FOX: Robert Mueller is tasked with finding a crime that does not exist in the law. It is a legal impossibility.
As special counsel, Mueller can engage in all manner of spectacular jurisprudential gymnastics. However, it will not change the fact that colluding with Russia is not, under America’s criminal codes, a crime. It’s just not there.
Maybe it should be. Perhaps someday Congress will pass a law criminalizing such conduct in political campaigns. But for now, there is not a single statute outlawing collaboration with a foreign government in a U.S. presidential election. Or any election, for that matter.
Why, then, are so many people who are following the Trump-Russia saga under the mistaken impression that collusion is a crime? Principally, because it is a loaded word with an historic criminal connotation.
“Collusion” became a prominent part of the legal lexicon when Benjamin Harrison occupied the White House and Congress passed the Sherman Antitrust Act in 1890 outlawing collusion in some business practices. Specifically, price fixing and other anticompetitive activities became a criminal offense under Section 1 of the Act. Almost overnight, the word “collusion” was converted into a legal pejorative.
“col·lude
[kəˈlo͞od]
VERB
come to a secret understanding for a harmful purpose; conspire:”
izlamo delenda est …
Gee, just think of all the legal profession jobs that are created by this investigation. I hate lawyers.
That’s not the first question that should be asked.
1. Did the Russian government actually interfere with our last election? Prove that first. Nobody has.
2. If they did interfere with our last election, what measurable impact did it have on actual voting results? Prove that next. So far, nobody has.
3. If both of these were true, which has not been established, is there any credible evidence that the Russians were actually conspiring with Trump or the Trump campaign? Big guffaws all around.
A few weeks back, I tried to get a grant to research a new illness (mental) I have found. I had a nice name for it and all. I called it ‘collusion conclusion confusion.’ It might be in its incubation stage, or maybe it is fading- I don’t know. But if I had me some of that think money, I could study it. Yeah, that and some doritos.
I disagree with the final conclusion of the article, which states that obstruction of justice cannot occur if the underlying conduct is not a crime. But this is what happened to Martha Stewart – she was convicted of obstruction of justice despite the trial court dismissing the underlying criminal charge against her as inapplicable. Martha Stewart was convicted of lying about something that was not a crime, and which was a separate crime in and of itself.
Obstruction of justice is a criminal charge which is in danger of being abused. Scooter Libby did not out any agents, but was convicted of lying to investigators while Richard Armitage, who the government knew leaked the information, went free. The special prosecutor is not looking for collusion with the Russians, which is not a crime, but for obstruction of justice – which is a crime based on a non-crime. Unlike Watergate, where Nixon helped cover-up a real crime, Democrats are after Trump for allegedly covering up a non-crime and claiming that this is obstruction of justice – a crime.
I find this has disturbing consequences. Under our system of government, crimes must be statutorily enumerated, the burden is on the government to prove both the crime and that the defendant committed it, and we have the Constitutional right against self-incrimination and of due process. But if obstruction of justice exists as a stand alone crime, it permits the government to use its considerable powers to investigate things it doesn’t like and charge people who don’t cooperate fully and truthfully with a separate crime based upon a non-crime. If no crime exists or has been committed, there should logically be no basis for an obstruction charge.
He is looking for a process crime, such as perjury, to be committed by a Trump associate during the legal proceedings of his Russia Inquisition. Once he gets that, and the new Scooter Libby is paraded around by the Dems and their MSM, they will claim victory and vindication and crank up the next bullshit attack on PDT.
I do not watch the news anymore in order to find out what the Democrats are up to! I simply open a book listing mental illnesses and pick a topic, any topic, and I know what they are up to!
“Maybe it should be. Perhaps someday Congress will pass a law criminalizing such conduct in political campaigns.”
Highly unlikely, considering the number of politicians who would be jailed.
Oh wait, they would exclude themselves, as usual. If not excluded, definitely ignored, considering the number of unethical and even criminal actions many congresspersons engage in under current rules.
Why the hell does the congressional ethics committee/oversite even exist?
SOP for Special Witch Hunters is to maneuver people into “process crimes” generated by the investigation itself. No underlying crime is necessary.
keep asking those awkward questions, Greggy. You’ll find yourself on the unemployment line along with Hannity and all the rest.
OTOH, we all certainly KNOW that Hitlery BROKE MANY LAWS.
Maybe he can investigate if Comey is the dumbest, self-absorbed jerk to ever work at the FBI, or more likely,
that he is a co-conspirator in shielding the Clintons from Capital Punishment.
They’re only messing with Trump so no one sets their eyes on convicting Hillary, thereby getting 0bama and probably a third of the federal employees along with her.
There are so many violations worth investigating. This is one of them:
https://creepingsharia.wordpress.com/2017/05/24/muslim-it-staffer-security-breach-flees-us/
Why the news blackout on this?
I think Trump allowing this Investigation, and especially Mueller, is a Large Bad Move. But I’ve underestimated DJT before, so I’ll hope this is a Bannon strategy to go after the Clinton Russia corruption. Fingers crossed.
Had an argument with a lawyer friend (Lefty) about “collusion”. He finally had to concede that even if DJT had personally called up Putin directly and asked for campaign advice, even planned campaign strategy and talking points with Putin, that would not technically be illegal. He gets all his news from NYT/WaPo and I could see him realizing that their Russian allegations really don’t make sense, even if you want to believe Trump is the NeoNazi Antichrist.
I read somewhere today that the next democratic platform will be a gallows. lol