Collusion

[Pookie]

If a suspicious character in a mask with a gun and an incriminating note for the teller shows up at a bank two hours after its closed, is that "attempted robbery"?

I research legal issues all the time, but that one kind of throws me.

A good case could be made that it is attempted robbery:

https://definitions.uslegal.com/a/attempted-crime/

A person can be charged with an attempted crime (such as "attempted robbery" or "attempted murder") even though not all the elements of the underlying crime were completed in order to be found guilty of the actual crime.

The following must occur for a person to be guilty of an attempted crime.

1.Criminal shows intent to commit a crime, and

2.the criminal comes dangerously close to successfully completing the crime but somehow does not complete all of the required elements.



Because the aspiring robber got the bank hours wrong would hardly alone stop that person from being charged with attempted robbery.

 

[Boxlicker101]

You've clearly been in a coma for a week. Anyone want to catch him up?

Yeah, go ahead and catch me up. Tell me what illegal activities went on during the election campaign or since the election or inaugural. I haven't heard or read of any yet, although there have been plenty of allegations.

 

[Phelia]

There are two things going on here that have been going on for the greater part of my lifetime, and they never cease to drive me crazy.

Liberal and conservative partisans routinely and appropriately profess their innocence to facially bogus contorted charges of criminal violations (if not ethically questionable behavior) and then turn right around and find similar behaviors on the part of their opponents which they then use to bludgeon THEM!!

No better example of this practice is the "Clinton Ukranian Collusion" which Sean Hannity as been running on FNC EVERY DAMNED NIGHT for god knows how long.

And the take away from this nonsense IS simply this: If the Chalupa/Trump, Ukranian/Russian shit flinging obsession is LEGAL, then shut the fuck UP about it......OR.......make damn certain your outrage is fully expressed EVERY TIME it occurs NO MATTER WHO IS DOING IT. My own preference, believe it or not, is that people would just shut up about it, but, hey, even I recognize my own naivete.

I'd like to think that the lack of "equivalency" of media and partisan outrage is what is motivating Hannity with regard to the Ukraine story, but I can't quite get there, and at any rate, that certainly isn't coming through as the thrust of his complaint.

It's the usual bullshit whining from Dems and Pubs alike: dirty politics is only dirty when it's done to me.

Personally, I don't tend to vote that way. But many people do, which is why it is effective and likely will remain largely legal. And the ONLY thing I am going to DEFEND is OUR collective right to keep it legal despite its unseemliness. You know, just like "hate speech."

So, NO!! You can NEVER take legality "off the table."

And regardless to what degree this excrement flinging exercise drives me nuts or offends your sensibilities, the idea that a single individual, "family" or even two morally corrupt political parties are systematically "destroying our democracy" is the most patently nonsensical hysteria contradicted by nothing more than 200 years of American history OF our EXTREMELY DURABLE resiliency.

Our gridlocking preoccupation with this crap is most certainly impeding our ability to address problems regarding adequate healthcare, crumbling infrastructure and growing a healthy economy.

But even that crippling disability is a long, long way from destroying democracy.

So, the problem is that you are watching Hannity every night. With few exceptions, cable news is garbage, and Hannity is the absolute bottom of the barrel. I would have hoped the horrifying Seth Rich stuff would have clinched that for you, but apparently not. I can't believe you're spending time justifying his coverage of this president.

As much as I'd love to hear how concern with interference in our presidential election and 45's foray into obstruction of justice to prevent its investigation resulted in the congressional GOP's complete inability to draft a healthcare bill people don't hate after seven years of prep time, I have my answer. Thanks.

 

[Colonel Hogan]

So, the problem is that you are watching Hannity every night. With few exceptions, cable news is garbage, and Hannity is the absolute bottom of the barrel. I would have hoped the horrifying Seth Rich stuff would have clinched that for you, but apparently not. I can't believe you're spending time justifying his coverage of this president.

As much as I'd love to hear how concern with interference in our presidential election and 45's foray into obstruction of justice to prevent its investigation resulted in the congressional GOP's complete inability to draft a healthcare bill people don't hate after seven years of prep time, I have my answer. Thanks.

If you think I watch Hannity every night, you weren't reading very closely. On the few nights I have watched him for a scant number of minutes he has routinely run the stupid Ukraine story. Thus, I am assuming he does so every night.

Unlike some Fox news commentators and reporters, I can barely stomach the guy for short periods.

Okay?

I give you 11 paragraphs on the importance of emphasizing the legality of behavior and the fallacy of hypocritical and self-contradictory partisanship, and all you can focus on is that I watched Hannity.

I guess I have my answer as well.

 

[Colonel Hogan]

A good case could be made that it is attempted robbery:

https://definitions.uslegal.com/a/attempted-crime/

A person can be charged with an attempted crime (such as "attempted robbery" or "attempted murder") even though not all the elements of the underlying crime were completed in order to be found guilty of the actual crime.

The following must occur for a person to be guilty of an attempted crime.

1.Criminal shows intent to commit a crime, and

2.the criminal comes dangerously close to successfully completing the crime but somehow does not complete all of the required elements.

Because the aspiring robber got the bank hours wrong would hardly alone stop that person from being charged with attempted robbery.

It would if we apply the standard as to whether he came "dangerously close to successfully completing the crime."

And on second thought, attempted robbery is a poor analogy for "collusion" that violates absolutely no campaign finance or election laws.

I withdraw it and sincerely apologize for submitting it to a group of people who have repeatedly demonstrated their propensity for misunderstanding and misapplying law in the first place. I should have known better.

Seriously.

 

[Pookie]

It would if we apply the standard as to whether he came "dangerously close to successfully completing the crime."

It would?

http://www.firstcoastnews.com/mb/ne...mily-dollar-on-monument-road-police/432658475

A suspect is in custody Wednesday night after an attempted robbery at a Family Dollar on Monument Road, authorities say.

Police had a large presence on Monument Road near St. Johns Bluff Road after someone tried to rob a Family Dollar there late Wednesday night.

According to a police report from the Jacksonville Sheriff's Office the two suspects, Antonio Short and Tyriek Sherwood approached the Family Dollar and tried to get inside, but the business was locked. They fled in opposite directions and a perimeter was set up using both an air and K-9 unit.

 

[Colonel Hogan]

One of the problems we're dealing with right now is that the Constitution was structured with a couple of things in mind:

1. Human nature being what it is, the United States would eventually find itself in a situation where someone who was corrupt or incompetent or both would be the president.

2. But if that were to happen, the legislative branch would be there to provide a check, up to and including impeachment.


That second part is where things have gone awry. Trump and company absolutely do not fear that the Congress will ever start asking questions, or that his supporters will ever wean themselves off the Kool-Aid. This is a point I've seen others make, which is that the stuff we now know is true about Trump and Russia would have seemed like postcards from the loony left only weeks ago -- and yet, literally no one has changed their mind. Not a single person I know of has gone "Wow, I was always skeptical about these accusations, but this is really troubling stuff." People are defending things -- or shrugging and going "Hey, it's not illegal!" -- that they almost certainly would have found beyond the pale when it was all purely hypothetical.

The one thing that can stop them is the wrath of the voters, keeping in mind Trump was elected with a minority, he did his best among the old (meaning more of his voters will die before November 2020 than Clinton's voters), and that he has shown no interest in trying to expand his base.

All of which explains the other big project right now for the White House: the ferocious effort to ensure that the GOP will never have to face a free and fair national election ever again.

Very few things that are abjectly LEGAL are "beyond the pale," and absolutely NONE of those are legitimate grounds for impeachment under the Constitutional standards of "high crimes and misdemeanors" which, contrary to what people like you seem to believe, ARE NOT merely what Congress decides they are.

Unless, of course, they choose to act in a partisan manner that is historically beyond the pale.

 

[Colonel Hogan]

It would?

http://www.firstcoastnews.com/mb/ne...mily-dollar-on-monument-road-police/432658475

A suspect is in custody Wednesday night after an attempted robbery at a Family Dollar on Monument Road, authorities say.

Police had a large presence on Monument Road near St. Johns Bluff Road after someone tried to rob a Family Dollar there late Wednesday night.

According to a police report from the Jacksonville Sheriff's Office the two suspects, Antonio Short and Tyriek Sherwood approached the Family Dollar and tried to get inside, but the business was locked. They fled in opposite directions and a perimeter was set up using both an air and K-9 unit.

This is PRECISELY why I should have never presented the analogy.

YOUR example presents an overt attempt by the suspects to enter a locked building whose criminal intent was further evidenced by their immediate flight thereafter.

MY example presented a sole individual who merely showed up two hours after closing and made no attempt whatsoever.

Please let it go. You're just displaying an ignorance I had no intention of revealing or exploiting.

 

[Pookie]

This is PRECISELY why I should have never presented the analogy.

YOUR example presents an overt attempt by the suspects to enter a locked building whose criminal intent was further evidenced by their immediate flight thereafter.

MY example presented a sole individual who merely showed up two hours after closing and made no attempt whatsoever.

Please let it go. You're just displaying an ignorance I had no intention of revealing or exploiting.

You're seriously going to argue someone going to a bank and finding it closed is different? There is no mention of a charge of attempt to break in.. Trying to get in can be as simple as pulling on the handle of the door. They were charged with attempted robbery.

And you can save your snotty attitude for someone else. It doesn't add anything of value to your retort.

 

[Pookie]

This is PRECISELY why I should have never presented the analogy.

YOUR example presents an overt attempt by the suspects to enter a locked building whose criminal intent was further evidenced by their immediate flight thereafter.

MY example presented a sole individual who merely showed up two hours after closing and made no attempt whatsoever.

Please let it go. You're just displaying an ignorance I had no intention of revealing or exploiting.

You added a stipulation after the fact. Dishonesty doesn't add credibility to your argument, sir. You're just displaying that you're an ass.

 

[Disgustipated]

The right-wingers here like the Colonel and AJ continually scream, "I DON'T WATCH <insert RWCJ entertainment show here>!" and "I DIDN'T VOTE FOR 45!"

Fine.

Who the fuck did?

 

[phrodeau]

The right-wingers here like the Colonel and AJ continually scream, "I DON'T WATCH <insert RWCJ entertainment show here>!" and "I DIDN'T VOTE FOR 45!"

Fine.

Who the fuck did?

Illegal aliens from Russia.

 

[Disgustipated]

Illegal aliens from Russia.

Nyet!

 

[Hypoxia]

Illegal aliens from Russia.

Who may have hacked a few voting machines -- for which no national standards exist.

Face it: the USA voting system is fucked... because it doesn't exist, not as a single system. Instead we have systems of somewhat interlocking systems based on local and regional rules and conflicts. People have no way to know whether their cast ballots are actually counted. How can we be confident that our votes mean anything when we can't see how a system works?

Russian "information troops" and GOP thugs exploit this lack of transparency to kill support for democracy. Elections are *bogus* because Russians / Latinos / grave-robbers / whatever -- got someone else to blame? Tyrants always find someone to blame.

 

[Boxlicker101]

Who may have hacked a few voting machines -- for which no national standards exist.

Face it: the USA voting system is fucked... because it doesn't exist, not as a single system. Instead we have systems of somewhat interlocking systems based on local and regional rules and conflicts. People have no way to know whether their cast ballots are actually counted. How can we be confident that our votes mean anything when we can't see how a system works?

Russian "information troops" and GOP thugs exploit this lack of transparency to kill support for democracy. Elections are *bogus* because Russians / Latinos / grave-robbers / whatever -- got someone else to blame? Tyrants always find someone to blame.

Historically, Democrats have always been more crooked than Republicans. The big city machines were always Dem, unless you know of some exceptions. Poll taxes and other crooked schemes were invented by Dems who wanted to disenfranchise black and poor voters.

 

[phrodeau]

Who may have hacked a few voting machines -- for which no national standards exist.

Face it: the USA voting system is fucked... because it doesn't exist, not as a single system. Instead we have systems of somewhat interlocking systems based on local and regional rules and conflicts. People have no way to know whether their cast ballots are actually counted. How can we be confident that our votes mean anything when we can't see how a system works?

Russian "information troops" and GOP thugs exploit this lack of transparency to kill support for democracy. Elections are *bogus* because Russians / Latinos / grave-robbers / whatever -- got someone else to blame? Tyrants always find someone to blame.

I mean that Russians entered the US, illegally went to the polls and cast votes for Trump.

The evidence for this is as solid as can be. Illegal aliens voting in the election is an established fact, right?

There were probably Trump Hotel shuttles bringing visitors to and from the polling places.

 

[Boxlicker101]

I mean that Russians entered the US, illegally went to the polls and cast votes for Trump.

The evidence for this is as solid as can be. Illegal aliens voting in the election is an established fact, right?

There were probably Trump Hotel shuttles bringing visitors to and from the polling places.

Aliens, including illegals, probably did vote, but I doubt that very many were Russians. Of course, there may have been some, just as there may have been illegals from Nepal or Andorra or Monaco or any other country, but there is no way to tell. However, I believe there are far more illegals from Mexico than any other place.

 

[Phelia]

If you think I watch Hannity every night, you weren't reading very closely. On the few nights I have watched him for a scant number of minutes he has routinely run the stupid Ukraine story. Thus, I am assuming he does so every night.

Unlike some Fox news commentators and reporters, I can barely stomach the guy for short periods.

Okay?

I give you 11 paragraphs on the importance of emphasizing the legality of behavior and the fallacy of hypocritical and self-contradictory partisanship, and all you can focus on is that I watched Hannity.

I guess I have my answer as well.

You gave me a whole lot of meandering claptrap. You preference certainly wasn't "that people would just shut up about it" when it came to Hillary just a year ago.

I think the two violations are roughly comparable, which is one reason she won't get jail time. At least Petraeus plead guilty and paid a $100,000 fine.

Clinton quite obviously kept official state business, including classified information, on a private server so that she could control and, if necessary, alter or delete any information that would prove embarrassing (or worse) to her. It was all about NOT being accountable to the public while serving in a public office. Who the fuck did she think she was kidding about the "convenience" factor?

I don't think she should be in prison based on this single scandal. I lump them all together. This, Benghazi, and Whitewater, to name but three stink bombs.

She may not deserve to be in prison for life, but she certainly deserves some time in a jail cell because of her life.

And today, as you hold up statements and assertions from people who have, without question, lied about it before, you decide to wax poetic about those who apply inconsistent standards.

I learned my lesson. I was wrong to expect better of you.

 

[Colonel Hogan]

You gave me a whole lot of meandering claptrap. You preference certainly wasn't "that people would just shut up about it" when it came to Hillary just a year ago.



And today, as you hold up statements and assertions from people who have, without question, lied about it before, you decide to wax poetic about those who apply inconsistent standards.

I learned my lesson. I was wrong to expect better of you.

Wow. I posted a derogatory opinion about the potential REAL criminal liability of Hillary Clinton. Why don't you go ahead and post the other times I've done so in those other posts of mine that you've saved and call that a "campaign."

I'm going to guess I'll still be beaten in the "flogging dead horses" category by the New York Times and The Washington Post.

 

[Colonel Hogan]

You're seriously going to argue someone going to a bank and finding it closed is different? There is no mention of a charge of attempt to break in.. Trying to get in can be as simple as pulling on the handle of the door. They were charged with attempted robbery.

And you can save your snotty attitude for someone else. It doesn't add anything of value to your retort.

You added a stipulation after the fact. Dishonesty doesn't add credibility to your argument, sir. You're just displaying that you're an ass.

I like you Pookie. Always have.

But I have a snotty attitude with anyone and everyone who argues the law with me and doesn't make a concerted attempt to precisely get it right according to the details, because the law is ALL about the details.

And I happen to think that is critically important. And when I get those details wrong, which I occasionally do, I am quick to admit it.

Sorry if I offended you, but your legal analysis was as wrong as my armed robbery analogy to campaign finance statutes was ill advised.

 

[adrina]

I'd still like a higher standard of behavior than simply "it's not illegal". Especially when it keeps having to be said over and over again regarding too many things in and around 45. People on the right lost their collective shit over HRC to an insane level - regardless of precedent, prosecutability and clear cut illegality (that whole intent thing) - but when it comes to Donald it's a case of how quickly can ya'll rationalize bad or questionable behavior because of legality. When it comes to 45, we keep hearing "but it's not illegal" as if that makes his outrageous and frankly ridiculous and potentially dangerous behavior okay.

No it's not prosecutable. But it's not okay.

At what point do you say "enough of this craziness"?

 

[Pookie]

I like you Pookie. Always have.

But I have a snotty attitude with anyone and everyone who argues the law with me and doesn't make a concerted attempt to precisely get it right according to the details, because the law is ALL about the details.

And I happen to think that is critically important. And when I get those details wrong, which I occasionally do, I am quick to admit it.

Sorry if I offended you, but your legal analysis was as wrong as my armed robbery analogy to campaign finance statutes was ill advised.

But YOU didn't make a concerted effort to precisely get it right. I did. You just blustered your way through it, and that's why I took issue with it.


http://www3.ce9.uscourts.gov/jury-instructions/node/624


8.163 ATTEMPTED BANK ROBBERY (18 U.S.C. § 2113)

The defendant is charged in [Count _______ of] the indictment with attempted bank robbery in violation of Section 2113 of Title 18 of the United States Code. In order for the defendant to be found guilty of that charge, the government must prove each of the following elements beyond a reasonable doubt:

First, the defendant intended to use force or intimidation to take money that belonged to [specify financial institution];

Second, the deposits of [specify financial institution] were then insured by the [Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation] [National Credit Union Administration Board]; and

Third, the defendant did something that was a substantial step toward committing the crime.

Mere preparation is not a substantial step toward the committing the crime. To constitute a substantial step, a defendant’s act or actions must demonstrate that the crime will take place unless interrupted by independent circumstances.

Comment

Jurors do not need to agree unanimously as to which particular act or actions constituted a substantial step toward the commission of a crime. United States v. Hofus, 598 F.3d 1171, 1176 (9th Cir.2010).


All three requirements are met in your example. You have him at a bank, "a suspicious character in a mask with a gun and an incriminating note for the teller". You have him prepared and present. You don't say he is leaving. Matters not at that point unless the bank has permanently closed that branch. Barring that, the bank will reopen at some point. Could be any moment if the bank only closed for lunch, but most certainly the next business day. So, unless that bank has permanently closed, if he is arrested at that time, all the conditions in the law are met for a charge of attempted bank robbery, by him "going to the bank prepared to rob it" being the substantial step.

Just because someone has a very high opinion of their own preparedness doesn't mean someone is. There are plenty of people I can point out as example.

 

[Boxlicker101]

I'd still like a higher standard of behavior than simply "it's not illegal". Especially when it keeps having to be said over and over again regarding too many things in and around 45. People on the right lost their collective shit over HRC to an insane level - regardless of precedent, prosecutability and clear cut illegality (that whole intent thing) - but when it comes to Donald it's a case of how quickly can ya'll rationalize bad or questionable behavior because of legality. When it comes to 45, we keep hearing "but it's not illegal" as if that makes his outrageous and frankly ridiculous and potentially dangerous behavior okay.

No it's not prosecutable. But it's not okay.

At what point do you say "enough of this craziness"?

I don't believe you will ever see anybody here saying anything good about Trump. The best you might get is something like "Well, he's better than Hillary would have been." However, if you are going to advocate impeachment, it has to be for something more serious than has been even brought up yet, let alone proven.

And, what Hillary did RE classified emails was a violation of the law and, if it had become known earlier, probably would have resulted in talk of impeachment, if she hadn't resigned to avoid it.

 

[adrina]

I don't believe you will ever see anybody here saying anything good about Trump. The best you might get is something like "Well, he's better than Hillary would have been." However, if you are going to advocate impeachment, it has to be for something more serious than has been even brought up yet, let alone proven.

And, what Hillary did RE classified emails was a violation of the law and, if it had become known earlier, probably would have resulted in talk of impeachment, if she hadn't resigned to avoid it.

You will have to find where I have called for impeachment. Anywhere. Please.

Secondly, I am not going to bother relitigating or rehashing the email bullshit because ya'll can't understand how the law is applied and what it means. If you want confirmation of what you think you know, please see the RWCJ. They will be happy to oblige regardless of facts. Kinda like how Russia is a race now.

 

[phrodeau]

Aliens, including illegals, probably did vote, but I doubt that very many were Russians. Of course, there may have been some, just as there may have been illegals from Nepal or Andorra or Monaco or any other country, but there is no way to tell. However, I believe there are far more illegals from Mexico than any other place.

Of course you do, because Breitbart tells you so.