Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
General Discussion
Showing Original Post only (View all)NO WONDER no charges filed for conspiracy... or collusion, whatever they call it. [View all]
https://www.cnn.com/2019/04/16/opinions/mueller-report-legal-definition-coordination-noble/index.htmlIf this says what I think it says, NO WONDER no charges of conspiracy filed
"In assessing potential conspiracy charges, the special counsel also considered whether members of the Trump campaign 'coordinated' with Russian election interference activities.
"The special counsel defined 'coordination' as an 'agreement-tacit or express-between the Trump campaign and the Russian government on election interference.'"
Since there are only two footnotes in the letter and this is the only substantive footnote, one can assume Barr thinks the legal definition of "coordination" used is significant. He is right.
The question of whether the Trump campaign interacted with the Russians as they interfered in the 2016 election, and whether that interaction is illegal, is often framed in terms of whether there was "collusion" between the campaign and the Russians. However, "collusion" is not a term of art and has no specific legal meaning in this case. In fact, the word "collusion" never appears in Barr's letter.
"The special counsel defined 'coordination' as an 'agreement-tacit or express-between the Trump campaign and the Russian government on election interference.'"
Since there are only two footnotes in the letter and this is the only substantive footnote, one can assume Barr thinks the legal definition of "coordination" used is significant. He is right.
The question of whether the Trump campaign interacted with the Russians as they interfered in the 2016 election, and whether that interaction is illegal, is often framed in terms of whether there was "collusion" between the campaign and the Russians. However, "collusion" is not a term of art and has no specific legal meaning in this case. In fact, the word "collusion" never appears in Barr's letter.
So our DU attorneys, does this really say unless there was like a CONTRACT in writing between the two you cant indict? Or on tape admitting they are working together even though ALL THE EVIDENCE proves they are? That there can be no charges absent one of those two things?
BULLSHIT
YES i understand the difference between collusion and conspiracy, was trying to save time by including that word
InfoView thread info, including edit history
TrashPut this thread in your Trash Can (My DU » Trash Can)
BookmarkAdd this thread to your Bookmarks (My DU » Bookmarks)
15 replies, 1402 views
ShareGet links to this post and/or share on social media
AlertAlert this post for a rule violation
PowersThere are no powers you can use on this post
EditCannot edit other people's posts
ReplyReply to this post
EditCannot edit other people's posts
Rec (2)
ReplyReply to this post
15 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
NO WONDER no charges filed for conspiracy... or collusion, whatever they call it. [View all]
Eliot Rosewater
Apr 2019
OP
K&R, Barr or Mueller mentioned "Russian government" also knowing damn well Putin would
uponit7771
Apr 2019
#1
What it means is that there was collusion. The report will be damning. nt
UniteFightBack
Apr 2019
#2
No, it means unless it is in writing or on tape that they made an agreement to collude, there wont
Eliot Rosewater
Apr 2019
#5
I'm not surprised at this...I was expecting it now that I know what the legal requirements are to
UniteFightBack
Apr 2019
#9
but those ARE NOT THE LEGAL requirements, that is the WHOLE POINT of the article
Eliot Rosewater
Apr 2019
#10
not a lawyer, but the sense I get is that yeah, they're saying this specific crime can't be proved
anarch
Apr 2019
#7
They are using the WRONG definition of what you have to have to prove it
Eliot Rosewater
Apr 2019
#8
What the hell is "If it is what you say it is, I love it" if not a tacit agreement???
RockRaven
Apr 2019
#12
Yes but EVEN That is NOT the legal requirement. I think most are missing the point of this article
Eliot Rosewater
Apr 2019
#13
OP, read up on difference between "collusion" (not a legal term) and "criminal conspiracy" which yes
Kashkakat v.2.0
Apr 2019
#14