The thing I get stuck on is, okay, I am not a legal expert, and I am fine conceding that it's possible that, even if Trump was colluding with the Russians, or conspiring with Russians, he might not have done anything illegal. I have heard it explained that "conspiracy" is only a crime if the conspiracy is to commit a crime, so maybe it's possible that Trump was sitting back in literal smoke filled rooms talking about how they were going to share dirt on Hillary and Trump even said that if Putin helped him out he would totally lift sanctions on Russia, and somehow, SOMEHOW, this was all technically legal.
Fine, let's go with that.
Isn't that still something that MAAAAAYBE we should kind of give a shit about? Like, I know we're lowering our standards here, but shouldn't "conspiring with hostile foreign powers" be just a bad thing that we don't do?
It's just.
GAAAAAAAAAAAH.
WHYYYYYY.
The entire republican platform is based on "owning the libs."
They have nothing. They are a pure reactionary force.
+38
Options
FencingsaxIt is difficult to get a man to understand, when his salary depends upon his not understandingGNU Terry PratchettRegistered Userregular
Well, unless you break the law yourself. Maybe by trying to shake your aides and telling the White House things you shouldn't be telling them?
So if there's stuff that the republicans heard and accepted but is very obviously wrong, can they get in any kind of trouble for not doing anything about it?
I'm betting the answer is no, but I'm curious.
Ideally, at least Nunes would be up the creek due to...everything he’s done over the past two years. He was in the campaign, so it might be possible. But I ain’t gonna hold my breath.
+7
Options
ButtersA glass of some milksRegistered Userregular
So if there's stuff that the republicans heard and accepted but is very obviously wrong, can they get in any kind of trouble for not doing anything about it?
I'm betting the answer is no, but I'm curious.
I don’t think so. Not unless there are some sort of HIC rules that require them to properly interrogate someone’s testimony. I don’t think taking someone else’s thinly disguised lie as the truth can be any sort of crime, even if it feels like it should. Maybe if it can be proven they had facts that countered the claims and failed to act on that they could be charged as accessories?
It's not illegal to decline prosecution or fail to uncover a lie, unless it rises to the level of something so blatant that you're an accessory after the fact (i.e. you helped hide the body and accepted the lie that it was just a really lumpy rug covered in ketchup)
+2
Options
Drake ChambersLay out my formal shorts.Registered Userregular
I loathe, loathe that talking point, mostly because I've seen no one fight back on it. Yes, the act of collusion isn't illegal, it's what you colluded to do that's the problem!
"Your honor, yes, I planned to kill that man, but may I remind the court, premeditation isn't a crime. I rest my case."
The act of collusion is itself illegal regardless of what you’re planning to do when it comes to elections.
What does the act of collusion mean though? like, half the time I think Trump is just saying "we've only been doing the regular kind of crime we always do. Why is it now collusion?"
Republicans are actually right that collusion is not a crime. Conspiracy, and specifically conspiracy against the United States, is. I think people mean by collusion in this context the act of conspiracy against the United States with foreign (state) actors, obviously a crime. There are very few cases where collusion, for example price fixing, wage fixing, or three-card monte, is not a crime.
that said, while it makes little sense to care most of the time, one can theoretically agree to deceive without actually doing it. like, you plan a fraud and then you don't do it and it doesn't happen. the obvious problem for the Trump team, of course, is that it did happen. Even if you can argue/prove that you agreed with the other to steal something but backed out and didn't help, the fact that it still happened is a problem. Unless you can show that you never helped, you are guilty of failure to report. You are in the conspiracy still. Backing out at the last moment is not a defense usually.
"the mere act of asking" is probably not a crime, but anything after that probably is. Probably very hard to prove if the help was well hidden and not money/goods. Too easy to sow reasonable doubt.
(I mean, I think Trump straight "asked" Russia for help on tv because getting prosecuted for that is a stretch. Free speech, not responsible for actions of others, didn't mean that, etc. Probably not smart given it was part of the reason to start an investigation though... :P )
Oh, so this whole thing is just another "well ack-shully you can't have treason without a declaration of war" hair splitting?
Yes, though treason is a crime. It is "oh those things weren't a crime, and if they were a crime i didn't do it and shouldn't be a crime, actually I did do it because I care so much".
It is their talking point, and the only way to deal with it is going "ok, so?". it's legalese trying to obscure the person talked about is the president.
I mean, if you realize that, then why lend so much credulity to what you realize are bad faith arguments?
All their arguments are always in bad faith. I still think it's important to understand the actual argument made and why it is wrong and in bad faith. Or at least it's more interesting than rehashing the same set of facts over and over hoping to convince someone.
So if there's stuff that the republicans heard and accepted but is very obviously wrong, can they get in any kind of trouble for not doing anything about it?
I'm betting the answer is no, but I'm curious.
I don’t think so. Not unless there are some sort of HIC rules that require them to properly interrogate someone’s testimony. I don’t think taking someone else’s thinly disguised lie as the truth can be any sort of crime, even if it feels like it should. Maybe if it can be proven they had facts that countered the claims and failed to act on that they could be charged as accessories?
It's not illegal to decline prosecution or fail to uncover a lie, unless it rises to the level of something so blatant that you're an accessory after the fact (i.e. you helped hide the body and accepted the lie that it was just a really lumpy rug covered in ketchup)
That sounds like obstruction of justice, which is a crime.
+2
Options
ButtersA glass of some milksRegistered Userregular
Being crappy at your job in congress is only an issue if you're primaried or the opposition is able to capitalize on it.
Suborning perjury is supposed to be a crime but it might only apply to attorneys.
Not necessarily. I think that’s the scenario most frequently imagined but you don’t have to be a lawyer to suborn perjury (and be charged with it).
Isn't that what Manafort got in trouble for, while he was on parole, that ended with his parole being revoked?
His parole was revoked for witness tampering. He likely was trying to get said witnesses to lie but I believe he wasn't allowed to contact them at all.
Being crappy at your job in congress is only an issue if you're primaried or the opposition is able to capitalize on it.
Suborning perjury is supposed to be a crime but it might only apply to attorneys.
Not necessarily. I think that’s the scenario most frequently imagined but you don’t have to be a lawyer to suborn perjury (and be charged with it).
Isn't that what Manafort got in trouble for, while he was on parole, that ended with his parole being revoked?
His parole was revoked for witness tampering. He likely was trying to get said witnesses to lie but I believe he wasn't allowed to contact them at all.
Yeah, suborning perjury is only for when perjury was actually committed.
+1
Options
JuliusCaptain of Serenityon my shipRegistered Userregular
Being crappy at your job in congress is only an issue if you're primaried or the opposition is able to capitalize on it.
Suborning perjury is supposed to be a crime but it might only apply to attorneys.
Not necessarily. I think that’s the scenario most frequently imagined but you don’t have to be a lawyer to suborn perjury (and be charged with it).
Isn't that what Manafort got in trouble for, while he was on parole, that ended with his parole being revoked?
His parole was revoked for witness tampering. He likely was trying to get said witnesses to lie but I believe he wasn't allowed to contact them at all.
Yeah, suborning perjury is only for when perjury was actually committed.
and it's a crime to try and make witnesses lie even if they don't, right? and a defense is an affirmative defense so you would have to prove you only tried to persuade them to tell the truth, effectively making it impossible/incredibly dumb to contact them at all?
Being crappy at your job in congress is only an issue if you're primaried or the opposition is able to capitalize on it.
Suborning perjury is supposed to be a crime but it might only apply to attorneys.
Not necessarily. I think that’s the scenario most frequently imagined but you don’t have to be a lawyer to suborn perjury (and be charged with it).
Isn't that what Manafort got in trouble for, while he was on parole, that ended with his parole being revoked?
His parole was revoked for witness tampering. He likely was trying to get said witnesses to lie but I believe he wasn't allowed to contact them at all.
Yeah, suborning perjury is only for when perjury was actually committed.
and it's a crime to try and make witnesses lie even if they don't, right? and a defense is an affirmative defense so you would have to prove you only tried to persuade them to tell the truth, effectively making it impossible/incredibly dumb to contact them at all?
Eh?
Witness tampering and witness intimidation are titles of the crime where you try to get a witness to lie
The "affirmative defense" you've listed doesn't make any sense to me, can you rephrase
I loathe, loathe that talking point, mostly because I've seen no one fight back on it. Yes, the act of collusion isn't illegal, it's what you colluded to do that's the problem!
"Your honor, yes, I planned to kill that man, but may I remind the court, premeditation isn't a crime. I rest my case."
The act of collusion is itself illegal regardless of what you’re planning to do when it comes to elections.
What does the act of collusion mean though? like, half the time I think Trump is just saying "we've only been doing the regular kind of crime we always do. Why is it now collusion?"
Republicans are actually right that collusion is not a crime. Conspiracy, and specifically conspiracy against the United States, is. I think people mean by collusion in this context the act of conspiracy against the United States with foreign (state) actors, obviously a crime. There are very few cases where collusion, for example price fixing, wage fixing, or three-card monte, is not a crime.
that said, while it makes little sense to care most of the time, one can theoretically agree to deceive without actually doing it. like, you plan a fraud and then you don't do it and it doesn't happen. the obvious problem for the Trump team, of course, is that it did happen. Even if you can argue/prove that you agreed with the other to steal something but backed out and didn't help, the fact that it still happened is a problem. Unless you can show that you never helped, you are guilty of failure to report. You are in the conspiracy still. Backing out at the last moment is not a defense usually.
"the mere act of asking" is probably not a crime, but anything after that probably is. Probably very hard to prove if the help was well hidden and not money/goods. Too easy to sow reasonable doubt.
(I mean, I think Trump straight "asked" Russia for help on tv because getting prosecuted for that is a stretch. Free speech, not responsible for actions of others, didn't mean that, etc. Probably not smart given it was part of the reason to start an investigation though... :P )
Oh, so this whole thing is just another "well ack-shully you can't have treason without a declaration of war" hair splitting?
Yes, though treason is a crime. It is "oh those things weren't a crime, and if they were a crime i didn't do it and shouldn't be a crime, actually I did do it because I care so much".
It is their talking point, and the only way to deal with it is going "ok, so?". it's legalese trying to obscure the person talked about is the president.
I mean, if you realize that, then why lend so much credulity to what you realize are bad faith arguments?
All their arguments are always in bad faith. I still think it's important to understand the actual argument made and why it is wrong and in bad faith. Or at least it's more interesting than rehashing the same set of facts over and over hoping to convince someone.
If all their arguments are in bad faith that’s even more of a reason not to take them at their word. No-one is suggesting not to analyse their arguments despite being in bad faith. Ignoring facts by the opposition because you’re bored that it is the same argument seems like an odd take considering what’s at stake here, and facts are facts - they’re not there to amuse you, they’re there to point out which side is correct in the real world.
The thing I get stuck on is, okay, I am not a legal expert, and I am fine conceding that it's possible that, even if Trump was colluding with the Russians, or conspiring with Russians, he might not have done anything illegal. I have heard it explained that "conspiracy" is only a crime if the conspiracy is to commit a crime, so maybe it's possible that Trump was sitting back in literal smoke filled rooms talking about how they were going to share dirt on Hillary and Trump even said that if Putin helped him out he would totally lift sanctions on Russia, and somehow, SOMEHOW, this was all technically legal.
Fine, let's go with that.
Isn't that still something that MAAAAAYBE we should kind of give a shit about? Like, I know we're lowering our standards here, but shouldn't "conspiring with hostile foreign powers" be just a bad thing that we don't do?
It's just.
GAAAAAAAAAAAH.
WHYYYYYY.
I think if they had been open about it right from the start it probably would have gone nowhere. But the last couple of years and the actions taken during that time start ratching up the conspiracy and obstruction of justice and lying to congress and the FBI issues. Iike now trump is saying he and cohen are in agreement as to what happened but if so why did cohen lie to congress about it initially. In theory if this all took place before the election it is shady as heck but it is not actually illegal. But lying about it to congress makes it a crime.
I think it is pretty clear the Trump admin wanted to conspire with russia or at least was very open to doing so but where they competent enough to actually do it successfully is the question. That said when this all started I did not anticipate as many guilty pleas and indictments and we are still working to the main event so there would up being a whole lot more fire under than smoke than I had initially expected.
My former personal attorney who had only two other clients is a horrible criminal who should spend the rest of his life behind bars for all the felonies he committed...
...that had nothing to do with me or his being my personal attorney.
While it's true that Cohen is trying to swing a hell of a plea deal, Trump's defense boils "nuh uh" and offers no actual substance for why this is in fact a lie.
And given that he's consistently lied about the stupidest, pettiest things for decades I'd trust Cohen way more then the president on this one.
+6
Options
BrodyThe WatchThe First ShoreRegistered Userregular
I thought Mueller wasn't handling most of the Cohen stuff like the taxi fraud?
I haven't looked too closely at any of this, but it looked to me like Mueller called up Cohen's lawyer and said we have a whole lot of shit on you, and it can all be handled by a court that Trump can't interfere with, or you can co-operate on this other shit that I also know you were doing.
"I will write your name in the ruin of them. I will paint you across history in the color of their blood."
I continually cracks me up that Trump keeps alluding to the taxi medallions in tweets. Eventually here I'm pretty sure he's just going to outright say Cohen was running illegal taxi medallion scams.
+3
Options
ButtersA glass of some milksRegistered Userregular
Not obstruction by means of 53 Senators, and a rabid base that'll attack any defector.
We're in a post-law world for Republicans. As long as they have a majority in either house, unless this goes public large, and the cost of defending this shit outweighs the cost of not doing so, it's going to be a long two years.
That's why the Democrats taking the House is so important. Not for ehat they can do directly, but for what they can expose.
FOR THE LOVE OF ODIN SOMEONE TEACH THIS MAN TO USE QUOTATION MARKS
I dunno, putting quotes around "President Trump" seems correct.
+40
Options
VariableMouth CongressStroke Me Lady FameRegistered Userregular
I'm really mad at myself for even thinking about it but I think the quotes around his own name are because the lies are about a fictional version of himself
Technically, he's quoting, without attribution, someone who, at some point, said the worlds "President Trump", as well as "guts". No idea why he would be quoting them.
I'm really mad at myself for even thinking about it but I think the quotes around his own name are because the lies are about a fictional version of himself
Yeah, but that's not going to stop me referring to him as "President Trump".
As you’ll notice, Rudy accidentally created a link in his tweet. Yes, someone snatched that domain the instant he did. Yes, they have taken full advantage.
Quotations for emphasis are a thing so he might just be doing that.
I don't think it really works because the norm now from what I can tell is to only use them when directly quoting someone or use the quotations marks to imply you don't agree with what is in quotation marks, but there are apparently defenders of the practice.
The Oxford Manual of Style says scare quotes may serve ‘to hold up a word for inspection, as if by tongs, providing a cordon sanitaire between the word and the writer’s finer sensibilities’. It’s a technique that quickly wears thin, so style guides sometimes caution against its excessive use. And there’s a related problem: non-standard emphasis.
Sometimes people use quotation marks to stress a word or phrase, and this clashes with the general understanding of how the marks – and scare quotes – are properly used. In a comment to my recent article on the use of apostrophes, Kristen said she found this habit troublesome, offering the example ‘fresh’ fish, which inadvertently casts doubt on the freshness of the fish – the very opposite impression to what’s intended.
Lexicographer Grant Barrett endorses the use of quotation marks for emphasis, saying you have to go out of your way to misread them. But while the intention behind these messages is surely straightforward and sincere, people can be fussy about this sort of thing. And sometimes the connotations are strongly negative, as in ‘confidential’ surveys and a name you can ‘trust’.
Nor is emphasis the only reason for wayward quotation marks: the motivation for their use is sometimes more mysterious. A couple of years ago Orin looked at the difficulties quotation marks pose for computers processing language, but people can be stumped by them too. What are we to make of a bouzoukia from ‘Greece’, a basket for your ‘shopping’, or ‘sexy’ artificial trees? I’d be ‘very interested’ to hear your thoughts. No, ‘really’!
Posts
The entire republican platform is based on "owning the libs."
They have nothing. They are a pure reactionary force.
Ideally, at least Nunes would be up the creek due to...everything he’s done over the past two years. He was in the campaign, so it might be possible. But I ain’t gonna hold my breath.
Suborning perjury is supposed to be a crime but it might only apply to attorneys.
It's not illegal to decline prosecution or fail to uncover a lie, unless it rises to the level of something so blatant that you're an accessory after the fact (i.e. you helped hide the body and accepted the lie that it was just a really lumpy rug covered in ketchup)
Not necessarily. I think that’s the scenario most frequently imagined but you don’t have to be a lawyer to suborn perjury (and be charged with it).
All their arguments are always in bad faith. I still think it's important to understand the actual argument made and why it is wrong and in bad faith. Or at least it's more interesting than rehashing the same set of facts over and over hoping to convince someone.
Isn't that what Manafort got in trouble for, while he was on parole, that ended with his parole being revoked?
That sounds like obstruction of justice, which is a crime.
His parole was revoked for witness tampering. He likely was trying to get said witnesses to lie but I believe he wasn't allowed to contact them at all.
Yeah, suborning perjury is only for when perjury was actually committed.
and it's a crime to try and make witnesses lie even if they don't, right? and a defense is an affirmative defense so you would have to prove you only tried to persuade them to tell the truth, effectively making it impossible/incredibly dumb to contact them at all?
Eh?
Witness tampering and witness intimidation are titles of the crime where you try to get a witness to lie
The "affirmative defense" you've listed doesn't make any sense to me, can you rephrase
If all their arguments are in bad faith that’s even more of a reason not to take them at their word. No-one is suggesting not to analyse their arguments despite being in bad faith. Ignoring facts by the opposition because you’re bored that it is the same argument seems like an odd take considering what’s at stake here, and facts are facts - they’re not there to amuse you, they’re there to point out which side is correct in the real world.
I think if they had been open about it right from the start it probably would have gone nowhere. But the last couple of years and the actions taken during that time start ratching up the conspiracy and obstruction of justice and lying to congress and the FBI issues. Iike now trump is saying he and cohen are in agreement as to what happened but if so why did cohen lie to congress about it initially. In theory if this all took place before the election it is shady as heck but it is not actually illegal. But lying about it to congress makes it a crime.
I think it is pretty clear the Trump admin wanted to conspire with russia or at least was very open to doing so but where they competent enough to actually do it successfully is the question. That said when this all started I did not anticipate as many guilty pleas and indictments and we are still working to the main event so there would up being a whole lot more fire under than smoke than I had initially expected.
I do not get what Mr. Miracle has to do with this.
The Monster Baru Cormorant - Seth Dickinson
Steam: Korvalain
Man I needed a laugh today and that provided it.
White House staffers:
...that had nothing to do with me or his being my personal attorney.
And given that he's consistently lied about the stupidest, pettiest things for decades I'd trust Cohen way more then the president on this one.
I haven't looked too closely at any of this, but it looked to me like Mueller called up Cohen's lawyer and said we have a whole lot of shit on you, and it can all be handled by a court that Trump can't interfere with, or you can co-operate on this other shit that I also know you were doing.
The Monster Baru Cormorant - Seth Dickinson
Steam: Korvalain
So George Costanza then. Yeah that checks out
What a great fucking sentence
PSN/Steam/NNID: SyphonBlue | BNet: SyphonBlue#1126
Wait, which thread am I in? All of them at once?
The Monster Baru Cormorant - Seth Dickinson
Steam: Korvalain
Not obstruction by means of 53 Senators, and a rabid base that'll attack any defector.
We're in a post-law world for Republicans. As long as they have a majority in either house, unless this goes public large, and the cost of defending this shit outweighs the cost of not doing so, it's going to be a long two years.
That's why the Democrats taking the House is so important. Not for ehat they can do directly, but for what they can expose.
I dunno, putting quotes around "President Trump" seems correct.
Technically, he's quoting, without attribution, someone who, at some point, said the worlds "President Trump", as well as "guts". No idea why he would be quoting them.
We have dismissed these claims.
Battlenet ID: MildC#11186 - If I'm in the game, send me an invite at anytime and I'll play.
Yeah, but that's not going to stop me referring to him as "President Trump".
As you’ll notice, Rudy accidentally created a link in his tweet. Yes, someone snatched that domain the instant he did. Yes, they have taken full advantage.
I don't think it really works because the norm now from what I can tell is to only use them when directly quoting someone or use the quotations marks to imply you don't agree with what is in quotation marks, but there are apparently defenders of the practice.
http://www.macmillandictionaryblog.com/the-emphatic-use-of-quotation-marks