Page 31 of 31 FirstFirst ... 21 29 30 31
Results 901 to 911 of 911

Thread: Trump 2018

  1. #901
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    9,713
    Mentioned
    750 Post(s)
    We can't charge him with "Collusion" because no such crime exists, you can't pull out a book of statutes and look up "collusion. That's my point. It doesn't exist, so we can't charge him for it or impeach him for it.

    "Impeachment" is a word that is synonymous with "indictment." Impeach is when you indict the President of the United States for breaking a law.

    But, the law has to be on the books.

    The reason why Comey and the F.B.I. didn't bring charges against Hillary Clinton is because she didn't break any laws; at least, they couldn't find evidence of it. There also has to be some level of INTENT. It can't be accidental.

    Re Treason: Here is the 18 U.S. Code Section 2381 defining Treason:

    Whoever, owing allegiance to the United States, levies war against them or adheres to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort within the United States or elsewhere, is guilty of treason and shall suffer death, or shall be imprisoned not less than five years and fined under this title but not less than $10,000; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States.

    (June 25, 1948, ch. 645, 62 Stat. 807; Pub. L. 103–322, title XXXIII,  330016(2)(J), Sept. 13, 1994, 108 Stat. 2148.)

    NOTES:

    Based on title 18, U.S.C., 1940 ed.,  1, 2 (Mar. 4, 1909, ch. 321,  1, 2, 35 Stat. 1088).

    Section consolidates sections 1 and 2 of title 18, U.S.C., 1940 ed.

    The language referring to collection of the fine was omitted as obsolete and repugnant to the more humane policy of modern law which does not impose criminal consequences on the innocent.

    The words “every person so convicted of treason” were omitted as redundant.

    Minor change was made in phraseology.

    Amendments
    1994—Pub. L. 103–322 inserted “under this title but” before “not less than $10,000”.
    The definition is very specific, INTENT is required, the intent is to aid the OTHER country, and the other country must be an "enemy," and the "enemy" is defined as a country against which we have declared war.

    See this article, written by Carlton F.W. Larson, a professor of law at the University of California at Davis: "Five myths about treason: The Constitution defines it narrowly — and no, bungling classified material doesn’t count."

    What the Mueller team is investigating is THIS: 52 U.S. Code Section 30121: Contributions and donations by foreign nationals

    The letter appointing Mueller is HERE.

    The mainstream media and voters need to stop using the word "collusion" and start using the word "conspiracy." Which is exactly what the DNC lawsuit calls it. But, go even further. Let's go with RICO.

    You wanna see what huge thing I'm talking about beyond this dumb bullshit of "conspiracy" or "treason?"

    HERE YA GO.
    Last edited by allegro; 04-24-2018 at 01:58 PM.

  2. #902
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Los Angeles
    Posts
    5,348
    Mentioned
    339 Post(s)
    Let me clarify then... I don't know what they're going to get him on, and I don't care what it is really (because the rule book as been so thoroughly shit on here), but if they get him to testify under oath after they've skimmed through his fixer/lawyer's books, he will commit perjury.

    With regards to collusion, the crime itself may not be a text-book crime, but treason is.

    Also, I know everyone is waking up to this word "emoluments" now, and so it gets a little easy to roll the eyes when we hear people use it as though it was a word they knew about three years ago, but it seems like the underpinning concept is instinctively correct and feels like a protection that always should have logically been considered.

  3. #903
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    9,713
    Mentioned
    750 Post(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Jinsai View Post
    With regards to collusion, the crime itself may not be a text-book crime, but treason is.
    No, it's not.

    Americans THINK they know what Treason is, but they don't. They really don't. They see it on TV, or in the movies, but they have no idea what "textbook treason" is.

    From the above-linked article about Treason myths, written by a law professor:

    MYTH NO. 1

    Disloyalty or policies that harm the United States are treason.


    Accusations of treason have recently been made on the flimsiest of grounds, from assertions that President Barack Obama committed treason by supporting the Iran nuclear deal (found in James McCormack’s book “Unexpected Treason”) to claims that, per Paste magazine, Sen. John McCain committed treason because he threatened not to confirm a Supreme Court justice hypothetically nominated by Hillary Clinton.

    The framers of the Constitution took deliberate steps to ensure that treason trials would not be used as political weapons against opponents. Article 3, Section 3 defines the crime very narrowly: “Treason against the United States shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort.” This language is drawn from an English statute from 1351 that was also intended to limit the scope of treason. Speaking against the government, undermining political opponents, supporting harmful policies or even placing the interests of another nation ahead of those of the United States are not acts of treason under the Constitution.

    MYTH NO. 2

    Aiding Russia is treason against the United States.

    Stephen Colbert’s recent segment “Michael Flynn’s White House Tenure: It’s Funny ’Cause It’s Treason” was but one of many accusations of treason hurled against Flynn and other White House associates because of their proven or alleged ties to Russia. “Consider the evidence that Trump is a traitor,” exhorted an essay in Salon. It is, in fact, treasonable to aid the “enemies” of the United States.

    But enemies are defined very precisely under American treason law. An enemy is a nation or an organization with which the United States is in a declared or open war . Nations with whom we are formally at peace, such as Russia, are not enemies. (Indeed, a treason prosecution naming Russia as an enemy would be tantamount to a declaration of war.) Russia is a strategic adversary whose interests are frequently at odds with those of the United States, but for purposes of treason law it is no different than Canada or France or even the American Red Cross. The details of the alleged connections between Russia and Trump officials are therefore irrelevant to treason law.

    This was true even in the 1950s, at the height of the Cold War. When Julius and Ethel Rosenberg handed over nuclear secrets to the Soviet Union, they were tried and executed for espionage, not treason. Indeed, Trump could give the U.S. nuclear codes to Vladimir Putin or bug the Oval Office with a direct line to the Kremlin and it would not be treason, as a legal matter. Of course, such conduct would violate various laws and would constitute grounds for impeachment as a “high crime and misdemeanor” — the framers fully understood that there could be cases of reprehensible disloyalty that might escape the narrow confines of the treason clause.

    So who are the current enemies of the United States? North Korea is a possible enemy, since the Korean War was never formally concluded. Certain nonstate actors can also count as enemies, and terrorist groups such as al-Qaeda and the Islamic State probably fit the definition.

    MYTH NO. 3

    Leaking classified material or handling it sloppily is treason.

    Shortly before Election Day in November, the Republican chairman of the House Homeland Security Committee, Rep. Mike McCaul, claimed that Clinton had committed treason by mishandling classified email. Edward Snowden has been denounced as a traitor for leaking classified documents, as have the intelligence officials who may have leaked damaging material about Flynn. The Conservative Daily Post pointed to “traitor moles nestled within the new admin.”

    But none of these actions amounts to levying war against the United States, as that offense requires some use of force in an attempt to overthrow the government. No such force or intent is present in any of these scenarios. Nor do the actions constitute aiding the enemy. Leaking information to newspapers is not providing aid to “enemies.” This newspaper and others, whatever Trump might think of them, are not enemies of the United States. As with aid to Russia, such leaks might violate other provisions of federal law, but they are not treason.

    MYTH NO. 4

    Only U.S. citizens can commit treason against the U.S.


    Even well-trained constitutional lawyers have sometimes repeated this myth. In his otherwise excellent book “Constitutional Faith,” for instance, Sanford Levinson writes that treason “can be committed only by a citizen.”

    But the offense of treason can be committed by any person who owes allegiance to the United States, and this can include noncitizens. Treason law recognizes two kinds of allegiance: permanent and temporary. U.S. citizens owe permanent allegiance to the United States, and this duty carries with them wherever they go in the world. By contrast, noncitizens in the United States (other than ambassadors and their staffs) owe a duty of temporary allegiance, the Supreme Court found in an 1872 case. While they are within the United States and receiving protection from it, noncitizens are governed by American treason law. If a person on a green card or a student or tourist visa, for example, wages war against the United States or provides aid and comfort to our enemies, he cannot escape a treason prosecution simply by asserting his foreign citizenship.

    Under this law, there is a strong argument that the 9/11 hijackers committed treason by levying war against the United States. When a noncitizen leaves the country, however, the duty of temporary allegiance disappears.

    MYTH NO. 5

    Very few Americans have committed treason.


    No person has been executed for treason by the federal government under the Constitution. The small handful of people who have been convicted of the offense at the federal level — such as two militants from the Whiskey Rebellion and several people after World War II — have mostly been pardoned or released. So we are sometimes told that treason has been “rare” in the United States.

    Hardly. During the American Revolution, the rebelling Americans were all committing treason against Britain. Similarly, the thousands of Americans who actively aided the British committed treason against the United States. In the Civil War, the hundreds of thousands of men who fought for the Confederacy all levied war against the United States, as did the people who aided and abetted the rebellion.

    Neither the American Revolution nor the Civil War led to mass executions. At the end of the day, the spirit of reconciliation prevailed, and the victors allowed the vanquished to return home peacefully. But it remains the case that many Americans have a traitor lurking somewhere in their family tree.

  4. #904
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    9,713
    Mentioned
    750 Post(s)
    again, I highly recommend that article I linked above, re RICO.

  5. #905
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    san fransisco
    Posts
    1,063
    Mentioned
    35 Post(s)
    best case of laws broken possible money laundering, bank fraud wire fraud, tax evasion campaign fiance laws and the big one obstruction of justice.I can probably find more.
    -Louie

  6. #906
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    9,713
    Mentioned
    750 Post(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Louie_Cypher View Post
    best case of laws broken possible money laundering, bank fraud wire fraud, tax evasion campaign fiance laws and the big one obstruction of justice.I can probably find more.
    -Louie
    They are trying to go after Cohen for all of those already, and Mueller says that Trump is not a current criminal target. (He is obligated to say whether or not Trump is a target, he can't fudge this.) They are, of course, looking for any evidence of Cohen's and Manifort's misdeeds leading directly to Trump.

    Money laundering falls under the nice tidy collective definition of "RICO" when it's tied to the Russian Mob ("Mafiya") and shady Kremlin mob characters and mobsters from the Ukraine.

    (Money laundering falls under "racket" and racket can fall under RICO.)

    The DNC filed a civil RICO suit against Trump and his campaign (and Russia and Wikileaks).

    But the two most important charges are Counts II and III: the civil RICO charges. The DNC alleges “The Trump Campaign Was A Racketeering Enterprise.” In the alternative, they allege “The Trump Campaign Was An Association-In-Fact Enterprise.”

    Getting an organization labeled a criminal conspiracy for the purposes of civil RICO charges is a high bar. The DNC would have to prove an actual agreement existed between all the parties. Just going on the information that is publicly available, we don’t really know if everybody from Paul Manafort to Roger Stone to Julian Assange to Guccifer actually achieved a common conspiracy. There is more than enough evidence to show that there was an “overt act” in furtherance of the conspiracy, but establishing the conspiracy itself will be a challenge.

    But, as any defense lawyer could tell you, if the DNC can show that a “conspiracy” existed… that’s the whole ball game. It is OVER. You don’t survive a RICO charge if a conspiracy can be shown. RICO is the Gozer of criminal prosecutors and civil plaintiffs, if it is invoked it can take nearly any form to destroy what it seeks.

    You can read the full lawsuit here. There are no new allegations, but the theory of the crime is worth reading.

    The first test for this lawsuit will likely be a motion to dismiss on behalf of all parties. The Russians will allege the court has no authority, Wikileaks will… well I don’t actually know what Wikileaks does except steal things. And all of the named defendants will argue that the DNC didn’t allege enough facts to support a possible criminal conspiracy. Even if the lawsuit survives dismissal, the DNC will have to wait in line behind the ongoing criminal investigations already underway. The DNC will not be getting a deposition from Roger Stone any time soon.

    But, here’s why I think is why the DNC is doing this: if the lawsuit survives a motion to dismiss, then they will have opened a truly independent third front to investigate the Trump campaign’s ties to Russia. I’ve already said that I think we are close to the point where Trump cannot fire his way out of trouble. If this DNC lawsuit goes forward, Trump’s ability to stop the bleeding with dismissals is foreclosed.
    Last edited by allegro; 04-24-2018 at 04:39 PM.

  7. #907
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Los Angeles
    Posts
    5,348
    Mentioned
    339 Post(s)
    well, if conspiracy to aid a hostile foreign power to undermine the election cycle for who runs your country ISN'T treason, what the fuck is?

  8. #908
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    9,713
    Mentioned
    750 Post(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Jinsai View Post
    well, if conspiracy to aid a hostile foreign power to undermine the election cycle for who runs your country ISN'T treason, what the fuck is?
    Huh? I just posted a long post by a Constitutional law professor regarding the exact definition of treason and the myths thereof. We like to call things “treason” and throw the word around when we don’t know what it means. Treason requires an enemy defined as “a nation or an organization with which the United States is in a declared or open war.” That’s not Russia. Russia is often a financial and munitions adversary, but we are not currently at war with Russia.

    You want a good example of treason?

    The Confederate Army. Fired shots on Fort Sumpter, seceded from its own country, formed a separate country, declared war against the Union.

    Trump + Russia = a lot of things, including conspiracy, contributions by foreign nationals, emoluments, money laundering, fraudulent transactions, etc.
    Last edited by allegro; Yesterday at 12:34 AM.

  9. #909
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Los Angeles
    Posts
    5,348
    Mentioned
    339 Post(s)
    but Russia has been playing a proxy war with us since the end of the "Cold War," which was a "special" kind of non-war...

    Sometimes I think these technical distinctions need to be upgraded. Let's just call it treason when you help fuck your own country on the highest level possible for your own personal interest? We'll call it "Trump Treason" or something.
    Last edited by Jinsai; Yesterday at 03:11 AM.

  10. #910
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Indiana
    Posts
    4,747
    Mentioned
    24 Post(s)
    Trivial an issue as it might seem here, but the fact that Bernie Sanders voted for FOSTA/SESTA is shaping to be the straw that breaks my back as far as supporting him. It's a piece of legislation that will be designed (no matter it's good, but ultimately misguided intentions) to destroy legal sex work in this country and put a lot of young men and women at risk. Beyond that, it also has the potential to endanger people who live alternative lifestyles who need the internet as a lifeline, by putting certain websites on notice and scaring them like with what happened to craigslist.

  11. #911
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Los Angeles
    Posts
    5,348
    Mentioned
    339 Post(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by onthewall2983 View Post
    Trivial an issue as it might seem here, but the fact that Bernie Sanders voted for FOSTA/SESTA is shaping to be the straw that breaks my back as far as supporting him. It's a piece of legislation that will be designed (no matter it's good, but ultimately misguided intentions) to destroy legal sex work in this country and put a lot of young men and women at risk. Beyond that, it also has the potential to endanger people who live alternative lifestyles who need the internet as a lifeline, by putting certain websites on notice and scaring them like with what happened to craigslist.

    If THIS is the issue that makes you jump off the most progressive highlighted politician in America, I say this with the most sincere attempt to not offend, but you are really putting the cart before the horse.

    Maybe I'm jaded, but at this point it feels like if a politician is winning me over 100%, I should worry that I've been brainwashed into a cult.

    All that said, Bernie Sanders will never be president. I'd be shocked if he entertained running again.

Posting Permissions