the sequencing (lots happening very quickly), the Washington Post has built a nice little timeline:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/pol ... 4938bc5eba

[_subgenius]

Which US Law specifies this, or any, limitations for sources of opposition research?

The Logan Act:

§ 953. Private correspondence with foreign governments.

Any citizen of the United States, wherever he may be, who, without authority of the United States, directly or indirectly commences or carries on any correspondence or intercourse with any foreign government or any officer or agent thereof, with intent to influence the measures or conduct of any foreign government or of any officer or agent thereof, in relation to any disputes or controversies with the United States, or to defeat the measures of the United States, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both.

This section shall not abridge the right of a citizen to apply himself, or his agent, to any foreign government, or the agents thereof, for redress of any injury which he may have sustained from such government or any of its agents or subjects.

Yeah that is a big ole stretch right there -
The Logan Act doesn't apply to seeking dirt on Hillary Clinton. The election was neither a dispute, a controversy, nor a measure.

Perhaps the Democrats hope this applies, but no one seriously thinks so...or were you talking about Obama's recent meeting with Korean president ?

[_subgenius]

Collusion can be better defined as Conspiracy to Commit a Crime.

It is not a crime to do opposition research. It is a crime for Americans to use foreign governments as a source of that information.

We shouldn't trust them, beyond the extent that an investigation show. "Trust but Verify". The Drumpf team wanted to win at all costs."Russia I hope you have those 33,000 Emails"
Drumpf.

Apparently damn near every one on the Drumpf Team.

Actually, if you want a better definition, start with noticing that collusion is really just a "secret agreement" and is not always a crime. It might be deceitful or even misleading but it is not always illegal.
But obviously you prefer to make up the meaning for things as you go along - so, please continue.
(and it is not a crime to use a foreign government for information against a political opponent, unless those methods are themselves illegal and you knew and/or participated in the activity, etc..)
But please, do go, you were in the middle of pretending to know what the heck you were talking about

[Guest]

Again I'm not a Democrat. I'm of no political party but lean Green. by the way It's a strange day when I agree with Max Boot.
SEE http://crooksandliars.com/2017/07/neoco ... ts-country

Again seeking opposition information is not a crime. Seeking foreign government/informant information by an American is a crime.
SEE http://www.moresoftmoneyhardlaw.com/201 ... s-crime-2/

Again Conspiracy to Commit a Crime is by definition Collusion.
SEE http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/collusion

Donald Trump Jr., Jared Kushner, and Paul Manifort, all legal officials of Trump's campaign attended a meeting with a Russian lawyer close to Putin, with claimed dirt on Hillary Clinton. They are required to know/supposed to know the Campaign Finance Laws.

This is the "Smoking Gun" if shown to be true. We are still in the revelation/investigation stage. Thus between 1-2 years from impeachment, if there ever is one. Removal from office even longer.

[_EAllusion]

[–]ButISentYouATelegram 1450 points 10 hours ago*

Donald Jr and Sr also started tweeting about the emails for the first time on the same day as meeting the Russians - 6/9/16 - and within the same hour as each other.
Stupidgate is right.

And here's the fact checking on that:

https://www.reddit.com/r/worldnews/comm ... o/dk27wb6/

Okay, let's check your claim, Mr/Ms ButISentYouATelegram!

The New York Times reports that the meeting happened on June 9, 2016. I haven't seen a specific time of day reported.

Using Twitter's advanced search, Trump Sr. didn't discuss Hillary's emails for 9 months prior to this June 9, 2016 tweet sent at 1:40 PM:

https://Twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/sta ... 1947556864

In the following 3 months, he had 8 tweets about her emails.

Repeating the search for DonaldJTrumpJr gives this tweet 18 minutes later at 1:58 PM on June 9, 2016:

https://Twitter.com/DonaldJTrumpJr/stat ... 4053902336

Again, nothing before, and lots of related tweets after. Both tweets above respond to the same tweet from Hillary, but her original tweet said nothing about emails.

So, okay, I buy your claim. For the record, I suffered to get this data. I initially tried scrolling back through Trump Sr.'s Twitter and all the past horrors and lies came rolling up my screen. Nyaaarrgh! Then I had to sign up for Twitter so I could use their advanced search feature. In principle, I am now a registered Twitter user. You drove me to this. YOU.

Not that any of this matters because the Right doesn't care about our country other than making a bit of money for themselves. Unbelievable.

- Doc

We also now know, thanks to Trump Jr. tweeting out those emails for some inexplicable reason, that Donald Trump first mentioned Clinton's 33,000 emails about 15 minutes after the meeting if Trump Jr.'s other claim that the meeting ran 20-30 minutes is true. That's eyebrow raising to say the least.

[_EAllusion]

Here's some basic analysis that ties some of this together from one of my favorite commentators.

Subgenius -

I've asked you 3 or 4 times this, but I'll ask again. What's illegal about the president of the United Sates hinting he would like liberal judges assassinated, then pardoning anyone who kills liberal judges? What's strictly illegal about that? Thanks in advance.

[_Doctor CamNC4Me]

Holy cow. This is big.

https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/comme ... _releases/

In anticipation of release by the New York Times, Donald Trump Jr. posted his emails from June 2016 which set up a meeting between himself and a Russian lawyer who was willing to share documents and other information that would “incriminate” Hillary Clinton. This information was said to have came from “The Crown Prosecutor of Russia”.

And as a reminder:

Flashback: Don Jr. July 24, 2016. On the Clinton campaign's claims that the Russians were helping Trump: "It's disgusting. It's so phony."

https://Twitter.com/kylegriffin1/status/884798058881576960

- Doc