Collusion

[phrodeau]

(edited)

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.

Why? Why can't a President be impeached for incompetence, or for refusing to perform his duties, or for violating the emoluments clause?

 

[Boxlicker101]

Why? Why can't a President be impeached for incompetence, or for refusing to perform his duties, or for violating the emoluments clause?

Because those things do not rise - or sink - to the level of "High crimes and misdemeanors."

In what way was he incompetent? What duties has he refused to perform? The emoluments clause is pretty dubious, because it was certainly not meant to apply in this kind of case.

 

[phrodeau]

Because those things do not rise - or sink - to the level of "High crimes and misdemeanors."

In what way was he incompetent? What duties has he refused to perform? The emoluments clause is pretty dubious, because it was certainly not meant to apply in this kind of case.

Yes, they do. "Misdemeanors" are all it takes.

 

[Colonel Hogan]

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.

I applaud BOTH your research on the specific language of 18 U.S.C. § 2113 AND your application of U. S. v Hofus to the required element of a "substantial step" stipulated in the statute.

I am serious about that. You did well. And it certainly seems that the language applied by the Hofus court from its variously cited precedents supported the conclusion of a substantial step by the defendant Hofus in that case of sexual assault, including that the jury's factual determination of what constitutes a substantial step need not be unanimous.

So the only question remaining is, would that same language satisfy the substantial step required in the third element of 18 U.S.C. § 2113 in an attempted bank robbery?

Fortunately, we don't have to go far to find out. In discussing the substantial step element and extracting the language which comprised the legal standard which it applied to that element, the Hofus court cited three primary case precedents: Braxton v. United States, United States v. Acuna, and United States v. Nelson. Two of those cases were overturned on appeal in part because the substantial step requirement was not satisfied.

Hold onto your seat.

Braxton was appealed all the way up to the Supreme Court wherein a UNANIMOUS court reversed a Fourth Circuit Court sentence consistent with the "factual premise of" an attempted killing (the defendant had shot at entering police officers on the other side of a door) despite the fact that Braxton had only plead guilty to assault and not guilty to attempt to kill.

Nelson was convicted for attempting and conspiring to structure a money laundering transaction. Undercover government agents posing as drug dealers came to the car dealership where Nelson worked, proposing to buy a car with cash. Nelson suggested ways to structure the cash purchase of a car to avoid the dealership's requirement under federal law to report cash transactions over $10,000. Despite that activity, Nelson's conviction on the attempt was reversed on the basis of lack of a substantial step while his conspiracy conviction was upheld.

Acuna was a manufacture of methamphetamine case affirmed on appeal as to the substantial step.

So what, you may ask, has any of this to do with the substantial step element articulated in 18 U.S.C. § 2113?

In citing its precedent for the substantial step standard, the Nelson court cited the cases of United States v. Still and United States v. Buffington. The Acuna court also cited Buffington. Both Still and Buffington were cases where defendants were convicted of attempted bank robbery and whose convictions were overturned on appeal for lack of the substantial step. Ultimately, the legal standard for a substantial step in Still and Buffington found its way up to Acuna, Braxton and, finally, Hofus. But you're not going to like how that substantial step standard was applied in either attempted bank robbery case.

The Nelson court summarized those principles succinctly. Ready? Still sitting down?

A substantial step is an "appreciable fragment" of a crime, an action of "such substantiality that, unless frustrated, the crime would have occurred." United States v. Buffington, 815 F.2d 1292, 1303 (9th Cir. 1987). In Buffington, the defendants drove past a bank twice. One defendant entered a store nearby and observed the bank, while two others, one disguised as a woman, exited their car in the bank parking lot and focused their attention on the bank. All were armed. Nevertheless, because there was no movement toward the bank and no indication that defendants planned to enter, this court found insufficient evidence of attempted bank robbery. Id.

Even when the defendant's intent is clear, his actions must "cross the line between preparation and attempt" by unequivocally demonstrating that the crime will take place unless interrupted by independent circumstances. United States v. Still, 850 F.2d 607, 609 (9th Cir.1988), cert. denied, 489 U.S. 1060, 109 S.Ct. 1330, 103 L.Ed.2d 598 (1989). A witness saw the defendant in Still putting on a long blonde wig while sitting in his van with the motor running, about two hundred feet from a bank. The defendant put the van into reverse and drove off when the police arrived. Id. at 610. Although after his arrest the defendant made it clear that he intended to rob the bank, the court held that the absence of facts establishing "either actual movement toward the bank or actions that are analytically similar" required the reversal of the attempt conviction. Id.

https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=13114155288635342615&hl=en&as_sdt=4000006&as_vis=1

In short, intent to commit armed robbery does NOT equate to a substantial step to attempt to commit armed robbery, and while I fully appreciate how your very excellent research led you to sincerely conclude that "going to the bank prepared to rob it" satisfies "the substantial step" mandated by 18 U.S.C. § 2113, two fundamental case law precedents serving as the foundation for that specific legal standard have held otherwise.

If you can find specific attempted bank robbery case law which clearly refutes my analysis of the substantial step standard, I would gladly reconsider my position, but I am not optimistic of your chances.

Until then, I would hope this settles the matter and would further hope, once again, that you will accept my affirmation that I should NEVER have made the analogy between attempted bank robbery and alleged violations of campaign finance or election laws or criminal conspiracies with foreign nationals to violate those laws.

It was a stupid move on my part and, if anything, I trust our discussion in just the last two or three posts emphasizes the importance of examining individual statutes and legal standards specifically germane to their potential violation INDIVIDUALLY and necessarily apart from inappropriate reliance on other statutes, cases and crimes no matter how "apparently" similar.

Thanks for your patience.

 

[Boxlicker101]

Yes, they do. "Misdemeanors" are all it takes.

The first two you mentioned are not even misdemeanors, and the third one is doubtful, to say the least. And it is definitely not a "high" misdemeanor.

 

[Colonel Hogan]

Because those things do not rise - or sink - to the level of "High crimes and misdemeanors."

In what way was he incompetent? What duties has he refused to perform? The emoluments clause is pretty dubious, because it was certainly not meant to apply in this kind of case.

Actually, the latter two WOULD qualify. "Incompetence" is far more subjectively problematic.

What are “high crimes and misdemeanors”? On first hearing this phrase, many people probably think that it is just an 18th century way of saying “felonies and misdemeanors.” Felonies are major crimes and misdemeanors are lesser crimes. If this interpretation were correct, “high crimes and misdemeanors” would simply mean any crime. But this interpretation is mistaken.

*******************

The convention adopted “high crimes and misdemeanors” with little discussion. Most of the framers knew the phrase well. Since 1386, the English parliament had used “high crimes and misdemeanors” as one of the grounds to impeach officials of the crown. Officials accused of “high crimes and misdemeanors” were accused of offenses as varied as misappropriating government funds, appointing unfit subordinates, not prosecuting cases, not spending money allocated by Parliament, promoting themselves ahead of more deserving candidates, threatening a grand jury, disobeying an order from Parliament, arresting a man to keep him from running for Parliament, losing a ship by neglecting to moor it, helping “suppress petitions to the King to call a Parliament,” granting warrants without cause, and bribery. Some of these charges were crimes. Others were not. The one common denominator in all these accusations was that the official had somehow abused the power of his office and was unfit to serve.

http://www.crf-usa.org/impeachment/high-crimes-and-misdemeanors.html

 

[Colonel Hogan]

So, the problem is that you are watching Hannity every night.

And, as for you, just one last thing. Apparently your fixation on my TV viewing habits blinded you to the reality that my specific example of Hannity's reporting of the Ukrainian story lambasting the Clinton campaign was a HIGHLY CRITICAL CONDEMNATION of that very reporting.

But, hey, forget how I came to my contempt for Sean Hannity. How did YOU come by YOURS?

Please don't tell me you ACTUALLY WATCHED that slimy little bastard!!! Seriously, Phelia, how COULD you???!?!?!

(sure wish we could make these bigger... )

 

[renard_ruse]

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.

Russophobia IS racism.

 

[renard_ruse]

The "collusion" is between the media, the deep state, and the (mostly) Democrat (with some of their establishment Republicans friends), along with the trolls, free and paid, on the internet.

 

[IrezumiKiss]

Russophobia IS racism.

https://m.popkey.co/7db455/oD1o8.gif

Nah. It's not.

Seriously, kid. Stop embarrassing yourself like this. Yer ma wouldn't like this.

 

[Colonel Hogan]

https://m.popkey.co/7db455/oD1o8.gif

Nah. It's not.

Seriously, kid. Stop embarrassing yourself like this. Yer ma wouldn't like this.

I'm going to ask you flat out. 'Cause I know we are on opposite sides of many issues politically.

Is my legal analysis of THE LAW and the conviction with which I deliver it REALLY make me the scourge of the earth???

Can I get some measure of a character witness from someone I respect who nonetheless disagrees with me on many political principles??

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

And, as for you, just one last thing. Apparently your fixation on my TV viewing habits blinded you to the reality that my specific example of Hannity's reporting of the Ukrainian story lambasting the Clinton campaign was a HIGHLY CRITICAL CONDEMNATION of that very reporting.

But, hey, forget how I came to my contempt for Sean Hannity. How did YOU come by YOURS?

Please don't tell me you ACTUALLY WATCHED that slimy little bastard!!! Seriously, Phelia, how COULD you???!?!?!

(sure wish we could make these bigger... )

​

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

...

Trump Jr. did, however, have full reason to suspect Clinton had operated nefariously in her dealings with Russia. Bill Clinton had given a $500,000 speech in Russia. Clinton had given her approval in handing one-fifth of U.S. uranium to Russia, after which her foundation received $2.35 million from the Russian-controlled company. Suspiciously, Clinton did not disclose the transaction.

Likewise, Clinton campaign chief John Podesta sat on the board of a company that received $35 million from the Russian government alongside fellow board members Anatoly Chubais, a senior Russian official, and Ruben Vardanyan, an oligarch.

Given this context, why wouldn’t Trump Jr. be open to taking a meeting that offered evidence of incriminating Clinton dealings with Russia, particularly when most of the media refused to look into Clinton’s question-raising actions?

Trump Jr. honestly stated days ago that he was interested in “claims of potentially helpful information.” His email chain confirms his intentions even though, in the end, the information was merely a pretext for the Russian lawyer to push her own agenda related to the impact of Western sanctions on adoption of Russian children....

http://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-bl...inton-who-colluded-with#.WWWj62GRkvt.facebook


Hat tip: Clarice Feldman

 

[Colonel Hogan]

​

That was cute. But now, kindly provide the specific service requested. Make these bigger.

 

[Rightguide]

That was cute. But now, kindly provide the specific service requested. Make these bigger.

http://burnandlearnflorence.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/02/rolling-eyes-smiley-for-facebook-e1392545548448-470x470.gif

 

[Colonel Hogan]

...

Trump Jr. did, however, have full reason to suspect Clinton had operated nefariously in her dealings with Russia. Bill Clinton had given a $500,000 speech in Russia. Clinton had given her approval in handing one-fifth of U.S. uranium to Russia, after which her foundation received $2.35 million from the Russian-controlled company. Suspiciously, Clinton did not disclose the transaction.

Likewise, Clinton campaign chief John Podesta sat on the board of a company that received $35 million from the Russian government alongside fellow board members Anatoly Chubais, a senior Russian official, and Ruben Vardanyan, an oligarch.

Given this context, why wouldn’t Trump Jr. be open to taking a meeting that offered evidence of incriminating Clinton dealings with Russia, particularly when most of the media refused to look into Clinton’s question-raising actions?

Trump Jr. honestly stated days ago that he was interested in “claims of potentially helpful information.” His email chain confirms his intentions even though, in the end, the information was merely a pretext for the Russian lawyer to push her own agenda related to the impact of Western sanctions on adoption of Russian children....

http://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-bl...inton-who-colluded-with#.WWWj62GRkvt.facebook


Hat tip: Clarice Feldman

STOP!! PLEASE STOP!! You are engaging in the very SAME "Witch Hunt" that is consuming the Trump administration and is being unfairly waged by partisan liberal Demcrats.

And THAT witch hunt -- the REAL ONE -- has nothing to do with the FACTS surrounding whether Donald Trump's ARGUABLE "COLLUSION was MORE or LESS morally objectionable than Hillary or Bill Clinton's "NEFARIOUS OPERATIONS." It is the SAME WITCH HUNT BECAUSE BOTH THE "COLLUSION" AND "NEFARIOUS" are completely legal activities, and, absent a specific statutory violation, attempted hairsplitting as to their relative disreputable "weight" serves very little purpose UNLESS we are seriously engaged in a sincere, considered effort to FORMULATE appropriate legislation designed to eradicate their commission.

But we're not. Both sides are just throwing around words like "collusion," "nefarious" "impeachment" and even "treason" (for fucks sakes) in an effort to do nothing more than score political points. And it's making me livid. It's WHY I keep coming BACK to the matter of LAW which everyone here routinely shrugs off as if THE LAW was actually IRRELEVANT TO THE DISCUSSION.

YOU yourself provided the key to the BEST answer to this madness when you posted this question:

Given this context, why wouldn’t Trump Jr. be open to taking a meeting that offered evidence of incriminating Clinton dealings with Russia, particularly when most of the media refused to look into Clinton’s question-raising actions?

Answer: OF COURSE HE WOULD!!! AND FOR EXACTLY THE SAME REASON!!!! BECAUSE THE "QUESTION-RAISING CLINTON ACTIONS" SHOULD NOT HAVE RAISED ANY QUESTIONS IF THEY WERE PERFECTLY LEGAL!!!

Partisan refusal to appropriately focus on existing law (and modifying it where necessary) only serves to attempt to validate the epidemic of hypocrisy that is characterized by such willful gross negligence.

 

[Nipples_Mcgee1]

That was cute. But now, kindly provide the specific service requested. Make these bigger.

http://rs172.pbsrc.com/albums/w23/Samantha_Dicaire/glock836_roll_eyes.gif~c200

 

[Colonel Hogan]

http://burnandlearnflorence.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/02/rolling-eyes-smiley-for-facebook-e1392545548448-470x470.gif

http://rs172.pbsrc.com/albums/w23/Samantha_Dicaire/glock836_roll_eyes.gif~c200

Uh....okay.

Thanks.


Found the link.

https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/92/90/67/929067abe15a4d6cce30df5035ccb28b--smileys-emoji.jpg

 

[Rightguide]

STOP!! PLEASE STOP!! You are engaging in the very SAME "Witch Hunt" that is consuming the Trump administration and is being unfairly waged by partisan liberal Demcrats.

And THAT witch hunt -- the REAL ONE -- has nothing to do with the FACTS surrounding whether Donald Trump's ARGUABLE "COLLUSION was MORE or LESS morally objectionable than Hillary or Bill Clinton's "NEFARIOUS OPERATIONS." It is the SAME WITCH HUNT BECAUSE BOTH THE "COLLUSION" AND "NEFARIOUS" are completely legal activities, and, absent a specific statutory violation, attempted hairsplitting as to their relative disreputable "weight" serves very little purpose UNLESS we are seriously engaged in a sincere, considered effort to FORMULATE appropriate legislation designed to eradicate their commission.

But we're not. Both sides are just throwing around words like "collusion," "nefarious" "impeachment" and even "treason" (for fucks sakes) in an effort to do nothing more than score political points. And it's making me livid. It's WHY I keep coming BACK to the matter of LAW which everyone here routinely shrugs off as if THE LAW was actually IRRELEVANT TO THE DISCUSSION.

YOU yourself provided the key to the BEST answer to this madness when you posted this question:



Answer: OF COURSE HE WOULD!!! AND FOR EXACTLY THE SAME REASON!!!! BECAUSE THE "QUESTION-RAISING CLINTON ACTIONS" SHOULD NOT HAVE RAISED ANY QUESTIONS IF THEY WERE PERFECTLY LEGAL!!!

Partisan refusal to appropriately focus on existing law (and modifying it where necessary) only serves to attempt to validate the epidemic of hypocrisy that is characterized by such willful gross negligence.

Knowing the facts present in the public domain concerning the Trump Jr. meeting, what particular federal statute impeaches the finding the meeting in question was COMPLETELY legal?

 

[Hypoxia]

Russophobia IS racism.

Russia is a federated republic comprising many ethnic groups. Since Russia (the state, not all its peoples) wants to destroy the West, Russophobia is a survival mechanism. Russophilia is sucking Putin's cock. Why do you pucker-up so?

The "collusion" is between the media, the deep state, and the (mostly) Democrat (with some of their establishment Republicans friends), along with the trolls, free and paid, on the internet.

The "deep state" is a figment of psychotic imaginations. C'mon, whip it out if ya got it. The 'media' are not a monolith; they're many competing corporate tools. Demos and GOPs are fractured into zillions of sects. No, the collusion we see is between the Tromp organization (long financed by Putin's mafiyas) and their Russian owners. And those colluding with an enemy state waging war against us are committing treason. They're dancing with the hangman.

 

[Colonel Hogan]

Knowing the facts present in the public domain concerning the Trump Jr. meeting, what particular federal statute impeaches the finding the meeting in question was COMPLETELY legal?

Absolutely NONE that I am aware of.

But that is PRECISELY my point about Clinton's campaign tactics and other trumpeted transgressions as well!!

Who gives a shit what Bill Clinton charges for a speech or how much uranium HRC pisses over to Russia if we really don't give enough of a damn to actually change the law???

After a a long campaign of "LOCK HER UP" "LOCK HER UP," not even Trump elected to follow up with charges. And that was probably the RIGHT decision.

But had it been ME, I sure as hell would have gone to Congress for very specific legislation to amend the handling of government classified material to make absolutely certain that nothing like the "private email server crap" EVER happened again, and I would have further made it clear that any employee in the Executive Branch who did not meticulously keep government information on GOVERNMENT computers would not be working for me long.

But when he don't follow up on our alleged "moral outrage" it ultimately just looks like the partisan whining that it arguably is.

 

[Rightguide]

Absolutely NONE that I am aware of.

But that is PRECISELY my point about Clinton's campaign tactics and other trumpeted transgressions as well!!

Who gives a shit what Bill Clinton charges for a speech or how much uranium HRC pisses over to Russia if we really don't give enough of a damn to actually change the law???

After a a long campaign of "LOCK HER UP" "LOCK HER UP," not even Trump elected to follow up with charges. And that was probably the RIGHT decision.

But had it been ME, I sure as hell would have gone to Congress for very specific legislation to amend the handling of government classified material to make absolutely certain that nothing like the "private email server crap" EVER happened again, and I would have further made it clear that any employee in the Executive Branch who did not meticulously keep government information on GOVERNMENT computers would not be working for me long.

But when he don't follow up on our alleged "moral outrage" it ultimately just looks like the partisan whining that it arguably is.

Just a question. Every prosecutor I've read, maybe I haven't read enough, has said Hillary Clinton is in clear violation of 18 USC 793 f, The Federal Records Act, and 18 U.S. Code § 2071 . Which aspects of those three statutes fail to cover the concerns you've mentioned above?

 

[Colonel Hogan]

Just a question. Every prosecutor I've read, maybe I haven't read enough, has said Hillary Clinton is in clear violation of 18 USC 793 f, The Federal Records Act, and 18 U.S. Code § 2071 . Which aspects of those three statutes fail to cover the concerns you've mentioned above?

Okay. You make a great point. Obviously, the statutes you mentioned don't suffer from legal deficiency.

I was guilty of mixing analogies again. Speaking fees, financial relations between political entities with foreign nationals and the open market sale of critical metals or materials essential to national security MAY need strengthening depending on our moral outrage, but the proper handling of classified material SHOULD not. That problem was one of "prosecutorial discretion."

 

[Hypoxia]

I thought we covered this long ago. As department head, Ms Clinton possessed executive authority to decide, or to assign a subordinate to decide, the classification of documents in her department. The buck stops there.

We're still back to the Tromp organization being financed by Putin's mafiyas for many years; to Team Tromp meeting with known Russian agents to gain info to tamper with US elections; to Russia openly waging war on the US, as declared by their defense minister; thus, to treason. And GOPs support that treason. Get the ropes.

 

[Colonel Hogan]

I thought we covered this long ago. As department head, Ms Clinton possessed executive authority to decide, or to assign a subordinate to decide, the classification of documents in her department. The buck stops there.

We're still back to the Tromp organization being financed by Putin's mafiyas for many years; to Team Tromp meeting with known Russian agents to gain info to tamper with US elections; to Russia openly waging war on the US, as declared by their defense minister; thus, to treason. And GOPs support that treason. Get the ropes.

In HER agency, she did. But presumably she handled both those classified documents and those classified by other agencies. And neither should have ever been on a private, non-governmental server.